Us Own Internet?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Atrix replied on Thu Oct 20, 2005 @ 4:54pm |
 Coolness: 56200 | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Fri Oct 21, 2005 @ 6:48am |
 Coolness: 93175 | They are saying they are afraid if it goes international there will be mooore cencorship? I woulda thought the U.S would be the country with the most internet cencorship. Seems like most other places have more lax internet laws, sometimes almost like.. none. The most fucked shit and freebies you can find by searching in other languages. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ckm001 replied on Fri Oct 21, 2005 @ 11:48am |
 Coolness: 35890 | The 'we made it we own it' argument is ridiculous. With that logic we should stop using paper. Why would any country want what has become an integral part of their economic infrastructure in the hands of a country like the US? They could easily cut off a country's access to information in the blink of an eye, and I would not put it past this administration to do so. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» No_Comply replied on Fri Oct 21, 2005 @ 12:25pm |
 Coolness: 85845 | Originally posted by CKM001...
... They could easily cut off a country's access to information in the blink of an eye, and I would not put it past this administration to do so. thats if they dont somehow do that already... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Fri Oct 21, 2005 @ 9:23pm |
 Coolness: 151370 | Originally posted by MOONDANCER...
They are saying they are afraid if it goes international there will be mooore cencorship? I woulda thought the U.S would be the country with the most internet cencorship. Seems like most other places have more lax internet laws, sometimes almost like.. none. The most fucked shit and freebies you can find by searching in other languages. Well in actual fact, the U.S is the one who has the most "lax" laws when it comes to interent censorship. Just look and read at the shit that circulates through the web!!! Porn, violence, radical political and religious oppinions, and lets not forget BUKKAKE -for Christ Sake! When you consider countires like China and Iran who actually imprison people who give the slightest impression of radical thinking... those are the ones you need to worry about -or at least that what the U.S "fears." Either way, this all has to do with the ownership of domain names ( [ xxx.com ] if i'm not mistaken. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Sun Oct 23, 2005 @ 8:06pm |
| Coolness: 93175 | wowowow, now. China and Iraq may have ridiculous internet laws, but there are many many places with more lax laws than the U.S. Russia, Africa, probably Europe too. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Sun Oct 23, 2005 @ 8:15pm |
| Coolness: 93175 | in my experience anyways dunno what the laws are but if the internet content says anything. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Sun Oct 23, 2005 @ 8:51pm |
| Coolness: 151370 | Yeah, your probabaly right that places in Europe, and what-not, have more lax internet laws than what we have in North America -i'm no expert on the subject (what's so ever) so i'm mostly pulling this shit out of my ass.
I read only a few articles regarding this, and from what i've gathered: The U.S doesn't want to hand over the control of domain names that is currently held by ICANN whose purpose is to sustain the fliuidity of 'surfing the web'. The U.S is also concerned that there would be an 'Internet Tax', which was suggest by Syria, which would affect business in the U.S, should the U.N take the reins. Also, the international community wants to get involed because they simply want some say in what goes on over the Internet -since it affect bussiness on a global level- and also for developing countries who simply want in on the Information Age. What would happen should the U.N take control, is "miles of red tape" that would give the U.N the power to restrict and censor websites and addresses, as well as place heavy regulatory burdens on their authentication, maintenance and pricing structure. This is a prospect no doubt relished by European social democrats who would like to extend their national content and industry policies across national borders. The problem with this is that it would just cause lots of beaurocracy, and clog up the works. "The internet needs the technicians of ICANN, not the policy committees of the UN." Here's a good article that I found regardiong this fiasco: [ www.theage.com.au ] |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Mon Oct 24, 2005 @ 4:41am |
| Coolness: 93175 | Oh I see, it is Iran, China and Cuba that want this. Well according to this article if I'm getting this right, the internet is regulated by ICANN, not by the U.S government. Unless ICANN is owned by the government, but I see what you're saying. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Atrix replied on Mon Oct 24, 2005 @ 4:52pm |
| Coolness: 56200 | ICANN is one of those government-funded, federally-protected groups that "isn't government". Which means that while IT may not be an official gov't agency, the people who work there are paid by the government. So it is government controlled.
Shouldn't there be an international way to control these domain names? If not, couldn't this be hacked? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Tue Oct 25, 2005 @ 12:38am |
| Coolness: 93175 | couldn't what be hacked? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Wed Oct 26, 2005 @ 3:29am |
| Coolness: 151370 | Originally posted by NO_COMPLY...
Originally posted by ckm001...
... They could easily cut off a country's access to information in the blink of an eye, and I would not put it past this administration to do so. thats if they dont somehow do that already... What makes you say that the U.N wouldn't do the same thing? They have the power to prohibit Trade to countries. Why not prohibit internet access (as gay as that sounds) to countries too? Are you even sure that the U.S even does such a thing as prohibit net access to certain countries? (I could imagine Cuba, perhaps, but...) It all sounds a little paranoid, if you ask me. I mean, really, have any of you ever had problems expressing yourselves over the net? Have you ever encountered situations where you couldn't recieve information (regardless of what it was) off the interenet? I if can say: FUCK GOD AND JESUS CHRIST, PLUS, I THINK I'M GOIN TO OVERTHROW THE AMERICAN GOVCERNMENT AND SELL NUKES TO AL QUEDA... AND ALSO, I THINK I'M GOING TO ILLEGALLY DOWNLOAD SOME KIDDY PORN BEFORE I MAKE A DEAL WITH THIS CRACKDEALER TO BUY A POUND OF... WELL, CRACK!! Unless you have a problem with that... ... I think things are okay as they are. P.S: I also wanted to know what @trix ment by hacking something, like Moondancer asked. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ckm001 replied on Wed Oct 26, 2005 @ 12:40pm |
| Coolness: 35890 | I'm not saying the UN wouldn't do the same thing. Personally, I'd much rather have the servers better distributed so countries share the role of 'internet sheriff', perhaps with one regulating body (NOT the UN). However, I'd rather things stay as they are than get the UN involved. The UN is completely useless and will just introduce a whole new level of bureaucracy and red tape.
As for the US allowing freedom of speech on the internet, I'd agree that so far the 'net has been relatively free from censorship (minus the RIAA/MPAA BS, but that's another story). However, if decisions like blocking the release of an '.xxx' domain because of complaints from conservative Christian groups are a sign of things to come, I'm all for replacing the US as governing body. The majority of internet users are not Christian, and US morals shouldn't be shoved down their throats. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» elka replied on Wed Oct 26, 2005 @ 1:17pm |
 Coolness: 53340 | Christian and US morals aren't one and the same.
A conservative christian group shut down an xxx site? Hmm even if true thats rare. Unless you have a kiddie porn ring.. you can basically have anything you want |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ckm001 replied on Wed Oct 26, 2005 @ 1:20pm |
| Coolness: 35890 | Not an XXX site, the domain DOT XXX as in .xxx, [ .com ] [ .org ] etc. The US has become extremely right wing with this administration, and I see very little difference between Christian morals and 'official' or predominant US morals and values. I'm not saying the population all abide by these, obviously. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Oct 26, 2005 @ 10:31pm |
 Coolness: 340575 | The US gov was talking about shutting down porn sites actually.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Wed Oct 26, 2005 @ 11:03pm |
| Coolness: 151370 | NOOOOOOO!!!! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Oct 26, 2005 @ 11:50pm |
| Coolness: 340575 | yeah, well it'll never happen. it's way too easy to move the site overseas.. like we're talking a few hours to do it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Oct 27, 2005 @ 12:12am |
| Coolness: 93175 | Well, you can find a lot more kiddy porn/free porn from other countries. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Thu Oct 27, 2005 @ 3:22am |
 Coolness: 103675 | yea kitty porn
 |
Us Own Internet?
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
