Commerce Secretary: US Wants Multi-Stakeholder Process To Preserve Internet 57
Ted_Margaris_Chicago writes The United States will resist all efforts to give "any person, entity or nation" control of the Internet rather than the "global multi-stakeholder communities," said Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker in a Oct. 13 speech. "Next week, at the International Telecommunication Union Conference in Korea, we will see proposals to put governments in charge of Internet governance. You can rest assured that the United States will oppose these efforts at every turn," she said in prepared remarks to an Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, meeting in Los Angeles.
Don't like it? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Build you're own internet.
Re:Don't like it? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, they're likely to. If not now, than at some point in the future. There is a great value to a single unified environment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a great value to a single unified environment.
Minus those few theocracies, kleptocracies and autocracies that self-inflict there own isolation we already have a single unified environment. How will handing governance over to the Star Wars cantina at the UN — or whatever — improve things?
Re:Don't like it? (Score:5, Insightful)
and why would you want a single unified environment? It's not likely to coincide with your values or expectations. It's likely to be oppressive in order to reach 'compromise' once all the limits imposed by each nation are imposed.
The borders keep the peace because we are not monocultures.
Re: (Score:1)
If not now, than at some point in the future.
This is different from that. Then is a time different now. This is less than you should, or likely would, need to care about.
There is a great value to a single unified environment.
There may be great value in single unified environments. There are great hazards inherent in monoculture environments.
Some of us care that what we use to communicate ideas is a precision tool which should not be WHACK! WHACK! WHACKed out blindly like you do.
I'd care a lot more about what you write if you'd care more about making me want to read it.
One is less than two. Then is o
Re:Don't like it? (Score:4, Funny)
Build you're own internet.
Fine! I will! With blackjack, and hookers!
Re: (Score:3)
So business as usual, then?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Build you are own Internet? :P
Re: (Score:2)
Build you're own internet.
Just like you programmed your own grammar checker? ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Build you're own internet.
Now we're talking stakeholders.
Build your own Internet. This one's already been claimed by stakeholders. Isn't that what they called in the Gold Rush -- staking a claim?
Gather a big financial package and give stuff away to change the direction of traffic in your favor. Don't appear to be evil, but only long enough to command big fees for wasting attention and hijacking browsers.
It is odd that Secretary Pritzger struts with the Internet overseas at a time when stateside the Federal Communications Commission
Nice preaching there (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see how the practice turns out. Part of a "free, open" internet is making sure that no one can monopolize the pipe. Government isn't the only evil here. There is plenty of private interest in balkanization. In fact most government regulation is for their benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of private interest in balkanization.
OTOH, it still holds true that all problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection.
Amazing that they think it's theirs to give away (Score:5, Insightful)
... or keep. The internet is a network of networks. Any country only controls the parts on its own soil.
Re: (Score:1)
well, not quite. any country can to a point control how other parts seem when viewed from their land.
however, it seems that US supporting multi stake is more like US opposing a new more level multi stake arrangement through some other entitity(un is a multi stake entity for example). US would rather that all the stakes are US stakes..
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like most of the time news stories talk about "control over The Internet," they're talking about one of three things: .com and other tlds.
1) Control over DNS, specifically who gets
2) The ability to knock a site they don't like offline so no one can use it.
3) Strong surveillance over all traffic that (usually) crosses their borders or is entirely within those borders.
We are fsk'd (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:We are fsk'd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But W also used the influence the commerce department has to block the .xxx domain name for political reasons, because the social conservatives were afraid it would legitimise pornography and make it more difficult to ban. .xxx is still a stupid idea, but not for that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It changes both ways, and that's just the bit we are aware of. Who knows what's going on behind the scenes. Remember ACTA? Negotiated in secret - the public only became aware of it via leaked documents, and this was a legal agreement with potentially more of an effect than an act of congress. Now TRIPS is being negotiated in exactly the same manner. The idea of conspiracies of politicians secretly running the country may sound like the stuff of conspiracy theories, but every now and then it's exactly what h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The vote may be public - but it's also potentially quick. There's an easy political trick that can be used with treaties or laws alike: Speed. Write in secret, negotiate in secret, then rush through the vote as fast as you can. The PATRIOT act, for example, was introduced on October 23 - and passed by the house on the 24th. If the trick is executed properly, any opposition groups just don't have time to rally. By the time they are aware of what's going on, it's already too late.
Also, under the Supremacy Cla
Re:Bullshit ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the US grants much more latitude towards service providers online, in regards to copyright law, than other countries. Compare it to, say, much of non-Anglophonic Europe, which wants Google to be paying royalties for search indexing and news aggregation. Also, the US has the nice law where service providers get off scot free for making what basically amounts to copyright infringement tools, so long as they respond to takedown requests and don't infringe themselves.
Spying is actually impaired by a balkanized Internet. Much of the targets the NSA is actually interested in are foreign - and they benefit politically from the fact that much international traffic goes through US soil. If other countries were to require balkanization - that is, storage of their citizens' data on their soil, and bans on routing data through third-party countries - then the NSA would have to actually ask permission from those countries in order to spy, or engage in actual espionage (e.g. break into data centers). This increases the costs of spying, and the whole point of NSA data grabbing is to make it as quick, painless, and cheap as humanly possible.
Re:Bullshit ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, well if you hail from western europe, your democracies aren't in much better shape....
Their democracies just had huge demonstrations in numerous countries protesting your USTR's TTIP efforts.
Your taxes are high.
You don't think your taxes are too high?
... your governments impose themselves make mountains out of mole hills on social issues ...
Do you even bother to think before spouting such nonsense? Have you bothered to read a newspaper recently? I think not. Abortion, gay rights, free speech, your Constitution is used like toilet paper, your military is now in its seventh war in the Middle East, Israel can do no wrong, you can't decide whether to take out Syria's Assad, make Iran glow in the dark, ally yourselves with Turkey, wonder wtf you're doing supporting the Saudis, yada, yada, yada, ... Note that's just one side of the world. Add Pakistan, Afghanistan, Philipines, ...
... and your elections are probably rigged, too
Hey Zeus! Ibid. Hanging chads ring any bells? Your elections have been gerrymandered for decades, your Demopublicans/Republicrats have been selling you all down the river for just as long. You haven't even begun to try to figure out what to do with your former slave population. How do you get Palin, Hillary, Romney, and Obama as your choices and that's it? Add in Snowden's revelations, Obama's persecution of whistleblowers, Holder's pathetic *everything*, the Megaupload clown prosecution, Gitmo, ...
Perhaps ebola will save us from all of you.
not true until officially denied (Score:2)
Consider your stakeholders (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what makes you think the US hasn't done it too?
perhaps someone out there can technically prove to me that absolutely no foreign IPs are blocked by our US government, but aside from that, I am inclined to believe that mucky-mucks in the current (and past) administration actively block certain content.
and yes, my tin-foil hat is firmly in place.
Re: Consider your stakeholders (Score:4, Informative)
We'll, actually, you can demonstrate that the US isn't blocking anything that is accessible in another country. Start doing a US and non us connection attempts and see how it turns out.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has its own internet. It's called: The Internet.
An extensive selection of rocks and hard places (Score:1)
Continued United States government control
over the Internet is the worst possible scenario,
EXCEPT FOR ALL THE OTHERS.
(Apologies to Winston Churchill)
Re: (Score:2)
Danger Will Robinson (Score:5, Insightful)
others (Score:1, Troll)
The United States will resist all efforts to give "any person, entity or nation"
other than the US, that is. Because we think our laws are applicable world-wide, our jurisdiction covers Earth and we invented the damn thing (ignore that this is only partially true) so get on your knees and thank us.
Re: (Score:1)
Except... (Score:2)
"The United States will resist all efforts to give "any person, entity or nation" control of the Internet"
Unless the Holy Copyright or Holy Patents are at stake of course. Then the US will (ab)use all its power to force their wiew down everyone's throat.