A number of cases for concern?
No mention of public concerns about governments spying on our data traffic and social networks.
No mention of public concerns about the Internet being turned into a politically neutered playground for consumerist and nationalist interests.
No, we're all idiots, and will be corralled into the same sheep-pen as usual. How naughty for the genie to have slipped the bottle in the first place.
Sorry for the mixed metaphors. It's late.
There we go
``He cited a number of examples where this new approach was needed: end users worried about credit card transactions, content providers who want to prevent their copyright, companies concerned about hacking, network neutrality, and foreign governments worried about Internet governance systems.''
Verily, a laundry list. Let's see:
Credit cards are an inherently unsafe system, and better alternatives are feasible. Same basic problem as storing far too much personal information ``to establish identity'', and with it everything you need to forge said identity (or credit card), making that extra juicy targets for theft. Here the banks' business model of backing ``trust'' by large sums of money is starting to look creaky. They need something far better than mere ``due diligence'', and the computer security industry isn't delivering (see below) nor do the banks manage to ask.
Copyright is useful, though extended so often and so long it has become a nuisance so sayeth even economists, but it is mainly the hysterics of inert and as a result essentially failed industries with too much lobbying money that cause the panicked amendments in law. Simply stopping supporting them and let the market sort them out (Hello America!) should, well, sort that well enough.
``hacking'' is mainly possible due to systems with holes designed right into them, and a ``security culture'' of finding holes in swiss cheese then making a show of patching the holes in said swiss cheese. That and the extreme gullibility of ``the users''.
Network neutrality has its roots in a flawed definition of ``fairness'' with respect to network bandwidth allotment and systems (*cough*bittorrent*cough*) designed to abuse the holes in the resulting technology.
And finally, taking a more active stance in ``governing the internet'', say by signing the root and sitting on the keys, is of course a sure way to upset every other government. What a wonderful argument.
Can we get someone competent in here?
My nomination is Paris, for she surely would be an improvement over this lot.
signing the dns root
>>> And finally, taking a more active stance in ``governing the internet'', say by signing the root and sitting on the keys, is of course a sure way to upset every other government.
well if that's what was happening, it would piss off lots of people, not just governments. but it's not.
iana will hold the root's key-signing key (ksk), not the us government. in fact, the ksk will be split between several parties so that no one organisation has it or control over it. the current proposal is that 5 of the 7 ksk fragments have to come together so that the ksk is assembled. there's a mass of detail on the procedures, roles and responsibilities for how the ksk is managed, the key signing ceremonies and so on at
i suggest you read that.
All I see is "draft", meaning nothing definitive yet
Would I look further, I'd see a root zone manager: ICANN (USoA quango), a root zone administrator: NTIA (DoC agency, IE USoA government body), a root zone maintainer: verisign (USoA commercial entity, and verified corporate scum), a root zone distributor: verisign (scum), twelve root server operators (first hint of internationality), a root zone key signing operator providing the trust anchor: ICANN (still a quango), a root zone zone signing key operator: verisign (still scum), and then child zone managers (the ccTLDs and the feeding trog of non-cc TLDs (among which twice verisign again)). Oh, and a relying party, IE everybody else.
I see nowhere that IANA has anything to do with anything root-sign-y.
When I see a proposal without this USoA reliance, then ratified, implemented, and the keys held _only_ by non-governmental, non-quango, non-what-have-you affiliated natural persons, with at most one of them a US national, I'll believe they've managed to avoid that particular pitfall. Then I'll take one of the KSK fragments, thanks. Until then, I have no reason to believe the current plans will be believable for anyone outside the USoA government.
What I see is that they're puttering right on, not listening to anyone outside the USoA.
Cynical? Distrustful? Moi? You bet. For cause.
... after all the hype, Obama steadily evolves into Just Another American President...
To Stop Anyone Else...
Standard practice - you use the medium to get into power and then pass laws that stop anyone else using the same medium against you. In the US, the Republicans never really 'got' the internet, but now it's been used in a successful campaign to defeat them, you can bet they'll have some ideas on how to use it next time.
Kennedy beat Nixon back in 1960 partly because he was prepared for TV and Nixon was not.
Errors in post:
"after all the hype, Obama demonstrates he is just another American Puppet President..."
See Bilderberg Group;
Whadaya mean "evolve"? Obama's just another powerless clone.
Same shit, different day. The executive branch is a joke, has been for years. Carter had a chance at turning it around, but the public yawned, alas.
 Powerful, in that he has access to the triggers of the nation's nukes ... powerless, in that he has absolutely zero idea how to herd Capitol Hill into actually stopping paying attention to their own interests, and instead starting to pay attention to the issues of the proverbial "little guy" that they are supposedly representing.
Executive Branch is not a joke. Carter was a comedian, but I must say his brother was better! Anyone know what happened to Billy Beer?
Seriously. Carter lost to Reagan...it was a landslide for a reason.
I am going to chuckle to myself all day now.
I for one....
Am a little disappointed with my hope and change, as one of his voters I would like to know where I can inquire about a refund?! Not that the other guy would have been that much different. Welcome to American democracy, you have bad choice A or bad choice B, enjoy!
Moving Mountains with Grown Ups.
"Strickling argued that with the internet is now a social network as well a business network."
Larry may like to know that for Many More Others is IT Live Operational Virtualisation Environment for Real Presentation in this Time and Place in Imaginative Space.
Or is that More Likely in A.N.Other Larry's Imaginative on AI Mission Space?
And yes, that Registers as AI Business Phishing ..... Virtual Chumming in Shark Infested Waters.
Bring back Bush.
Okay, maybe not, but wasn't Obama supposed to be the good guy?
More it's-good-for-you control we can believe in
"It is futile to call the critics of inappropriate policies names and to cast suspicion upon their motives. That might silence the voice of truth, but it cannot render inappropriate policies appropriate. The advocates of totalitarian control call the attitudes of their opponents negativism. They pretend that while they themselves are demanding the improvement of unsatisfactory conditions, the others are intent upon letting the evils endure. This is to judge all social questions from the viewpoint of narrow-minded bureaucrats. Only to bureaucrats can the idea occur that establishing new offices, promulgating new decrees, and increasing the number of government employees alone can be described as positive and beneficial measures, whereas everything else is passivity and quietism."
Ludwig von Mises, OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT, 1944
Another victory for the Lobby
Obama = FAIL
Not to mention cloud
Maybe a better way to go is to let the www be whatever it wants to be and make the cloud a far stricter more robust arrangement to advantage of commercial, financial, purchasing, ... sectors and even the most naive of naive users?
The bottom line
Is that all governments dislike dissent, and the Internet has provided dissenters relatively easy assess to the public and to each other. The Obama Administration is no different. It wants to muzzle the opposition, and censoring the Internet is the easiest way to do that given the road to extinction that newspapers are going down.
“We must take rules more seriously.”
Read as: “We must tax rules more seriously.”
Look for a promise of faster internet for everyone, collection of sales tax on all inter-state sales, taxes on fiber lines and high speed connections (those cadillac internet plans). A HIPA for the internet, where only gov can sue or fine for violations. Lots paperwork and higher costs for providers and ecom sites.
Comcast, ATT, Verizon, Google, MS, Amazon, etc will welcome these changes (they will help write the rules), as it will raise the cost of entry for small companies that may rise up and put them out of business.
Lot of the word 'we' in that sentence...
"As we at NTIA approach a wide range of Internet policy issues, we take the view that we are now in the third generation of Internet policy making."
Maybe he should've said "US". Or, U.S. (Yeah, I know it's _N_tia, but a bit of sublety wouldn't hurt. Oh, forgot.)
So does this mean they will try to stop the torrent of spam that originates in the US.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that more comes from USA than from China!!!
Sadly, the US seems to see spam as legitimate marketing, which helps to show why so many americans click on the links they get in their email. (not that i am excusing any other idiots for that stupidity).
from transition to commercialization, from the garage to Main Street, and now, starting in 2010, the multinational corporation.
When to start fighting the bastards?
This may well be the line I won't let them cross without more opposition than I will discuss in a public forum. The Internet is the only anti-authoritarian mechanism we have, and it is a damned good one as it exists today. The government spokesvermin will naturally downplay this aspect and instead stoke the fires of fear where (a) there is not all that much danger, and (b) where the present state of affairs handles things quite well especially when compared to the universally awful cock-ups that come from government.
And don't you just love that word "governance?" It sounds so wholesome and civilized. But what it means is "control" and make no mistake about that. Governments world-wide, and their (QUA)NGO crypto-governmental institutions are very, very unhappy that there is an extremely popular and effective channel of communication that they cannot fsck with as they see fit to further their own totalitarian ends.
I thought for a moment about posting this anonymously, but no. This is not the time to wimp out.
Do. not. Want.
Meet The New Boss....
Not. Surprising. At All. It's the Chicago Way.
More government control means more bureaucracy, more bureaucracy means being able to give more of your friends and supporters those high-priced government contracts & do-nothing jobs.
A title is required by US Internet Standards § 137
Freedom on the internet. It was nice while it lasted. Alright I know they're not going to be imposing global censorship any time soon, but I can't help feeling like this could be the beginning of the end.
Mostly because I am absolutely amazed the Internet has thus far been nearly free of large-scale meddling by either corporations of government. It's not perfect, but why mess with a good thing?
Is this good or bad.
I can't quite make my mind up.
There needs to be law enforcement. ISPs in the US (and UK) are absolutely out of their minds, monitoring private/confidential communications, thieving intellectual property, and compelling users toward encryption.
On the other hand, every ham fisted intervention by western politicians turns out to be a fascist's wet dream... involving content filtering, yet more population surveillance, and restrictions on freedom of speech/freedom of expression.
Hey, we need a web 3.0 icon now.
/!\ "Web 3.0: Citizens of the web, Government forces from neighboring democratic nations and the United States have arrived on the web to protect lives and restore order. Your co-operation will ensure that peace and democracy are restored in the near future..."
If truth be know it's all about the fact that governments are shit scared of free speech and a population that can think independently and openly question their lies and cover ups.
In the UK...
"In the UK, the land where people are guilty until proven innocent, the Digital Economy Bill currently making its way through Parliament has been the subject of significant controversy for advocating strict rules on copyright infringement and threatening to ban people from the internet if they are ACCUSED OF doing so."
There, fixed it for you.
Even worse, Clinton and Bush both left the Internet alone. Obama wants to control it and you. It's just another symptom of the Europization of the US and the world. High unemployment and high taxes for everyone!
Back to zines ...
.. and store & forward dial-up networks to get actual information out to the masses.
It was a pleasure to know ye.
Not news :
2008 From here : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/14/kentucky_domain_name_grab_amicus/
2006, from here :
What fucking "leave the internets alone" policy are you talking about?
In a couple of years time we'll be wishing we had Bush back
I already do
I started missing Bush before the end of his second term. As bad as he was (and he was baaa-aad), I knew he was worlds better than Obama / McCain / Hillary. About all we can hope for right now is that the Republicans can clean up whatever mess Obama and the rest of the liberals make after the next election. And no, I'm not optimistic about it either. The Obama government can't manage a corner lemonade stand. They certainly do not need to be screwing around with the Internet.
Internet not fit for purpose
"internet old hands will still decry the loss of a policy that made the network what it is today."
You mean an insecure, unfit-for-purpose vulnerability-ridden pile of crap that will become even more of a haven for criminals and botnets?
Yes, that should be preserved at all costs. Government should not intervene. Just let everything take its natural course.
Don't worry, the market (i.e., all the bot herders and other powerful commercial interests) will take over and make the 'net a better place for us all. You'll thank them later. Down with government intervention in free markets! Damn commie capitalism-destroying Democrats, trying to regulate everything and ruin the world with their meddling.
Full retard attack!
"You mean an insecure, unfit-for-purpose vulnerability-ridden pile of crap that will become even more of a haven for criminals and botnets?"
Well, if government had been on the case since the beginning, we would all be looking at horrendously expensive X.25 connections at 9600 bps given to select citizens only. And no encryption for you, no sir.
Yes, your VISA shopping spree over telnet to the Single Mandated Storefront will certainly be secure.
Have a nice day.
Taming the wild child
Is your child impossible to control? Have you tried time-out, behavior modification, therapy, medication, all to no avail? If so, you need to read Taming the Wild Child. Psychoanalyst Aaron Lederer has devoted his entire professional life to developing ways for mothers to rescue their out-of-control children. He calls his method "corrective communication" and says, "If you want to change a child, just change the way you communicate with him." In Taming the Wild Child, you will discover how mothers use Lederer's corrective communication to bring about dramatic improvement in their children within just four to six weeks. After a few months, their children typically turn completely around. When you apply these techniques, you will see: -Why your child needs some time free of pressure to change. -Why punishing backfires and rewarding fails. -How to talk to your child in ways that make him want to cooperate. -How to get your child to assist in his own recovery. Inspiring and motivating, Taming the Wild Child is filled with real-life examples of harrowing experiences and amazing transformations that will give you the hope and the confidence you need to bring your own lost child home.
Not another metaphor to go with all the others, it's a quote from some "Trick--cyclists" book. But, I do think the internet has become everyones wild child.
It doesn't do anyone any good to run around continually feral, and that IS what has happened to the internet. What started off as an academic network has turned/is turning into the wild west of Americas not so distant past.
Move on in there, Marshall Obama, and get it cleaned up for the rest of decent like minded folk. Except can we keep all the really good titillating bad bits and just get rid of the bad, bad bits.
Any Bounty rewards out there for the independents?
If you don't like the internet
…then don't use it.
But that's not what people like you want is it.
If you have no need for something then none of us do.
Stop trying to impose your values on the rest of society.
The Intellectual Giants Are Gathering
"that was then and this is now..."
You can't beat a well considered and thoughtfully presented argument.
is there anything as easy to exploit as exploited children?
Give the President and Congress 301 status.
They most certainly have the worst (not best) in mind. They require back doors to everything they can, already... The are hostile to free enterprise (Capitalism for those in Roma Linda)... They are the ones that passed the laws (actually overturned one by passing another) that is the Main Cause of the current financial crisis (thank you Dodd Pelosi Franks and Bubba Bill), and with their cohorts in the international arena, the setting up of the Global Warming scheme to do otherwise (yes, I am a conservative. Not a left wing wacko that doesn't know what a nazi really was).
Now to control the internet.... That is the biggest communication they have not been supported by. The MHM (meat head media) in the US has stonewalled all the real facts about them...
They have to stop the internet... or they can not pull any more shenanigans, while shielded by the (losing control and going tit up unless they can get bailout money) media.
They, like other liberal governments, such as Communist Russia, China, N. Korea, Sadam's Iraq. Hitler's Germany....
.... Can Not Survive a Free Communication System Open to the Free Exchange of Ideas.
I know that both sides use the internet. I disagree with the other side, but don't want it shut down.... I would like to see it die from lack of recognition for not having valid output. Unlike they, who want no voice of opposition.
"They, like other liberal governments, such as Communist Russia, China, N. Korea, Sadam's Iraq. Hitler's Germany...."
To the Anonymous Coward Mr. Herp Derp
Look up the meaning of Socialist and Liberal...
Look up the translated meaning of the words the initial N.A.Z.I. stand for...
Look up the first stage of government under Communism... as described by Marx, Engles, Stalin, etc.
All are known by those not blinded by lack of education (as in real learning, not that taught by our current school system, in general, and most definitely not by the less than truthful MHM.)
BTW - I often have to go to the British media to find news which will not appear in the MHM for days, weeks or months, if at all. I can find anti-liberal news in even the most pro-liberal media there, never found in the MHM in America.
You might also really look into our US Constitution, to see where none of what they are proposing is allowed, by the very document that all of them have derided, said was not adequate, and have (especially in Obama's case, specifically stated) would change ...
But, which they swore (with their fingers crossed) to protect and defend...
Don't believe me...
LOOK IT UP IN REPUTABLE SOURCES...
(moveon.org, huffington, NY Times, The alphabet networks etc...do not qualify)
I must admit to being torn between a nice, well behaved 'web and an anything goes web and I wonder if there is a need for both to exist side by side?
Then I wonder what was in the mind and motivation of those founding peoples that set principles of anything goes on the 'net way back when.
Was it purely an observational choice? Let's see how the technology is adapted by the variety of masses out there? Possibly with a model correcting observation-feedback corrective twitch to follow through with?
Or maybe the naive technical/commercial considerations of freedom became surpassed with deeper concepts of freedom? (The freedom to create any content is also the freedom to be conned, phished, spammed, pwned, ... ?)
So, does the concept to make purchases freely without fear of fraud (or too much of it) square equally with the freedom to be defrauded?
The only sort of naive observation I reach at the moment is to observe that there may be need for both models (free - anything goes, free - unless one fouls standards but not of an AOL model of free-ness).
Once alluded to:
web as student bar at college
web as tea shop at Harrods
but maybe these are not exclusive ORs and both need to exist at the same time but it is up to me what one I wish to access and when?
one word ...
(actually had to add this line as posting gave "The post is required, and must contain letters.")
Protect the children, from being used as an excuse to chain freedom. If the argument has devolved to, "its for our children," that means that there is no viable argument to be made. Protecting children has lead to:
- The Drug War (Because we just didn't get beat up enough in Vietnam)
- Smoking prohibition (gettin there)
- Getting a DUI for .08 - really - 2 beers. Cmon.
- Those dirty dirty movies and TV shows.
- Those dirty dirty video games, that make murderers.
- Gambling prohibition - poker is evil.
- Child safety seats. Yes, a plastic chair will keep you alive from a head-on at 80, really.
- Diving boards. WTF?
I could go on and on. It's just silly.
Tax 'em all...
and let Dog sort the souls.
The imminent demise of the Internet
Yeah, at the moment the Internet is on life support and the governments of the world are debating "when" to switch off the Machine not "if".
If you value your freedom then lobby your MP now, the Digital Economy Bill is evil incarnate.
AC, but why bother because everything is being monitored anyway.
time to move on, then
I see the idea that this all has to be regulated, and don't necessarily agree. I appreciate the internet from its non-financial side, as a collector and distributor of information. But the smell of money attracts predators. There isn't much difference between spammers, phormers and pfischers, they are just carpetbaggers trying to skim a living . The likely outcome of regulation as foreseen (each country in its own way, of course) is that new sub-criminal activities will become the domain of big business, like BT in the UK*.
However, companies have intranets, and can keep them safe. Where is the enterprise offering a similarly secure parallel net, encrypted, on wi-fi? Ditto for a system, decoupled, please, for safe financial transactions. Then we can all get on with post-internet life, for a price. Ah well, the internet was not for free, either.
* they are okay here in Switzerland, where they don't have a bagging division, and have to compete.
Disconect your internet connection now
If you want to stop this now is the time. Stop using the internet, at least at home. I know its quicker but do you need it? Start telling authoraties to shove it we want paper, at least at home and businesses will follow. You have all the power but those in authoraty think they have the power to keep you in slavery, so tell them no, no more crap no more internet. If they get told no by enough people they will have to listern. If you refuse to do business online businesses will have to listern and they will start to pull internet support. The thing is to get organised. If you dowt this will happen look at what happened when thousands of Londons motor bikers came together on NoToBikeParkingFees.com. Don't forget a lot of people have internet access at work so they could drop it at home and save a bundel of cash!
What is this "internet" of which you speak?
Define your terms, please. *Then* we can argue about whether "it" ever really existed, whether it was important, and whether it is now going away.
It has always been possible to run your own network and manage it however you like. IPv4 made it possible to connect your network to someone else's and run agreed protocols over both. That, too, is still possible with suitable protocol agreements between you and the target network and suitable operating agreements with those intermediates who carry the traffic.
What *appears* to be at risk now is that some of the other parties are no longer prepared to give a free ride to your traffic if you are a crook, or refuse to distinguish yourself from such. That latter point seems to have put the wind up the "live free or die" brigade who regard everyone else's property as theft and their own property as a divine right. Meanwhile back in the real world, normal people can see real benefits to the internet if only it would ditch its "wild west" ethos and allow itself to be governed by laws the same as any other aspect of life.
At least the US authorities appear to be coming round to the idea that they only have jurisdiction over "their" bit. All that remains now is to have a sensible discussion about which is "their" bit.