Posted on 10/17/2005 8:04:36 AM PDT by Monty610
D.C. Watson examines the UN's attempts to take over the Internet:
While the United States houses, and provides much of the funding for the United Nations' annual budget, that just doesn't seem to be enough.
The U.N., with many of its own problems, such as astonishing corruption, is now being touted by the European Union as a candidate to control the Internet. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19846
From the column:
Viviane Reding, European IT commissioner, says that if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear. Well then, why don't these countries go right ahead and build their own and see how they do? And, you'll never guess who else likes the idea of the U.S. giving up control of the net:
The EU plan was applauded by states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt to express misgivings on his weblog: "It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours." So let's see if we understand this. The United States created, funded, developed, and marketed the Internet, yet we’re "hijacking" it? Is there no end to the asinine statements these creatures will make? If that's the case, then I guess I hijacked my own lawnmower yesterday. I cut the grass with it and wouldn't let anyone else push it. The safety of the American people comes first. And since some of these bottom feeders have websites they use to recruit Muslim terrorists and possibly do some illegal Internet banking money transfers from Islamic charities, the United States needs to have its hands on the controls. What would these countries do if they had the control? Would they attempt to rid the web of anything that is offensive to Muslims? That in itself would likely empty out the entire Internet. Would they attempt to cover up all of their future wrongdoings? Or would they work to monitor and then limit everyone's freedom of speech, for example, "Islamophobic" speech? Does anyone remember U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan's speech confronting "Islamophobia"? http://www.amperspective.com/html/annan_speech_text.html Confronting "Islamophobia"? That's comparable to confronting an iceberg floating in the lake of fire. This might be a good time to contact all State Representatives and Senators to let them know that handing over control of the Internet to that waste of space in New York they call the United Nations would be the dumbest thing they could do, and we all know how handy they are when it comes to doing dumb things. If these other countries want control of an Internet, they should go ahead and develop their own. In a world where wild-eyed Muslims are busy raping babies and swinging machetes at innocent people in Sudan, sawing off heads in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, developing nuclear weapons in Iran, sending foreign fighters into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to fight Coalition forces, wearing suits, ties, and kufis in Washington, hiding behind the Qur'an as they attempt to guilt-trip Americans into coddling Islam, strapping bombs to themselves in Gaza, fighting for the implementation of Islamic law in Canada, making threats to cartoonists in Denmark, shooting and slicing up filmmakers in Holland, attacking schoolchildren in Russia, bombing subways in London, bombing trains in Madrid, flying planes into buildings, bombing nightclubs in Bali, preaching hate in mosques, threatening to attack the Vatican in Italy, and attempting to blackmail the world with oil, the Internet should never, ever be handed over to a corrupt organization that panders to Islam as does the United Nations.
Another reason why I'm glad we don't have a Jimmy Carter in the WH.
Yeah.. I think the legal sanctions may work... Technically, as I said before, I think it's possible for any country today to block the internet. Afterall, the Chinese has been doing it...
How do you prevent collision of IP addresses from the existing net? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just pointing out that there are parts of the net that need some handholding (AMERICAN hyandholding, of course).
Personally, I don't think that association of tinpot dictators and their lapdogs should be allowed within 100 yards of any part of the Internet. They've already clearly demonstrated that they are not capable of appreciating true liberty or respecting real rights.
They want the root DNS servers and probably control over IP address assignment.
That's nonsense. The Open Source community crosses all ideological and political boundaries. You think all Open Source coders are going to magically stop collaborating if the U.N. doesn't wrest control of the Internet from the U.S.?? Please.
"...The Internet is far too important to the development of the free world to allow politics to interfere."
Well put...that is why, we as Americans, can NEVER allow the EU or UN or anyone else to control it...if we keep it in our hands, it is more likely to remain free and open than if it ends up in the hands of say, Belgium or France.
Conflicting IP addresses won't matter if they have a completely separate net. Other than that, we're talking IP address assignment as is currently done by ARIN (us), RIPE (Europe), plus ones for Africa, Asia and Latin America, all of whom assign IP blocks in their own geographic area. IIRC, there is even political wrangling over that, since we have the bulk of them (duh, we invented it), but that should go away with IPv6.
If they were mad enough, they could set up their own DNS root server, and places such as Europe and China would gladly force their ISPs to switch to the new root. Then the Internet would be fragmented as far as the names people type into the address bar, or where most clicked links go.
What a joke! Who in their right mind would want to surf the content on an islamofaciest Internet let alone actually pay for the dubious privilege?
When I quit AOL the argument to try to keep me on was that I would no longer be on the INTERNET because it was made up of five companies, I remember him mentioning AOL, Earthlink, I think Internic and MSN, and one other. He said without subscription to one of the five I would merely have access to the World Wide Web.
I'm confused!
Can't figure out why ANYONE would be a member of AOL. Do they offer anything worth having?
Just lots and lots of ads for worthless Time-Warner products.
Paragraphs are your friends.
It still seems to me that IPv6 is unnecessary. If large blocks of "legal" IPs weren't horded by companies, my employer being one of them, for internal networks, then there should be plenty of IPv4 addresses available. Technologies like NAT and dynamic addressing (DHCP) should make IPv4 work just fine for a long, long time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.