Bush administration annexes control of the Internet

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by feakbeak, Jul 1, 2005.

  1. feakbeak macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #1
    Link to article

    As an American, all I can say is "Damn, we're arrogant."

    Here's an interesting section of the article:

    WTF? I doubt Bush can even spell the word Internet and I'm certain that he has no clue what domain name resolution is about.

    Edit: At some point if the rest of the world rises up to slay us after we continue to pull more of these arrogant and selfish maneuvers please keep in mind that of the half of us who even bother to vote, nearly half of those voters didn't vote for this moron, myself included.
     
  2. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #2
    Need I say more? :rolleyes:
     

    Attached Files:

  3. feakbeak thread starter macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #3
    Great, I live in the second-dumbest blue state. We're not even averaging 100!

    Mississippi has an average of 85. According to a chart I found that is only one point away from being classified as "Borderline Intellectual Functioning". How's that for a state motto?

     
  4. Studawg7 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Location:
    Cville, VA
    #4
    dont politicize, but open the conversation to whats important

    ok, I ll let the "dust" settle on this article. I just read it on cnet and now on here. I am sure others will be reading it soon. I say lets not talk about bush this and bush that or the US is this or the US is that. Open the discussion to whats important:

    What is the difference between US control of root files and some other organization? Would it really make an improvement for anyone, including the US?

    I ll leave my personal comments to myself and I hope everyone else does too.
     
  5. feakbeak thread starter macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #5
    While it was not my intent to have this thread get too politicized I don't feel throwing in my personal opinions towards the current US administration are completely irrelevant to this topic. Under the Bush administration the US has acted more unilaterally in foreign/global affairs. I suppose if the political aspect gets too out of hand this thread could be moved to the political forum.

    This article contains both technical and political ramifications. The root DNS servers are the foundation of the DNS server system that allow internet names such as macrumors.com to be translated into an IP address so that the request can be routed to the correct the server. While many countries have root domains specific to their country such as co.uk for Britain most/all of the large country-independent domains like .com, .net and .org are hosted by these root DNS servers. By maintaining control over these servers the US holds a large amount of power over the internet. These servers could be manipulated to block certain domain names from being resolved properly or if shutdown would really screw up the DNS server system. Since the Internet is a global system used by all countries, it should probably be regulated by an independent organization. I would rather see it regulated by a department of the UN. ICANN has been rather weak in its practical power to police the Internet.

    I'm not expert on how the DNS server system works globally or any of the details on how DNS propagation occurs or what other redundancies are in place that might allow for proper DNS resolution without these root servers. If there are any experts out there please correct me and/or fill in the blanks.
     
  6. EJBasile macrumors 65816

    EJBasile

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    #6
    CT the richest state, with the highest IQs. :)

    (too bad we have so many corrupt government workers though)
     
  7. fox2005 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    #7
    Thats awesome... confirms my allegations... can you give me the source of that info? a link mabe?
     
  8. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #8
    Here's a link to the Snopes.com article that describes this hoax in more detail.
     
  9. anonymous161 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Location:
    Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
    #9
    Doesn't the US already control the root DNS servers? So they would simply be keeping them instead of turning them over to someone else. I don't really see where this is a big issue, we haven't had DNS censorship so far and I don't know why that would change, particularly since ICANN will be in charge of them.
     
  10. feakbeak thread starter macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #10
    You have a point that this isn't like a hostile take over of those servers. However, the US was under agreement to relinquish control in 2006 and now they have just decided it would be best to continue to administer those servers themselves. They didn't ink a new agreement with ICANN. This power was not given to them by ICANN... they just decided that's what is best for the world. While I don't think this is earth-shattering news it is interesting and, IMO, shows some arrogance.
     
  11. anonymous161 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Location:
    Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
    #11
    Okay, I see where you're coming from. Yeah, it does smell a little of "US knows best"
     
  12. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #12
    Either that or a well founded distrust of ICANN.

    No government should control the root DNS servers. Honestly I would like to see no one control all of them. They should be established in a topographically sensible manner and given over groups able to handle them. allow for rolling reallocations every 10 years or so,

    Custodians should be groups like AT&T, AOL, BT, Deutche Telekom, MIT. Either ISPs, Phone Companies or major universities. Microsoft might even make a good choice. The idea is to pick people who have a vested interest in stability and to devolve power from a central location.
     
  13. feakbeak thread starter macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #13
    I completely agree with you. Having the major DNS servers distributed and maintained by several different organizations working together would be the best solution. I find that highly unlikely to occur.

    Although it may not be best for ICANN to run them alone, I find it interesting that they are ignoring the present agreement and instead are doing what they believe is best (retaining the control of these servers themselves) rather than seeking a solution that better suits of the industry and the global community, such as the solution you propose.
     
  14. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    Ha, one of them is in jail tho.
    :)
     
  15. iKwick7 macrumors 65816

    iKwick7

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Location:
    The Wood of Spots, NJ
    #15
    Just like NJ. :)

    I think we (NJ) are only that high because so many people here are foreigners.

    :)
     
  16. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #16
    Wait didnt' AL Gore claim to invent the internet.
    :p
     
  17. feakbeak thread starter macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #17
    Who hasn't created the Internet?
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    That is as true as the chart. Some people never learn though.
     
  19. aloofman macrumors 68020

    aloofman

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Socal
    #19
    The propaganda presentation is more revealing than the actual policy change (or lack of one, rather). Any attempt to more closely regulate the root servers would cause more headaches than it's worth to the government.
     
  20. Royal Pineapple macrumors 65816

    Royal Pineapple

    #20
  21. GodBless macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #21
    I am glad to see the Internet in this government's hands. At least we Republicans will take care of it as we do with all other technology (and all other policies for that matter). ;)

    Al Gore lied. He never made the Internet and he will never have rights to it. Good thing it won't be in his corrupt hands.
     
  22. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #22
    how is he corrupt?
     
  23. GodBless macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #23
    I hope you mean how is he NOT corrupt. It starts with lying and it ends in policies. Anybody who goes for killing unborn children should belong on death row the last place they belong is in office. Mass murder in the US is a lot worse than the minor death that occurs in Iraq. Remember the price of freedom isn't free. Lives will be lost for a good cause. Mark my words.
     
  24. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #24
    I can get a full list of bad things Republicans did in the past. For example

    1) Watergate

    2) Great Depression

    3) The Gilded Age.

    4) Letting their beliefs take control of the actions they took in the Clinton years. Revenge for Watergate.

    Those are the major things that happened when Republicans were in power. But, I would not call all of them corrupt since I am a Democrat and not a Republican. I will not vote for every Democrat that runs. That would be stupid and could lead us to an unbalance of power unlike what we seen so far because we would only vote for the person who is representing the party. Also, just because Gore is a Democrat and you rule Democrats=corrupt,doesn't mean he is corrupt. Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr, Thomas Jefferson, Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, and Taft being republicans doesn't make them corrupt either. Now I am not saying Democrats can't be corrupt. They can be corrupt and so can republicans.

    So our troops are minor deaths? They're disposable? If you take a look of what this country stands for, you can see why Gore supports abortion. This country was based on freedom. Now Freedom does have its limits, but abortion isn't an example. Abortion doesn't infringe on another rights. It is the parents decision to get an abortion or not. The government shouldn't get in their way.
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    So if Bush has killed pregnant women in Iraq, would you support his execution as well?
     

Share This Page