PDA

View Full Version : Beware a 'Digital Munich'


MacBytes
Nov 7, 2005, 10:30 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Beware a 'Digital Munich' (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051107233017)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Mr. Anderson
Nov 7, 2005, 10:41 PM
Ouch - that's a bit scary. But what I don't understand is who exactly is pulling the strings here. It sounds to me that someone has an agenda, but its not the governments - its a little confusing an also very scary.

Like the old saying - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

D

ki-goi
Nov 7, 2005, 11:44 PM
it's an opinion piece written by a politician who apparently from the title of the article thinks neo-nazis are behind the whole thing. another day, another stupid, callous reference to hitler. internet domains are the same as the holocaust folks! first they came for .com and i said nothing, then for .edu... then they came for .me ...

840quadra
Nov 7, 2005, 11:50 PM
Can you imagine a world war over the internet?

If this were true, this could be a serious issue, as many peoples lives and jobs now depend on the internet.

The WORLD freedom of speech on the Internet is a powerful tool that seems to help bring people together that never would have met, or possibly got along with each-other. Making the Internet a government owned, censored, and operated entity would be a bad move!

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1127904880&type=profile

Nermal
Nov 8, 2005, 12:11 AM
Nobody owns the Internet now, so I don't see how anyone could possibly take it over. They'd probably have to take over every ISP on the planet to do so :rolleyes:

840quadra
Nov 8, 2005, 12:29 AM
Nobody owns the Internet now, so I don't see how anyone could possibly take it over. They'd probably have to take over every ISP on the planet to do so :rolleyes:

Agreed, however my post was more of a conjecture as opposed to actually put credibility into the actual article.

Just typing out-loud :)

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1127904880&type=profile

dontmatter
Nov 8, 2005, 12:49 AM
He does much to say that the internet should not be in the faulted body of the UN, but... let's pick- faulted body that represents all governments on earth... or faulted body that represents one? And one, I might add, that is PLENTY faulted, such that it ammounts to representing (or misrepresenting) the entire world, vs. representing (or mis) one hubristic nation.

hmm.

combatcolin
Nov 8, 2005, 04:43 AM
"Mr. Coleman is a Republican senator from Minnesota."

Says it all really.

Right wing nutters like him must wake up every morning hoping that today is the day that we can nuke Russia.

whooleytoo
Nov 8, 2005, 06:35 AM
"Mr. Coleman is a Republican senator from Minnesota."

Says it all really.

Right wing nutters like him must wake up every morning hoping that today is the day that we can nuke Russia.

Funny, I thought that was the most informative line too! I'm surprised he blames the Europeans, I was sure he'd blame the Commies..;)

Cheap, hyperbolic scare-mongering on his part, and nothing more.

gwuMACaddict
Nov 8, 2005, 07:08 AM
Considering this is coming from the WSJ, I don't give it much weight.

could you explain? i thought that the WSJ was a widely respected paper?

EricBrian
Nov 8, 2005, 07:18 AM
Uhm, people, that is the Wall Street Journal.... They report with total disregard for the truth. So, wait for some credible news papers to report on it to get a clearer picture.


EDIT: Ooops. Didn't see that MontyZ already pointed out the fact that WSJ lies too much to be trusted.

b.k.jackson
Nov 8, 2005, 07:30 AM
I guess I have a dissenting opinion from most of you.

Although it's hard to argue with points like "right wing nutter", here goes </sarcasm>

I believe the main point of the argument is that ICANN currently allows for free flow of information, because it is not beholden to any political view - it is being privatized for exactly that reason.

The reason this could be a problem is the classic "it's my ball and I'm going home" - whole sections of the Internet could dissapear for political reasons that might not reflect the will of the whole. i.e.; the TLD for China dissapears for hours or days or *never* comes back.

There's more to it than control. Discussion?

gwuMACaddict
Nov 8, 2005, 07:44 AM
i have to agree with b.k. jackson, i definitely see the point of the article... maybe some people need to look past the messenger?

also... why the hate for the WSJ? can anyone provide examples of their "lies"? :confused:

ifjake
Nov 8, 2005, 08:05 AM
i read on Wikipedia once there's a name for when an argument starts playing the hitler/holocaust comparison card. their policy was once that point had been reached the discussion was considered over and otherwise just dumb. i wish i could remember that name.

jobberwacky
Nov 8, 2005, 08:14 AM
This war-mongering nonsense article doesn't really justify being commented on.

It's clearly a non-workable situation with ICANN, which in the end is under US govt command, being the overall control organ of the internet. Of course such an entity needs to be internationalised. And a UN body seems most natural, just as it is the case for e.g. plain old mail service and telephony. And a natural inter-governental body already exists, the International Telecommunication Union.

Of course, for local politics in (much of) the US, it's trendy to be anti-UN and anti-European. But the rest of the world isn't listening.

Gasu E.
Nov 8, 2005, 08:18 AM
Funny, I thought that was the most informative line too! I'm surprised he blames the Europeans, I was sure he'd blame the Commies..;)

Cheap, hyperbolic scare-mongering on his part, and nothing more.


You folks are ignorant.

I am a long time liberal Democrat and follow US politics closely. Norm Coleman is totally middle of the road. Not the slightest bit right wing.

atari1356
Nov 8, 2005, 08:45 AM
Shouldn't this post be under the "Political" forum. Seems more political commentary than news to me. :rolleyes:

whooleytoo
Nov 8, 2005, 09:15 AM
You folks are ignorant.

I am a long time liberal Democrat and follow US politics closely. Norm Coleman is totally middle of the road. Not the slightest bit right wing.


My comment was light-hearted - hence the smiley.

But, I do believe his piece is nonsense.

Comparing this move to Munich is a ridiculous, hysterical opening to his argument. His assumption that this move is motivated by jealousy of the US technological achievements is insulting and ill-founded. (He'd do well to note it was a Brit who 'invented' the Web). And he offers nothing to back up his arguments that somehow UN management of the Internet would foster censorship and political supression.

kewpid
Nov 8, 2005, 03:52 PM
i read on Wikipedia once there's a name for when an argument starts playing the hitler/holocaust comparison card. their policy was once that point had been reached the discussion was considered over and otherwise just dumb. i wish i could remember that name.

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law)