US Controls Internet

[coda]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111705H.shtml

[norwegian commie]

most definetly!
i personnaly belive thay have a finger inn everything, espesially internet.
This web page and a lott of other leftie sites are probably looked over by some cia or something.
American intell is sick stuff!

its cracy, they even had lots of agents spying on all norwegian communists during the cold war. My entire family have been watched by agents.
When trying to get job the employers recieved a letter saying they were commies and hippies.

This aint even bullshit, they got busted for doing illegal spying, a man i know where watched since he was 11 years old! Thats sick, what the hell is he going to do? This is based on rapports the gouverment was forced to give to the ones that wanted, by the timeline of a few years.
Sencored of course :angry:

[coda]

Hell yeah!!!!!!! oh I think they are trying to disperse revolutionary activity over the net. No other time in history has people all over the globe been able to simutaneously plan massive protests around the world against the US on a minutes notice and I know they want to crush it.
I got an email from my IP server the other day notifying me that my internet service access numbers may not be local at all but long distance charges. fuckers!!!!!

UNITE!

[Ownthink]

One of the last bastions of true free speech, America now controls entirely. Fucking great.

What a surprise, eh?

[Creature]

I believe America likes to think they controll the internet. If they are watching, let them, theres not much that they can do about it.

[TheComrade]

Don't they have administitive controls over all servers? Don't think that actually means anything but I heard that the rest of the world wants America to share the power (or at least let say france have control over .fr spain over .es etc etc)

[tatu]

US wins right to keep internet control after warning of censorship risks

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 17 November 2005

The US government has won its battle to retain control of the internet, under a compromise worked out ahead of this week's United Nations summit on the information society, which leaves the current addressing and traffic direction system intact.

Under the deal, an international forum, under UN auspices, will be set up to examine Net issues. But day-to-day management of the internet will remain with the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), a part-private, part-public body that reports to the department of commerce in Washington.

The controversy, pitting the US against a group of countries which want the UN to have supervision of the internet, had threatened to derail the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) that opened in Tunis yesterday. The conference, attended by 170 countries, will now be free to concentrate on its original goal of fostering a genuinely world-wide information society, under which the internet would be available to all by 2015.

Currently only 14 per cent of the global population has internet access, compared with 62 per cent in the US.

"The hurdle is more political than financial; the cost of connectivity, computers and mobile phones can be brought down," Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, said in his opening address.

Pointing to the interest of authoritarian countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia in switching to a UN-based system of internet management, US officials had warned that such change would increase the risk of censorship and slow technological improvement.

"We did not change anything on the role of the US government," David Gross, the chief American negotiator, said after agreement was reached. The new intergovernmental forum would have "no oversight authority", he assured, and would create "no problems" for the private sector. The forum will handle cross-border problems like web viruses, cybercrime and spam.

Until recently Icann has operated at arm's length from the US government, on a no-profit basis and with at least four foreign directors on its board. However, fears of a more heavy-handed approach by Washington grew when Christian groups complained to the commerce department about proposals to create a new .xxx domain for pornographic material. The department then wrote to Icann, urging it to consider the objections. In fact the .xxx scheme had already been quietly dropped.

Further change for Icann could be on the way when its statute expires in 2006. The US government wants to privatise it entirely.

The US government has won its battle to retain control of the internet, under a compromise worked out ahead of this week's United Nations summit on the information society, which leaves the current addressing and traffic direction system intact.

Under the deal, an international forum, under UN auspices, will be set up to examine Net issues. But day-to-day management of the internet will remain with the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), a part-private, part-public body that reports to the department of commerce in Washington.

The controversy, pitting the US against a group of countries which want the UN to have supervision of the internet, had threatened to derail the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) that opened in Tunis yesterday. The conference, attended by 170 countries, will now be free to concentrate on its original goal of fostering a genuinely world-wide information society, under which the internet would be available to all by 2015.

Currently only 14 per cent of the global population has internet access, compared with 62 per cent in the US.

"The hurdle is more political than financial; the cost of connectivity, computers and mobile phones can be brought down," Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, said in his opening address.
Pointing to the interest of authoritarian countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia in switching to a UN-based system of internet management, US officials had warned that such change would increase the risk of censorship and slow technological improvement.

"We did not change anything on the role of the US government," David Gross, the chief American negotiator, said after agreement was reached. The new intergovernmental forum would have "no oversight authority", he assured, and would create "no problems" for the private sector. The forum will handle cross-border problems like web viruses, cybercrime and spam.

Until recently Icann has operated at arm's length from the US government, on a no-profit basis and with at least four foreign directors on its board. However, fears of a more heavy-handed approach by Washington grew when Christian groups complained to the commerce department about proposals to create a new .xxx domain for pornographic material. The department then wrote to Icann, urging it to consider the objections. In fact the .xxx scheme had already been quietly dropped.

Further change for Icann could be on the way when its statute expires in 2006. The US government wants to privatise it entirely.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle327531.ece (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327531.ece)

[Stonewall]

Yes, the CIA/FBI/Corporate bastards are out to fuck somebody, I used to frequent www.yellowtimes.org, and was actually a contributor to it during the early days [was an editorial writer for it]. It started growing and had live pictures up from American POWs and soldiers harmed/killed by the war and the company cut Yellow Time's access to the web [the whole site went down] on the grounds that the pictures had blood/body parts/dead soldiers/etc.

If there is an FBI/CIA person scrolling through these forum pages, they can suck my cock.

[Stonewall]

BTW, anyone that wants to see for themselves, google yellow times and see how the yt.org site was pulled and is up for sale....... more info on the fucking censorship can be found @ http://www.unknownnews.net/yt.html

[bolshevik butcher]

While undeniably the U$ has influence over large and well known websites and probably can get websited torn down, how come we're still up? There are lots of anti-U$ websites around, so i dont think that they have complete control over the internet. It would be way to difficult to have ocplete control over.

[Stonewall]

They haven't cause we're not [really] a threat to them, whereas Yellow Times having pictures and photos of dead POWs and troops in Iraq was a threat to them. If one day dissenters become a troubling threat, you can bet your ass this site would get pulled.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, but there are lots of pictures of U$ warcrimes all over the net. And when/if socialists become a threat to america in america then are they gonna bring down every socialsit site?

[Stonewall]

Nah, but the ones that are main causes of gatherings, protests, etc. --- like if ANSWER really became a viable threat, I could see them pulling ANSWER off the net & the WWP that backs it.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, thats pretty plausable. News of protests would still get out though. They cannot silence us completely.

[Stonewall]

Yeah, they can't ban cell phones =)

[bolshevik butcher]

Or leftists form speaking........ yet.

[TheComrade]

Its a total abuse of free speech. I mean to 'pull a website down' is equal to - if not worse - than what Hitler (and the Popes') did (and still do) with books. Solid cause for a revolution if that beings to happen!

[coda]

Here's another inter-related story-- Bush's control on freedom of the Press, speech and Independent journalism.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1118-21.htm

[bolshevik butcher]

The internet is a great form of speech still, I gather most of my leftist news of teh internet. I first became aware of real arxmism via the internet. I joined a socialist organization really beacuse of the net. My journey into leftist has been hugely helped by the internet.

While imperialist governments undoubtly have a large influence to say they have total control would be an exageration. The internet is simply too big too cokpletly regulate.

[sfliberty]

We need to have the internet in the hands of a PRIVATE company who won't divulge information to the government. We don't want the gov't, any gov't involved at all with the internet.

[Stonewall]

Yeah, in this case, privatization could be a good thing, but the U.S. Gov. could still regulate it and make the company comply [just like CNN has to comply with the gov.].

[bolshevik butcher]

Why are you so niaeve? The U$ is already run by private companies. The U$ government is basically a coalition of private companies already.

[Janus]

[QUOTE]The internet is simply too big too cokpletly regulate.

Of course the entire internet is too complex and large to regulate but imagine the resources of the government. If they're willing to spend billions of dollars spying on every suspected communist, wouldn't they put the same amount of effort into controlling the internet if they really wanted to? After all, is it too hard to imagine the US government ignoring the rights of its fellow citizens in order to achieve its own ends? Look at the Patriot Act and the massive internments that occured right after 9/11.

[bolshevik butcher]

Every suspected communist? I mean while no doubt some of the more active commuists and organizations have files are you seriously suggesting the cia is watching us all right now?