NSA net-security sabotage means the end of US Internet "stewardship"


#1

[Permalink]


#2

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, wait...
that's the hoover dam.

http://grooveshark.com/#!/search/song?q=Doug+Benson+The+Hoover+Dam+Bit+[Explicit]


#3

Who is "the best steward for the health and integrity of the net" then?

What does being the "steward for the health and integrity of the net" even mean?


#4

Unfortunately, every other country that talks about wanting to get "Internet Governance" out of the US's hands is doing so because they want to censor their own citizens' communications, and having unrestricted cross-border communications (typically to US servers) interferes with this. It's not like the US doesn't also censor communications that are legal in other countries (particularly taking down gambling sites), but they don't 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.


#5

Can I smell your credibility? No? Well then it must be your feet...


#6

2013 - US still thinks it is 'steward' of the internet, because ARPANET.

Yup. We buy that. Move along, nothing to see here...


#7

Its actually really sad, and we weren't the stewards, as much as the country who did it first. We just didn't 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.


#8

Iceland?


#9

Wow that didn't take long... and there is the first USian telling us that the US is the superior defender of liberty and freedom ("We're better than ...).

That you still have the gall to claim that the US's unparalled mass surveillance of all internet traffic (not only it's own citizens traffic), totalitarian star-chamber-like approach to legislation (secret laws and courts!) is somehow comparable to France's ban on hate speech (an approach most other western democratic share) is at best delusional. Get of your high horse and look what's 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.


#10

Punycode might look a little ugly. But DNS is used so widely and the ASCII format is so entrenched it's probably near the level of IPv4. UTF-8 support in DNS might have been ideal. But unfortunately I'd 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.


#11

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.


#12

no, it would not be sweden. look up their media's 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 didn't exist without monitoring before governments ruined it is incorrect.


#13

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. It's just not germane.

also, to assume that the internet didn't exist without monitoring before governments ruined it is incorrect.

I didn't 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.


#14

"It's just not germane."
we disagree. red herring or pickled herring, their cultural insensitivity is an issue.

"I didn't see anyone assuming that."
who asked you ? maybe money or political power/influence had nothing to do with the development of the internet because it wasn't taken seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network

pirate party prisoner, that you? down with other people's pirate party prisoners? how is that freedom?


#15

not germane <> red herring.

What the heck are you saying...?

You know what, never mind. My mistake. I should have learned long ago you can't sharpen your pencil on a dull knife.


#16

your point?


#17

your point?

Exactly. You may be too dull to make one.


#18

https://www.google.com/search?q=germane&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

and honestly, you really don't seem interested in having an opinion worth having. wait...
"We need to immediately arrest Michael Hayden and Mike Rogers under the Patriot Acts expanded definition of terrorism which includes "threats made to kill or injure another person". " ok.

why "arrest" them? apprehend them, yes?

if you hadn't seen this it might be of interest:
http://gizmodo.com/5881212/the-pirate-bays-founders-are-going-to-nice-prison


#19

Try reading a bit more slowly. You surely don't 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.

I'm all in favor of decentralized internet services, with important servers handled by multiple corporate entities in multiple jurisdictions, so that everybody's free to pick a mail server located somewhere that their own government won't bother them, as well as a server that's 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 isn't going to stop the NSA from snooping on it (especially because, according to their doctrine, having an account over there might mean I'm a foreigner, and therefore a legal target for them, whereas if I use a mail server in the US, they're supposed to need a warrant except when they don't.) But at least there's 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 it's cheaper to snoop everybody than to figure out who they're actually targeting.


#20

No, NOT every other country. This kind of attitude is exactly WHY other countries are sick of Americans. You don't 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 isn't any hope for you.