what credibility? when? who? oh, the government had anything to do with something functional like the internet. right. maybe they built it before i was born⌠constructed between 1931 and 1936 during the Great Depression and was dedicated on September 30, 1935, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. no, waitâŚ
thatâs the hoover dam.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/search/song?q=Doug+Benson+The+Hoover+Dam+Bit+[Explicit]
Who is âthe best steward for the health and integrity of the netâ then?
What does being the âsteward for the health and integrity of the netâ even mean?
Unfortunately, every other country that talks about wanting to get âInternet Governanceâ out of the USâs hands is doing so because they want to censor their own citizensâ communications, and having unrestricted cross-border communications (typically to US servers) interferes with this. Itâs not like the US doesnât also censor communications that are legal in other countries (particularly taking down gambling sites), but they donât do it as much as China, or even France.
A separate governance-like issue has been support for non-ASCII domain names, and unfortunately we ended up with ICANN pushing us into the technically appalling punycode approach, as opposed to modifying the DNS standards to support UTF-8 with something appropriate done about uppercase-vs-lowercase letters.
Can I smell your credibility? No? Well then it must be your feetâŚ
2013 - US still thinks it is âstewardâ of the internet, because ARPANET.
Yup. We buy that. Move along, nothing to see hereâŚ
Its actually really sad, and we werenât the stewards, as much as the country who did it first. We just didnât give anyone a compelling reason to question our motives, or go their own way⌠with a few annoying exceptions. So we created the standards that others just followed, more or less. Look up RFCs. Thats how the internet was born.
Now with very compelling reasons comes the potential for new standards, and the obvious need for nation states to regulate their traffic with firewalls, etc⌠and⌠oh fuck you NSA. Fuck you.
Iceland?
Wow that didnât take long⌠and there is the first USian telling us that the US is the superior defender of liberty and freedom ("Weâre better than âŚ).
That you still have the gall to claim that the USâs unparalled mass surveillance of all internet traffic (not only itâs own citizens traffic), totalitarian star-chamber-like approach to legislation (secret laws and courts!) is somehow comparable to Franceâs ban on hate speech (an approach most other western democratic share) is at best delusional. Get of your high horse and look whatâs happening right now in the US. Mass surveillance on this scale IS definitely a higher threat to free speech than e.g. banning antisemitic hate speech on twitter.
Punycode might look a little ugly. But DNS is used so widely and the ASCII format is so entrenched itâs probably near the level of IPv4. UTF-8 support in DNS might have been ideal. But unfortunately Iâd expect doing it that way would have even more adoption issues than IPv6 does. For IPv6 you can fallback to IPv4 and NAT for now. But UTF-8 DNS would probably result in some people being unable to access websites using internationalized domain names.
That would be Sweden, Rigs.
Providing a place for the free development of open internet standards as well as a central place for hosting services free from the insanity of governmental back-doors, monitoring, threats, extortion, and prison.
no, it would not be sweden. look up their mediaâs treatment of immigrants. i do not live there. however, they seem to just now be trying to emulate the america of 1950.
also, to assume that the internet didnât exist without monitoring before governments ruined it is incorrect.
immigration issues have nothing to do with the internet. Every country has the right to enact and enforce their own immigration standards. Your idea of proper immigration policies have no bearing on the issue at hand and I see no need to kick that political football around. Itâs just not germane.
also, to assume that the internet didnât exist without monitoring before governments ruined it is incorrect.
I didnât see anyone assuming that. However, the internet started as a collection of networks. Many of them had nothing to do with any government. Look at the CERN network (the birthplace of the World Wide Web). It was created by scientists and was a major source of early internet advancements.
Besides, Sweden gave us the Pirate Party.
âItâs just not germane.â
we disagree. red herring or pickled herring, their cultural insensitivity is an issue.
âI didnât see anyone assuming that.â
who asked you ? maybe money or political power/influence had nothing to do with the development of the internet because it wasnât taken seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network
pirate party prisoner, that you? down with other peopleâs pirate party prisoners? how is that freedom?
not germane <> red herring.
What the heck are you saying�
You know what, never mind. My mistake. I should have learned long ago you canât sharpen your pencil on a dull knife.
your point?
your point?
Exactly. You may be too dull to make one.
and honestly, you really donât seem interested in having an opinion worth having. waitâŚ
"We need to immediately arrest Michael Hayden and Mike Rogers under the Patriot Acts expanded definition of terrorism which includes âthreats made to kill or injure another personâ. " ok.
why âarrestâ them? apprehend them, yes?
if you hadnât seen this it might be of interest:
Try reading a bit more slowly. You surely donât think that other governments getting into the Internet Governance racket would mean that the US government would stop its surveillance programs, do you? All that would happen is more government misbehaviour, not less.
Iâm all in favor of decentralized internet services, with important servers handled by multiple corporate entities in multiple jurisdictions, so that everybodyâs free to pick a mail server located somewhere that their own government wonât bother them, as well as a server thatâs geographically close if that happens to be useful. Unfortunately, governments tend to collude on such policies, so getting my mail in, for example, the Netherlands isnât going to stop the NSA from snooping on it (especially because, according to their doctrine, having an account over there might mean Iâm a foreigner, and therefore a legal target for them, whereas if I use a mail server in the US, theyâre supposed to need a warrant except when they donât.) But at least thereâs some chance of the wiretapping being done by local authorities, so the Dutch government might not bother sharing my example.nl email with the US government unless it has something interesting in it, while the US government wants to snoop my example.us email just because itâs cheaper to snoop everybody than to figure out who theyâre actually targeting.
No, NOT every other country. This kind of attitude is exactly WHY other countries are sick of Americans. You donât have a monopoly on freedom, and never have, and if you still believe you do even after all this stuff has come out then there really isnât any hope for you.
