It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S flat out rejects calls for it to give up control of the internet

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

U.S. Insists on Keeping Control of Web
By The Associated Press

posted: 29 September 2005
01:30 pm ET


GENEVA (AP) -- A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.
"We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet,'' said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. "Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable.''

Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development.


Entire article


It's our's, not yours. Would you give us your home if we begged for it? No you wouldn't.




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I'd be happy if the OPEC nations would immediately renounce their ownership and control over the vast majority of the world's oil supply and let an "International Body" be in charge of it, including the US.

Frankly I'm "concerned" that they're using the oil market, and adjusting world supply to increase their own profit margins at the expense of the rest of the world.

And as soon as that happens (in the year 2525...) the US can hand the keys to the web over to the UN.

It's not hard to understand why the US has this "control" over the Internet. Think about where it originated.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
If I remember correctly, wasn'y the world wide web invented at CERN, in Geneva, Switzerland?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
If they don't like it, they can build thier own internet. Its that simple... do not ask for control of someone elses invention and investment.

Also, as far as I know there is no (signifigant) charge for the service either.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Again I repeat. CERN in switzerland invented the WWW. Not USA. The Pentagon if I am again remember correctly had set up a networking device in the event that a nuclear war erupted. They were under the impression that the coutry that could communicate the quickest afterwards would rise to the top. It was only an inner computer networking device that they invented. The world wide web was invented by scientists in Switzerland. And yes, we are trying to monopolize the policing for our own desires. Obviously a good tactic if you're a greedy, paranoid nation as we are.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
And if China controlled it? Or Cuba? Or Russia (Putin's background considered).

Websites criticizing the government wouldn't even make it to production let alone get attacked.

The UN would be any better?

I want to know where the websites discussing the Oil For Food Scandal would end up if the UN controlled the Internet.

Say what you will about the US, but there is no shortage of Anti-American stuff on the Web, and it flourishes quite well unrestricted.

Tell me which other bodies would allow that?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I was under the impression that CERN was a fictional creation in the mind of Mr Brown in his famous book ~Angels & Demons~...............you mean this is an actuall REAL place?

Mr Brown's book 'claimed' CERN had created the internet.
The reality is that the internet was created at the Pentegon by the US Government.

You need to remember that book was a fictional creation for the MOST part.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by theRiverGoddess]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I think the US started with the ARPANET.

I find this all confusing. CERN invented the WWW part and the US invented the Internet part. Is there anyone who can break this down simple-like for me?

Yes TRG, CERN is a real place.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Thank you Duzey...............ya I have been google'in up CERN....I do see it is a real place.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
The internet is a result of billions of US DARPA dollars.

It's ours, so the UN needs to get their greedy mits off it. I am so sick of the world wanting everthing that the US has to be controled by the UN.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
And if China controlled it? Or Cuba? Or Russia (Putin's background considered).

Websites criticizing the government wouldn't even make it to production let alone get attacked.

The UN would be any better?

I want to know where the websites discussing the Oil For Food Scandal would end up if the UN controlled the Internet.

Say what you will about the US, but there is no shortage of Anti-American stuff on the Web, and it flourishes quite well unrestricted.

Tell me which other bodies would allow that?


Yeah thank god for Americans or otherwise all our freedom of speech would be gone!

Get real.

The UN is an international body the US is not, nuff said. Have you forgotten that the US is part of the UN too perhaps? The oil for food schandal is as much the US' as any other UN-member's problem. But I guess you/the US wont settle for anything less then total control.

I don't have to explain the problem of one country controlling an information network of this size do I? I wish for once this was about money but it's pure control of information. Something they're getting quite good at at home, do we really want this to be the case on the internet?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Duzy,

CERN invented it. US invested more moeny than anyone else. US have invented certain intangibles that facilitates the inner workings. US is using the investment avenue to back their position.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
How can one country have control of the internet? I was under the impression that internet is short hand for interconnecting networks.

I work for a Telecoms firm that has an enormous network and also has a huge Net Hosting service. I would be interested to see how the US is supposed to control our network? The same with any other network, say for BT or France Telecom.

The all interconnect to each other, allowing infomation to pass from one network to another, like sites we host can be accessed via users on another network using common protocols which enable the different networks to talk to each and pass traffic.

How exactly is the US supposed to be in control of the Internet? If a country wanted to, they could run their own network that would interconnect with another that would be in no way under the control of the US.

Is it just because the some big DNS's are in the US and as a result the US has de facto control of the net? If that is the case, then why does no one else just build some big top level DNS's in their own country. I just don't see how anyone could control the net, as "the net" isn't an actual thing to control.

To say that oen country has control of the net is exactly like saying every network in the world is being controlled by the US. That I find hard to believe.

[edit on 29/9/05 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The Internet needs to be upgraded not controlled...

We Humans are such a petty species..

Isn't there only like 13 or 14 DNS's keeping the Internet alive!??

(why not tripple that I wonder)



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   


During the 1950s, several communications researchers realized that there was a need to allow general communication between users of various computers and communications networks. This led to research into decentralized networks, queuing theory, and packet switching. The subsequent creation of ARPANET in the United States in turn catalyzed a wave of technical developments that made it the basis for the development of the Internet.

The first TCP/IP wide area network was operational in 1984 when the United States' National Science Foundation (NSF) constructed a university network backbone that would later become the NSFNet. It was then followed by the opening of the network to commercial interests in 1995. Important seperate networks that have successfully entered the Internet include Usenet, Bitnet and the various commercial and educational X.25 networks such as Compuserve and JANET.

The collective network gained a public face in the 1990s. In August 1991 Tim Berners-Lee publicized his new World Wide Web project, two years after he had begun creating HTML, HTTP and the first few web pages at CERN in Switzerland. In 1993 the Mosaic web browser version 1.0 was released, and by late 1994 there was growing public interest in the previously academic/technical Internet. By 1996 the word "Internet" was common public currency, but it referred almost entirely to the World Wide Web.

Meanwhile, over the course of the decade, the Internet successfully accommodated the majority of previously existing public computer networks (although some networks such as FidoNet have remained separate). This growth is often attributed to the lack of central administration, which allows organic growth of the network, as well as the non-proprietary nature of the Internet protocols, which encourages vendor interoperability and prevents any one company from exerting too much control over the network.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
It's ours, stu, because the main servers/routers/big ass machines are here. We maintain them, and keep them running.

Djarums, your first post was spot on, couldn't have said it better myself.

Not only is there NO reason other than a desired degredation in quality to change things, but there are plenty of reasons (stability, working pretty damn well) to NOT move it.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
It's ours, stu, because the main servers/routers/big ass machines are here. We maintain them, and keep them running.

Djarums, your first post was spot on, couldn't have said it better myself.

Not only is there NO reason other than a desired degredation in quality to change things, but there are plenty of reasons (stability, working pretty damn well) to NOT move it.


Having said that, a significant portion of the entire global traffic traverses the UK, due to our positioning and high technology level ourselves. Plus, we use the very same machines that you do. You would be surprised how often I have to deal with US companies that route via us for international calls, for example.

As I said, it is merely de facto control you guys have because the large international carriers, such as MCI and Sprint, plus the big vendors such as Nortel and Cisco are all based in N. America. there is no reason, however, why our network here would not continue to function if the US vanished overnight.

What you would have would be some unavailabilty of sites and services which rely on routing through the US and an impact on performance due to the loss of routing choices for traffic, but that would be rectified within short order as there is no reason why another country cannot provide the DNS (which most if not all countries will have anyway, the myth there are only a few DNS is wrong) or alternative routing for traffic.

For example, say X amount of traffic is sent via the states. If the US vanished, that traffic immediately would have no where to go, however, with a few days (or perhaps weeks) re-routing of traffic over other carriers and the propagation of DNS info into other DNS servers in other countries would mean the Internet could function perfectly well without the US.

A good example would be the 9/11 attacks. A major international switch site was out of commisiion for quite some time, as it was sited near the WTC. Now, the whole network over the world didnt grind to a halt, what we had was severely restricted access to the US for a while.

If you notice, the only people complaining about so-called US control (it is not the US itself that controls it, merely the companies have all the hardware for their big intenational carrier operations based there) are the developing countries that rely on connections and infrastructure that the US has which they themselves cannot provide.

Again, as I said, the "Internet" is not a thing. It is a way of allowing multiple independant networks to communicate. The US has no more control over the network I help look after than I do over your cat. The only thing the US could do would be to restrict access into the states for traffic sent by us, but then we would just route away.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Again I repeat. CERN in switzerland invented the WWW. Not USA.

Repeat it all you want, it's still wrong. Hypertext was invented by the people at CERN. TCP/IP was invented by the US military. They wanted to design a network protocol that would not be destroyed during nuclear war. If ten cities went down, the network still had to function, which it does thanks to TCP and packetized network protocols under that subheading.

Hypertext (HTML) is nothing but an interpreted language which surfs on top of that American creation: Internet (TCP/IP). Someone would eventually have discovered how to put images and hyperlinks on the tcp/ip internet, so the contributions of CERN are less than the engineers who built the network, IMO.

Giving DNS control away would be stupid. American taxpayers paid for the technology, and the business core of the Internet belongs here. Look at how China has already convinced fascist corporations like Yahoo and M$ to cenor their search engines. You think the rest of the world should run the internet? Run it into the ground, you must mean.

The independant small business ISP operator in America is the last bastion of the internet. If control is taken from that person, the free Internet as we know it, will die.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery


The UN is an international body the US is not, nuff said. Have you forgotten that the US is part of the UN too perhaps? The oil for food schandal is as much the US' as any other UN-member's problem. But I guess you/the US wont settle for anything less then total control.

I don't have to explain the problem of one country controlling an information network of this size do I? I wish for once this was about money but it's pure control of information. Something they're getting quite good at at home, do we really want this to be the case on the internet?



The internet is American, the internet is not owned by an international body - NUFF SAID!

And please, EXACTLY WHAT INFORMATION IS THE US CONTROLING VIA THE INTERNET?

Please, give specific examples.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Here's a thought: Get the UN to start their own Internet?
Then again, has anyone checked with Al Gore on this?
What is his take on this?





seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join