Carpe status quo
The current system is working fine.
As it is now, it is impossible for any government entity to waltz in and shut down websites, DNS, access to payment services, or take away domain names without reasonable due process.
Oh, wait.
New UN committee could hand governments internet control
The endgame in the long-running battle over who is to control the internet may be upon us, with the appointment of a little-reported but highly significant new UN committee to look into initiatives for policing the internet. This follows the decision at the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) 2010- …
-
-
Monday 20th December 2010 15:25 GMT thecakeis(not)alie
You can't stop the signal.
There are already several Wifi Meshnets where I live. Some folk are even working on an information-scattering approach. Establishing multiple meshnets at different frequencies, and then requiring an "intelligent" network stack behind it. Packet 1 goes on to meshnet 1, packet 2 goes onto meshnet 2, etc.
It's all early days for this stuff, but should the excrement hit the rotating air circulation device, I fully expect interconnected meshnets to spring up like weeds to replace the now-defunct government controlled, monitored and censored internet.
-
-
Monday 20th December 2010 15:25 GMT Gannon (J.) Dick
Vested Intrests ?
Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf stated: "The beauty of the Internet is that it’s not controlled by any one group. Its governance is bottoms-up [sic] — with academics, non-profits, companies and governments all working to improve this technological wonder of the modern world.
"This model has not only made the Internet very open - a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere - it's also prevented vested interests from taking control.
========================
Pooh, I say.
Governance of what, by whom ? The identity of the "vested interests" who want control is clear from the list. Vint does not like to pay taxes; we get it. Neither does Google, and therein lies the conflict. Shame on the Reg for promoting anarchy in the guise of freedom.
-
-
Tuesday 21st December 2010 00:37 GMT Yes Me
Shame?
"Shame on the Reg for promoting anarchy in the guise of freedom."
Well, they weren't, and in any case, having civil society represented in a talking shop like the IGF is hardly anarchy; it's an essential check-and-balance on the desires of totalitarian governments.
Er, shame on the Reg for announcing the petition after its target date for signatures...
-
-
Tuesday 21st December 2010 11:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
oh, you see its worth now?
I first started using the internet back in 1994. As we should all know, it was a world with very little content. It has now grown into what we have today.
So only now, when governemnts and commerce rely on it, is its freedom being threatened.
Typical, get the masses involved and the whole thing must change for the few.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
