Surrendering the Superhighway –Seth Mandel
We owe a debt of gratitude to Bangladeshi dissident Salah Uddin Shoaib
Choudhury [pictured right], and many other[s], who have been able to, despite attempts to silence them, make important information public at great personal risk -- often using the Internet as their only line of communication with the outside world.
One way the United States has aided journalists like Choudhury in the past has been by simply retaining control over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the nonprofit body that oversees and regulates Internet domain name registration, ensuring such voices weren't denied access to the World Wide Web.
The U.S. Commerce Department had control over ICANN and held veto power on its decisions to award domain names, but stayed away from any real involvement. America's veto power prevented despotic regimes and Islamic overlords from trying to prevent organizations they didn't like from registering domain names.
[T]he Internet flourished under America's watch, and the free flow of information enabled people like Choudhury to reach millions. It also prevented the world from taking punitive action against Israel, since the U.S. would never allow, for example, Israel to be stripped of its national Internet domain address (.il).
Until now.
"ICANN had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the [Internet] thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together," explained the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, in a story titled "U.S. relinquishes control of the Internet".
America had control until Sept. 30, when the Obama administration announced it was ceding that control to a more "international" forum. How, then, will decisions be made going forward? Who will have control, and how will it all function?
The Guardian adds:
"[This] will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens -- opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the Internet."
Unfortunately, you know just how a "virtual United Nations" would rule. [W]e've surrendered the [internet to] the World Wide Web version of the United Nations.
We know what what the internationalization of the Internet means. It means the Choudhury’s of the world will be far less of a threat to their regimes. After all, in the last couple of years Russia has led "cyber-attacks" against its enemies in Georgia and Estonia, two post-Soviet democracies. Now it won't have to go through all that trouble.
The ICANN decision means the enemies of freedom can far more acutely silence the voices of opposition. But it also means [that dissidents who] don't have the free speech rights Americans enjoy, [will no longer have] America’s protect[ion].
A "virtual United Nations" is a nightmare.
[The Jewish State]
*
We owe a debt of gratitude to Bangladeshi dissident Salah Uddin Shoaib
Choudhury [pictured right], and many other[s], who have been able to, despite attempts to silence them, make important information public at great personal risk -- often using the Internet as their only line of communication with the outside world.One way the United States has aided journalists like Choudhury in the past has been by simply retaining control over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the nonprofit body that oversees and regulates Internet domain name registration, ensuring such voices weren't denied access to the World Wide Web.
The U.S. Commerce Department had control over ICANN and held veto power on its decisions to award domain names, but stayed away from any real involvement. America's veto power prevented despotic regimes and Islamic overlords from trying to prevent organizations they didn't like from registering domain names.
[T]he Internet flourished under America's watch, and the free flow of information enabled people like Choudhury to reach millions. It also prevented the world from taking punitive action against Israel, since the U.S. would never allow, for example, Israel to be stripped of its national Internet domain address (.il).
Until now.
"ICANN had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the [Internet] thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together," explained the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, in a story titled "U.S. relinquishes control of the Internet".
America had control until Sept. 30, when the Obama administration announced it was ceding that control to a more "international" forum. How, then, will decisions be made going forward? Who will have control, and how will it all function?
The Guardian adds:
"[This] will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens -- opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the Internet."
Unfortunately, you know just how a "virtual United Nations" would rule. [W]e've surrendered the [internet to] the World Wide Web version of the United Nations.
We know what what the internationalization of the Internet means. It means the Choudhury’s of the world will be far less of a threat to their regimes. After all, in the last couple of years Russia has led "cyber-attacks" against its enemies in Georgia and Estonia, two post-Soviet democracies. Now it won't have to go through all that trouble.
The ICANN decision means the enemies of freedom can far more acutely silence the voices of opposition. But it also means [that dissidents who] don't have the free speech rights Americans enjoy, [will no longer have] America’s protect[ion].
A "virtual United Nations" is a nightmare.
[The Jewish State]
*
2 comments:
Very troubling and potentially a disaster, but does not have to be. It can be made to run much better than the UN---if set up properly.
True. I confess this one surprised me...I know little about the politics of the fabric of the internet. I hope you are correct and that Mandel's fears are unwarranted.
The dissident he mentions is touring around the US, hoping his doing so protects him when he returns to his country. I believe he's speaking @ Rutgers University soon.
Bruce :}
Post a Comment