Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers

[kimmielittle]

     **             Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers         **

                       Sunday, 31 Jan 2010 06:41 PM         
                  Article Font Size  [                 http://newsmax.com/App_Themes/NewsmaxVideo/Images/plus.jpg](http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:increaseFontSize%28%29;)              [                 http://newsmax.com/App_Themes/NewsmaxVideo/Images/minus.jpg](http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:decreaseFontSize%28%29;)         
 
      
                       **By: Bradley A. Blakeman**
                        Without the ingenuity of America’s brightest minds and the investment of U.S. taxpayer dollars, there would be no Internet, as we now know it today.

Now, the Obama administration has moved quietly to cede control of the Web from the United States to foreign powers.

Some background: The Internet came into being because of the genius work of Americans Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr. Vinton G. Cerf. These men, while working for the Department of Defense in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the early 1970s, conceived, designed, and implemented the idea of “open-architecture networking.”

This breakthrough in connectivity and networking was the birth of the Internet.

These two gentlemen had the vision and the bra(name removed by moderator)ower to create a worldwide computer Internet communications network that forever changed the world and how we communicate in it.

MORE…newsmax.com/Headline/obama-internet-iana-united/2010/01/31/id/348514?s=al&promo_code=967E-1

 

[Monte_RCMS]

For a variety of technical reasons, most internet communications pass through the United States. As a result it is relatively easy for the United States intelligence agencies to monitor terrorist communications.

In addition, foreign intelligence agencies have set up locations within the United States to also monitor internet communications.

By turning control of the internet to foreign powers, U.S. monitoring of terrorist communications is hampered.

There are also news reports of foreign countries launching cyber attacks on the U.S. military and other targets of interest including utility SCADA systems. The op report would suggest our vulnerability is being increased instead of enhancing our security.

 

[curlycool89]

I don’t see what the problem is. This sounds like a good thing to me.

The article was basically just another “we’re America therefore we’re better” patriotic rant.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t see what the problem is. This sounds like a good thing to me.

The article was basically just another “we’re America therefore we’re better” patriotic rant.

I’m sure we won’t be hearing Obama go on any patriotic rants.

This seems a shame to me, really. International organizations seem to be leftist in general and very much inclined to restrict freedoms of all kinds. What this will likely mean is the politicization of the internet. If, say, China can’t tolerate freedom of expression, or if Islamic states can’t tolerate expressions they think demean Islam, then there will be pressure to limit or filter that awful “free speech” that those Americans seem to think valuable for some reason.

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t see what the problem is. This sounds like a good thing to me.

The article was basically just another “we’re America therefore we’re better” patriotic rant.

Hiyas
Could you name the “good things”, please?

Albeit: It is an American invention The Internet ]…it was shared with the World. Canadians enjoy it freely.

If I’m to have a Big Brother …wouldn’t I want it local? Internationally…how do you stop the Pachauri’s? He took over the IPCC ]

BTW: this isn’t an an American against Canadian issue…Canadian security is tied to American security and visa versa - like it or not

As always, just my thoughts

 

[Elizium23]

This article is unreasonably alarmist and rather lacking in true background information. What we know today as “The Internet” bears little resemblance to the ARPAnet which a few scientists founded 40 years ago. And the USA has not had “control” over the Internet since the 1990s.

The framework which sustains the Internet was developed by a consortium known as the Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF. It began as a group of 21 researchers funded by the US Government. However, during the early 1990s the IETF changed institutional form from an activity of the U.S. government to an independent, international activity associated with the Internet Society. Meanwhile, the day-to-day operations of the Internet were being transitioned from the US government-funded NSFNET to a group of commercial/privatized networks, the backbone happened to be run by Sprint Communications.

By 1995, the portion of the Internet which resided in the United States was mostly liberated from the direct control of the US Government, while some authority was retained, such as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority - and this is where the OP picks up the story. The IANA is the thing that will transition to international control, and this has been a long time in the making, I would say you could blame both Clinton and Bush for this as well.

It is also untrue that most Internet traffic routes through the United States. For technical reasons, this would be very inefficient. Communications travel at slightly less than the speed of light, which means that Australia, for example, has a significant delay in communicating with the USA. If all their communications went through the USA, the lag would be intolerable. No, the Internet is stitched together from every type of network transport known today, and all these links are but single “hops” in a multiple-hop route between two communicating computers or “hosts.”

Personally, as a Roman Catholic, I welcome the international community with an interest in communicating globally, because the Internet still represents the future of communication, and our mission of evangelization calls us to master it just as any other medium for the salvation of the world through Jesus Christ.

 

[Argh]

This article is unreasonably alarmist and rather lacking in true background information. What we know today as “The Internet” bears little resemblance to the ARPAnet which a few scientists founded 40 years ago. And the USA has not had “control” over the Internet since the 1990s.

The framework which sustains the Internet was developed by a consortium known as the Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF. It began as a group of 21 researchers funded by the US Government. However, during the early 1990s the IETF changed institutional form from an activity of the U.S. government to an independent, international activity associated with the Internet Society. Meanwhile, the day-to-day operations of the Internet were being transitioned from the US government-funded NSFNET to a group of commercial/privatized networks, the backbone happened to be run by Sprint Communications.

By 1995, the portion of the Internet which resided in the United States was mostly liberated from the direct control of the US Government, while some authority was retained, such as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority - and this is where the OP picks up the story. The IANA is the thing that will transition to international control, and this has been a long time in the making, I would say you could blame both Clinton and Bush for this as well.

It is also untrue that most Internet traffic routes through the United States. For technical reasons, this would be very inefficient. Communications travel at slightly less than the speed of light, which means that Australia, for example, has a significant delay in communicating with the USA. If all their communications went through the USA, the lag would be intolerable. No, the Internet is stitched together from every type of network transport known today, and all these links are but single “hops” in a multiple-hop route between two communicating computers or “hosts.”

Personally, as a Roman Catholic, I welcome the international community with an interest in communicating globally, because the Internet still represents the future of communication, and our mission of evangelization calls us to master it just as any other medium for the salvation of the world through Jesus Christ.

/woot

 

[Elizium23]

Sorry for the double-post, but here’s a message from the Holy Father.

 

[kimmielittle]

This article is unreasonably alarmist and rather lacking in true background information. What we know today as “The Internet” bears little resemblance to the ARPAnet which a few scientists founded 40 years ago. And the USA has not had “control” over the Internet since the 1990s.

The framework which sustains the Internet was developed by a consortium known as the Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF. It began as a group of 21 researchers funded by the US Government. However, during the early 1990s the IETF changed institutional form from an activity of the U.S. government to an independent, international activity associated with the Internet Society. Meanwhile, the day-to-day operations of the Internet were being transitioned from the US government-funded NSFNET to a group of commercial/privatized networks, the backbone happened to be run by Sprint Communications.

By 1995, the portion of the Internet which resided in the United States was mostly liberated from the direct control of the US Government, while some authority was retained, such as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority - and this is where the OP picks up the story. The IANA is the thing that will transition to international control, and this has been a long time in the making, I would say you could blame both Clinton and Bush for this as well.

It is also untrue that most Internet traffic routes through the United States. For technical reasons, this would be very inefficient. Communications travel at slightly less than the speed of light, which means that Australia, for example, has a significant delay in communicating with the USA. If all their communications went through the USA, the lag would be intolerable. No, the Internet is stitched together from every type of network transport known today, and all these links are but single “hops” in a multiple-hop route between two communicating computers or “hosts.”

Personally, as a Roman Catholic, I welcome the international community with an interest in communicating globally, because the Internet still represents the future of communication, and our mission of evangelization calls us to master it just as any other medium for the salvation of the world through Jesus Christ.

Hiyas

thank you for this information. I was hoping some IT …or someone, could help explain it.

So…just what are the changes, please?

Will they hurt security?

 

[kimmielittle]

Sorry for the double-post, but here’s a message from the Holy Father.

No problem about posting

BTW Welcome to CFA

 

[RobbyS]

I don’t see what the problem is. This sounds like a good thing to me.

The article was basically just another “we’re America therefore we’re better” patriotic rant.

What makes you think that any other country would allow this? Obama is internationalist rather than American in his thinking. So are many of our elites. But if globalism is passe, power politics is not. If we give away our advantages, we may never get it back.

 

[curlycool89]

Hiyas
Could you name the “good things”, please?

Albeit: It is an American invention The Internet ]…it was shared with the World. Canadians enjoy it freely.

If I’m to have a Big Brother …wouldn’t I want it local? Internationally…how do you stop the Pachauri’s? He took over the IPCC ]

BTW: this isn’t an an American against Canadian issue…Canadian security is tied to American security and visa versa - like it or not

As always, just my thoughts

Oh, I’m not trying to make it into an American/Canadian thing. I’m just saying I think it would be better for the internet if there’s less government departments close to it. Obviously someone needs to look after things like IP address assignments and registrars and all that, but I think it would be better if it passes into a third party instead of being controlled by the Commerce Department.

What I was saying is that the article does not present anything about this being bad. It just said that “America is loosing control of the internet” and goes by the assumption that this is a bad thing. So it came off more as an illogical patriotic rant about how America has the right to control the internet.

As for the “invention”, I believe it was the government that did it, so in the US (if I remember right) the protocol and implementation information automatically passes into the public domain. It is not restricted at all. Actually if you know how to read it, you can find all the code needed (freely, it is open source) to create your own intranet if you wanted to.

 

[rossum]

Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers

OK, so if you get to keep control of the Internet because it is American then we want control of all the HTML on the Internet because HTML is British, thanks to Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

Oh yes, and you had better start learning Navaho pretty quickly because I am sure you remember who invented the English language - we want that back as well.

rossum

 

[kimmielittle]

OK, so if you get to keep control of the Internet because it is American then we want control of all the HTML on the Internet because HTML is British, thanks to Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

Oh yes, and you had better start learning Navaho pretty quickly because I am sure you remember who invented the English language - we want that back as well.

rossum

Yes, you gave us Protestants too

 

[kimmielittle]

OK, so if you get to keep control of the Internet because it is American then we want control of all the HTML on the Internet because HTML is British, thanks to Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

Oh yes, and you had better start learning Navaho pretty quickly because I am sure you remember who invented the English language - we want that back as well.

rossum

Your Buddhist charity is showing

 

[Ridgerunner]

OK, so if you get to keep control of the Internet because it is American then we want control of all the HTML on the Internet because HTML is British, thanks to Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

Oh yes, and you had better start learning Navaho pretty quickly because I am sure you remember who invented the English language - we want that back as well.

rossum

Hmmm. So are you going to give about 1/3 of it back to the French? Let’s see, nobody speaks Latin anymore but the Finnish broadcasters, so are all the Latin-derived words going to go back to them? Maybe the Italians would be close enough.There aren’t so many to give back to the Danes, but maybe you could at least give them all the “sk” words back. Well, then, there’s that pesky “algebra”, yes, and “sugar”. Where will it all end?

 

[rossum]

Hmmm. So are you going to give about 1/3 of it back to the French? Let’s see, nobody speaks Latin anymore but the Finnish broadcasters, so are all the Latin-derived words going to go back to them? Maybe the Italians would be close enough.There aren’t so many to give back to the Danes, but maybe you could at least give them all the “sk” words back. Well, then, there’s that pesky “algebra”, yes, and “sugar”. Where will it all end?

Algebra goes to Arabia along with Zenith, Nadir, Algorithm, Alchemy and a whole load of Al… words. The US can keep Tomahawk and Teepee while the Canadians will get Anorak, Kayak and Igloo. If we are feeling kind the US can keep Thru and Color, and all those -ize words, but we get to keep the -ise versions. We can solve the to-MAH-to versus to-MAY-to dispute by sending Tomato back to Peru.

rossum

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You know you are all wrong about the internet.

Al Gore said HE invented it.