More lawmakers back U.S. control of Internet

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://today.reuters.com/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=uri:2005-10-21T171310Z_01_ROB160456_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-INTERNET.xml

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives called on Friday for the Internet's core infrastructure to remain under U.S. control, echoing similar language introduced in the Senate earlier this week.

The resolution, introduced by two Republicans and one Democrat, aims to line up Congress firmly behind the Bush administration as it heads for a showdown with much of the rest of the world over control of the global computer network.

"Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices will prevent the Internet from remaining the thriving medium it has become today," said California Republican Rep. John Doolittle in a statement.

Doolittle introduced the resolution with Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte and Virginia Democratic Rep. Rick Boucher.

Countries including Brazil and Iran want an international body to oversee the addressing system that guides traffic across the Internet, which is currently overseen by a California nonprofit body that answers to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The European Union withdrew its support of the current system last month, and the issue is expected to come to a head at a U.N. summit meeting in Tunisia in November.

The Bush administration has made clear that it intends to maintain control.

If a settlement is not reached, Internet users in different parts of the globe could potentially wind up at different Web sites when they type an address into their browsers.

U.S. lawmakers have backed the Bush administration's stance, arguing that a U.N. group would stifle innovation with excessive bureaucracy and enable repressive regimes to curtail free expression online.

Top Republicans and Democrats on the House Commerce Committee sent a letter of support to the Bush administration earlier this month. In the Senate, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman has introduced a resolution supporting the administration's stance.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Glad to see Democrats and Republicans working together.  At least we can agree on something.

[Gabu]

Attempting to do anything with the internet at this point is attempting to fix something that isn't broken, plain and simple.

[Bono]

Attempting to do anything with the internet at this point is attempting to fix something that isn't broken, plain and simple.

You don't get it. The UN has been trying to get holds on the internet. It is the worst threat to free speach the since the campaign finance law, and what these senators are doing is to show not everything always they do is bad.

[Gabu]

Attempting to do anything with the internet at this point is attempting to fix something that isn't broken, plain and simple.

You don't get it. The UN has been trying to get holds on the internet. It is the worst threat to free speach the since the campaign finance law, and what these senators are doing is to show not everything always they do is bad.

I don't get it?  My statement was in favor of these senators' viewpoints, that we should just leave the internet where it is because I don't see any immediate problems with how things are.

[John Dibble]

The UN is one of the last groups I'd want controlling the internet.

[opebo]

Attempting to do anything with the internet at this point is attempting to fix something that isn't broken, plain and simple.

You don't get it. The UN has been trying to get holds on the internet. It is the worst threat to free speach the since the campaign finance law,

Um.. I hardly think US control of the internet is going to be a boon to free speech, given the right-wing religious (like jmfcst who started this thread) that control the US government.

[John Dibble]

Attempting to do anything with the internet at this point is attempting to fix something that isn't broken, plain and simple.

You don't get it. The UN has been trying to get holds on the internet. It is the worst threat to free speach the since the campaign finance law,

Um.. I hardly think US control of the internet is going to be a boon to free speech, given the right-wing religious (like jmfcst who started this thread) that control the US government.

Which is why you are constantly censored...oh wait, you aren't. In case you haven't noticed, there's a first amendment gauranteeing your right to free speech in the US - there's no such gaurantee in the UN.

[opebo]

Attempting to do anything with the internet at this point is attempting to fix something that isn't broken, plain and simple.

You don't get it. The UN has been trying to get holds on the internet. It is the worst threat to free speach the since the campaign finance law,

Um.. I hardly think US control of the internet is going to be a boon to free speech, given the right-wing religious (like jmfcst who started this thread) that control the US government.

Which is why you are constantly censored...oh wait, you aren't. In case you haven't noticed, there's a first amendment gauranteeing your right to free speech in the US - there's no such gaurantee in the UN.

They'll take care of that with convient interpretations of the constitution.  Haven't you heard these religious want to ban porn from the internet?

[John Dibble]

Attempting to do anything with the internet at this point is attempting to fix something that isn't broken, plain and simple.

You don't get it. The UN has been trying to get holds on the internet. It is the worst threat to free speach the since the campaign finance law,

Um.. I hardly think US control of the internet is going to be a boon to free speech, given the right-wing religious (like jmfcst who started this thread) that control the US government.

Which is why you are constantly censored...oh wait, you aren't. In case you haven't noticed, there's a first amendment gauranteeing your right to free speech in the US - there's no such gaurantee in the UN.

They'll take care of that with convient interpretations of the constitution.  Haven't you heard these religious want to ban porn from the internet?

"These religious" - please. 80% of the population is Christian - more than enough to amend the Constitution and take away your freedom of speech and religion and establish Christianity as the official US religion. So tell me, why is it that they have not? Oh, that's right, because they aren't as bad as you make it out to be. Just because a number of religious people want to ban porn from the internet doesn't mean it's going to happen - seriously, it's not gonna happen, so just shut up about it already.

[opebo]

"These religious" - please. 80% of the population is Christian - more than enough to amend the Constitution and take away your freedom of speech and religion and establish Christianity as the official US religion. So tell me, why is it that they have not?

That is what they are trying to do with these religious judges.  Anyway they needn't do anything too extreme as they already run the country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why wouldn't it happen?  Most people want to ban porn altogether, Dibble.

[John Dibble]

"These religious" - please. 80% of the population is Christian - more than enough to amend the Constitution and take away your freedom of speech and religion and establish Christianity as the official US religion. So tell me, why is it that they have not?

That is what they are trying to do with these religious judges.  Anyway they needn't do anything too extreme as they already run the country.

Why would they need to do it with judges? As I said, there's more than enough of them to simply amend the constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why wouldn't it happen?  Most people want to ban porn altogether, Dibble.
[/quote]

"Most people"? Tell me, if you're going to state this as a fact, where do you get this statistic? Or is it simply something you made up to suit your views?

[Angel of Death]

The UN is one of the last groups I'd want controlling the internet.

No one person, organization or country can possibly "control the internet". That's a bogey man straw man attack.

[John Dibble]

The UN is one of the last groups I'd want controlling the internet.

No one person, organization or country can possibly "control the internet". That's a bogey man straw man attack.

You seem to be taking my statement overly literaly - there are many things that can be controlled but complete and absolute control over many things are indeed impossible. Governments can still establish laws as to what is legal and illegal on the internet, and while you can't fully control all the goings on even if you are an international organization you can still enforce laws by coercive means. IF the UN were to gain 'control' of the internet, they might, say, pass a resolution banning hate speech on the internet, which can't be done by the US government due to the first amendment. Right now, the UN has no authority over the internet, and I'd rather things stay that way.

[Angel of Death]

The UN is one of the last groups I'd want controlling the internet.

No one person, organization or country can possibly "control the internet". That's a bogey man straw man attack.

You seem to be taking my statement overly literaly - there are many things that can be controlled but complete and absolute control over many things are indeed impossible. Governments can still establish laws as to what is legal and illegal on the internet, and while you can't fully control all the goings on even if you are an international organization you can still enforce laws by coercive means. IF the UN were to gain 'control' of the internet, they might, say, pass a resolution banning hate speech on the internet, which can't be done by the US government due to the first amendment. Right now, the UN has no authority over the internet, and I'd rather things stay that way.

And, pray tell me, how would the UN possibly be able to enforce such a resolution?
Again, you're failing to realize that the Internet is not some domain over which something can have sovereignty, it's the result of the cooperation between various subnetworks all over the planet, who currently collectively decide to obey the DNS root servers as controlled by ICANN (who got their contract from the US Department of Commerce). Servers operate under the law of the country they're in and last I checked the UN is not a world government, so this wouldn't change.
The rest of the world could unilaterally decide to break away if they wanted to and the US would be powerless to stop that, but they're hoping to avoid a mess and go for a graceful process towards power sharing instead.
Anyway, there's no reason to speculate that getting the greatest common division of freedoms of all countries is more likely than getting the greatest common division of restrictions.

The following article is much more insightful as well as balanced:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84602/kenneth-neil-cukier/who-will-control-the-internet.html

[John Dibble]

And, pray tell me, how would the UN possibly be able to enforce such a resolution?

Right now, they can't because they have no control over the internet. I'd rather not give them any opportunity to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm a computer science major - I know how the internet works.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'd rather keep it that way. There are people who want the UN to be a world government, and the more power you give them the closer you get to that goal becoming a reality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They could do that, sure, if they were willing to take a major economic hit, which they are not.


The internet isn't broken, and in my eyes the UN is, so I see no reason to hand over such an important thing to such a corrupted organization.

[Everett]

I still would like to know how anyone can assume control over the Internet.

[ag]

Could somebody here answer me a very simple question: what is "the UN?"

[John Dibble]

Could somebody here answer me a very simple question: what is "the UN?"

The United Nations.

[John Dibble]

I still would like to know how anyone can assume control over the Internet.

Direct control over all information on the internet can't really be done given it's decentralized nature, but rules and regulations can be applied to the internet and offenders prosecuted by law.

[ag]

Could somebody here answer me a very simple question: what is "the UN?"

The United Nations.

You didn't get that - I know what it is very well. But would somebody please explain what is the "United Nations"?  Once again: I myself know what it is, the problem is, it seems like most people couldn't recongnize the UN from a Tylenol pill. So, try anwering the question: what is it supposed to do, what can it do, how is it organized, how does it go about doing what it is doing? In fact, what does it mean to say "the UN wants" something or "the UN controls" something?

[ag]

I still would like to know how anyone can assume control over the Internet.

Direct control over all information on the internet can't really be done given it's decentralized nature, but rules and regulations can be applied to the internet and offenders prosecuted by law.

That has exactly nothing to do with the ongoing discussion. For that matter, at present most countries have some laws regulating internet activity and establishing what Internet activity can be prosecuted - nobody argues that the US can or cannot do what everybody else does without much discussion. 

The issue is who regulates certain technical issues (mainly, what addresses mean, etc.): internet was started by the US government and traditionally it did resolve those as a matter of course. I believe there had been a plan to set up some international agency to do the same, and now the US is backtracking.  Since the system works well as is, perhaps there is some sense to it - why bother tinkering with what works. The main danger is that if some countries feel upset about it they might start tinkering with those things unilaterally, eventually creating virtual national boundaries. Of course, it would be highly costly, mainly, to them, so this is not much of a danger anyway.  As long as most of the important content is in US-based, it can do what it wants.  If that changes and the rest of the world gangs up together, US would have to join, in fact if not in name, or secede.

As usual, the truth is a lot more mundane than it sounds. 

PS. When they tell you that something is "to be discussed in a UN summit meeting" it has nothing to do with "UN wanting to do something".  "UN summit meeting" simply means that a bunch of heads of states will gather in one place and talk about something (because they had voluntarily agreed to it some time before), usually without much obligation to follow up. At most what the UN bureaucracy would do is to prepare some drafts of tentative and optional declarations based on what they want to discuss - its role here is purely technical: you tell them what to draft, they draft and translate into 6 languages.  The only UN organ that can order anything to anyone is the Security Council, and the US has a veto there, so it can only be ordered to do what it wants to do.  Otherwise, unless the US signs and ratifies a treaty, it can't be forced to do anything.

[MissCatholic]

Norm Colman is becoming a real jerk!

[Jens]

I still would like to know how anyone can assume control over the Internet.

Direct control over all information on the internet can't really be done given it's decentralized nature, but rules and regulations can be applied to the internet and offenders prosecuted by law.

That has exactly nothing to do with the ongoing discussion. For that matter, at present most countries have some laws regulating internet activity and establishing what Internet activity can be prosecuted - nobody argues that the US can or cannot do what everybody else does without much discussion. 

The issue is who regulates certain technical issues (mainly, what addresses mean, etc.): internet was started by the US government and traditionally it did resolve those as a matter of course. I believe there had been a plan to set up some international agency to do the same, and now the US is backtracking.  Since the system works well as is, perhaps there is some sense to it - why bother tinkering with what works. The main danger is that if some countries feel upset about it they might start tinkering with those things unilaterally, eventually creating virtual national boundaries. Of course, it would be highly costly, mainly, to them, so this is not much of a danger anyway.  As long as most of the important content is in US-based, it can do what it wants.  If that changes and the rest of the world gangs up together, US would have to join, in fact if not in name, or secede.

As usual, the truth is a lot more mundane than it sounds. 

PS. When they tell you that something is "to be discussed in a UN summit meeting" it has nothing to do with "UN wanting to do something".  "UN summit meeting" simply means that a bunch of heads of states will gather in one place and talk about something (because they had voluntarily agreed to it some time before), usually without much obligation to follow up. At most what the UN bureaucracy would do is to prepare some drafts of tentative and optional declarations based on what they want to discuss - its role here is purely technical: you tell them what to draft, they draft and translate into 6 languages.  The only UN organ that can order anything to anyone is the Security Council, and the US has a veto there, so it can only be ordered to do what it wants to do.  Otherwise, unless the US signs and ratifies a treaty, it can't be forced to do anything.

Nice with a little bit of sensible talk about this topic. The interpretation here in Denmark is that the US suddently backed out of a already planed and agreed on international organisation in what looks like an effort to keep "control"