Tenet calls for Internet controls

[theearthisround]

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20041202-115702-4344r

"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," Tenet told an IT security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control."

McNulty agreed that there would have to be "some retreat from the Wild West" concept of the Internet as an ungoverned space.

"It has become such an integral part of people's lives," he argued, "that they will demand from policymakers and legislators the laws and regulations needed to protect it."

Tenet suggested that this might not be enough, arguing that the very technology underlying the Internet was vulnerable because of its open structure. "New attacks have raised questions about the trustworthiness of the Internet and Internet protocol technologies," he said.

He called for industry to lead the way by "establishing and enforcing" security standards. Products needed to be delivered to government and private-sector customers "with a new level of security and risk management already built in."

_______________________

Beware of the scam which Tenet is pushing here! He is alluding to a system called "Internet 2". The same companies which own the main internet hubs (intel etc.) are trying to take over the internet and force people onto their big brother brave new world "internet 2" which is viciously monitored and regulated. This is for our security like the patriot act is for protecting our liberty.


Related

The end of the internet is nigh
http://www.theregister.com/2004/09/28/internet_end_nigh/

"Beware of the End of the World (Wide Web)," Says Intel
http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/feeds/general/2004/09/10/generalcomtex_2004_09_10_ir_0000-5884-KEYWORD.Missing.html

Internet 2 works to reinvent the Web
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/11/internet2/

Internet heads into the super-fast lane
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/3985941.stm

Official Internet 2 Website
http://www.internet2.edu/

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Internet Controls

translates to... shuting down areas that they don't like

[Brundle_Fly]

3. Just like

Iran, Cuba, Iraq (r.i.p.) China,et al.

[Cooley Hurd]

17. I fear the time will come when websites are "framed..."

You know, like if some crazy poster (i.e. psyops toadie) signed on DU and started posting cryptic messages that Agent Mike could interpret as, "possible terrorist communication." Then, the feds come and yank the servers out of the DU batcave as Exhibit "A".

When that happens, we will truly have to go "Underground.":scared:

[KittyWampus]

2. So That's What Junior Meant By "Internets"

[MissB]

4. And here we thought he was just mangling the English language

again.

[DS1]

11. damn! beaten to it two nights in a row!

:D

[Logansquare]

5. "the Wild West must give way to governance and control."

Isn't he talking about the energy companies?

[steely]

6. Aw, c'mon - NO way.

I know they've been talking about it, but for this particular a-hole to come out banging the drum makes me wonder.

And protect us from what exactly - tastless spam or free-minded thinking? Methinks it's the latter.

I'd guess we'd better enjoy it while it lasts. WTF

[merh]

52. Tenet is not one of the admin's favorite sons. Remember

he left (or was he forced out :shrug:). I am hoping that he is pontificating this point of few and adopting this stance so that the admin does the complete opposite. Surely they don't want to follow his advice. :think:

[Deja Q]

7. Tell him to control the Wild West that is corporate america.

Fuck him.

[sakabatou]

8. This frontier cannot be tamed (n/t)

[slaveplanet]

68. wrong you are, sir

[Nordic]

9. when that day comes it will be time to leave the counry

that's when things will get VERY scary, kids

[Flammable Materials]

31. So you're going to wait until it's too late?

By then, you probably won't be able to leave the country.

Remember East Germany?

[DS1]

10. I guess that would explain "internets"

:D

Dumb motherf*cker still doesn't get it :eyes:

[Emillereid]

12. The putrid smell of fascism in the air -- wonder if all those Bush

voters who love their porn will like this move?

[Xithras]

13. The Internet as we know it will be dead in 15 years.

Sorry folks, but the eggheads who designed the architecture and protocols for the Internet over the past few decades never intended it to scale infinitely. As hundreds of millions of new Internet users pour online over the next decade from regions like China and India, the backbones are going to begin to fail because the protocols themselves will cause too much congestion.

Internet2 isn't some big-brotherish new network that they're going to force us onto, it's a research and academic network used to test new hardware for the Internet as we know it. The new hardware researched there will make it into the regular Internet over the next few years until the CURRENT Internet IS Internet2.

The kind of enhancements we'll see from this will include gigabit to the desktop, realtime television quality video broadcasts, the integration of all household communications through a single strand, etc, etc.

The Internet will change, or the Internet will die. There are no other options.

[Jose Diablo]

18. Well it sounds wonderous, but tell me

how exactly will gigabits to the desktop be delivered over lines installed several decades ago, with copper. Or aren't we concerned with the last mile to the home.

As for the protocols failing at higher volumes, why exactly would that happen. I mean an IP is an IP. Are you saying the world will run out of unique IP addresses? I don't know 256 to the 4th power is a very large number. This doesn't even consider subnet masking either.

Or maybe you are saying the routers block and are too slow. Well, I would think the advances with photonics where the coversion from light to electrons and then back to light will be eliminated. Yes, light switchers should eliminate this bottleneck. But this doesn't have squat to do with protocols, this is the physical layer.

Maybe the business and locations close to glass can have that bandwidth, but I doubt residences will.

It doesn't sound like Tenet is concerned with forecasting the volumes and worries about congestion. To me he sounds like he wants more ability to snoop. So all this talk about a bright new future is just plain hogwash in the context of this thread.

You can be sure with the high speed backbone Internet 2, law enforcement will be sure to place their demands for blocking and snooping high on the development priorities. Look at China with their 'special' routers Cisco was pleased to supply them.

You do remember how our security forces demanded all message switching manufactures had to supply equipment that would allow a non-physical monitoring capability beginning in 90. It was easy for them to make this demand, they used the commerce and state department to either allow or disallow competitors to enter out domestic market. No ability to snoop, well sorry, you cannot have an import license. You mean you didn't know that the police could listen in without a warrant even before the patriot act. Yep, they could do it all in DC, didn't even need to do all that messy stuff like going to a judge. Of course the telephone company had no problem with this at all, they never knew.

It was ONLY with the efforts of those 'eggheads' that this network is free. They are the ones that resisted the snooping by the government and it is because of them, that we have an alternative news source. I would be very cautious about claiming the virtues of this wonderous new network our benevolent government wants for us. What they really want is the ability to shut down all dissent and still keep business humming merrily along.

[0007]

30. Sounds like your right on the Jose Diablo -

Are Internet tax laws in the planning? If so will this be the wedge to give government more control? I haven't been keeping up to date on this subject.

[Jose Diablo]

35. No, from what I remember in the latest news

internet taxes are still not contemplated. Congress just extended exemptions recently.

It would make sense that no taxes on the internet, this would be advantages for the corporations.

Starving the beast entails deficits through increased military spending at the fed level, minimizing fed to state/local transfers and raising state/local taxes on individuals to cover the shortages from reduced fed to state transfers. Thus overall killing the federal social spending.

Internet taxes would allow new state income, but some of that income would be derived from corporations. Cannot allow that now can we.

Overall, what we are seeing is a killing of the progressive agenda by the corporations.

We must remove the political power of the corporations.

[Occulus]

Why do you think I keep trying to bring attention to

corporate personhood?

That's the core of many of our problems re corporations in the US (and across the globe). Yank their personhood, give them privileges instead of "rights" (because they're NOT humans and they DON'T deserve rights of any kind) and we'll see some improvements.

[paper chase guy]

57. 256^4 is only 4.2 billion ip addresses

256 ^ 4 is only about 4.2 billion unique ip addresses. Also, the ips aren't allocated evenly between nations, so China has a pool of far fewer unique addresses per person than we do, and is forced to widely use NAT. That's why ipv6 (we currently use ipv4) is in the pipeline, especially considering population growth in the long run, and ideas like internet appliances. Sure, we could use NAT on everything, but this reduces the freedom people have to run servers and such.



Also, my thoughts re:regulations and internet2:

I doubt that internet2 would have anything to do with increased regulations. I'm not an expert, but as far as I can tell internet2 seems to do mostly with the rolling out of ipv6 in coordination with a high speed backbone, with mostly the same players involved in this backbone as the current internet. I don't doubt that the bush administration wishes to increase regulations and monitor all our communications, but internet2 has really nothing to do with it. They could easily do the same on the current internet. But they have the entire rest of the world to contend with.

And anyways, this is why encryption and ideas such as freenet (http://freenet.sourceforge.net /) were invented. I personally think regulating the internet is a futile idea. People will always think of some way around things, as they always have.

[KTM]

67. Hmmm

Gig to the desk can be done now in some locations - end-to-end fiber is present in some metropolitan ares. Improved wireless could theoretically provide gig to the desk (though now is maxed aroun 100mb, these things scale exponentially, and tech in general scales much faster than we imagine.. look where we were 10 years ago !)

IP as you know it now will actually fail - in fact, it was predicted to happen in the near future, as more and more devices become web-aware. Once every cell phone, refrigeator, car, etc demands an IP, those IPs would run out quickly. They have been planning for it for years though, and IPv6 will solve the issue. Thats a 6 octet address instead of a four octet address, I believe - They say with IPv6, there would be enoough addies for every grain of sand to have one, and we'd still be ok.

Otherwise I'd agree - although I dont neccessarily the AIM of Big Brother-esqueness, I'm certain the "new" net will be much more controlled and filtered. It HAS to be - Spam is consuming what, 60% of net bandwith now, and increasing ? But I'm sure O.I.A (isnt that what it was ?) will want to play a role, and you can bet the new net will have its own version of Echelon...

[HamdenRice]

54. The issue isn't technology, but content ...

I don't think anyone objects to technical enhancement and reinvestment in new equipment.

But if you read what they are saying about content, I think the idea is that the internet will be composed of proprietary areas. It's like cattle ranching in the old west -- would people have to fence in? or fence out?

Now, internet users -- businesses, universities, households -- fence out bad content through firewalls and nanny watch type programs. But the internet is full of uncontrolled content.

I think the idea is that businesses and universities will create fenced in content areas all of their own making, and therefore subject to regulation. Then these fenced in areas will join to create the legitimate, regulated internet.

You won't be able to waste hours of time at work posting on DU if that becomes a reality. Heck, if no one within the fence decides to host it, there won't be any DU or http://www.whatreallyhappened.com or for that matter, http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com or http://www.mistresselizabeths.com/introduction.html -- in other words, there won't be websites that don't serve some corporate purpose and that have not been hosted by corporations and approved by regulatory authorities. The internet will be more like watching TV with content provided exclusively by corporate interests and overseen by government.

The internet will be safe for infantilized Christian fundie households ("make the entire internet safe for children" indeed!) and corporate surveilled workplaces.

[sattahipdeep]

56. ya......governing like a corporation

I would say....stuff in corporations roll downhill
which gives us workers a lot to look forward to.

[slaveplanet]

69. poppycock

you've just repeated their mantra , chapter and verse...what a good little propagandameister you are...

[Chimpanzee]

14. When I raised the possibility of them shutting down DU I was laughed at

[cincinnati_liberal]

15. The Thought Police Are Knocking

No one will escape the clutch of the Born Again christian FCC mob. Soon they will have little red arm bands and cute little suspenders while they burn copies of Huatler magazine. While we're at it, why not just castrate us all and make babies in cloning vats and test tubes since sex is only for reproduction. And you may as well start burning women who screw after menopause at the stake. Please god, save me from your followers.

[canadianbeaver]

50. There's a book called "We the Living" - Author Ayn Rand?

Basically the same idea.....There is no I anymore only WE....no individuality allowed and you work for the "government"s needs..

[Poor Richard Lex]

16. Oh so now we need Big Daddy Bush to save us from the internets

gimme a break. They can't control our speech, or our thoughts here and they can't make a buck off of us, it scares them because they have no control.

[genieroze]

38. Besides it may be the INTERNETS that uncovered VoteGate 2004.

[frank frankly]

19. RIP, America. You certainly had your moments!

I did enjoy such novelties as a "middle class" and "representative democracy."

Oh well!

[Massacure]

20. This country is dead.

[frank frankly]

22. it is DEAD

if people don't think it can happen here, ask the natives.

[4democracy]

21. I feel like I'm living in a futuristic horror movie, or in Orwell's 1984.

[bemildred]

23. Mr. Tenet is not being that unreasonable.

If you read the statement, he's just calling for better security
in web transactions and such. He's not trying to censor that I can
tell, although there is nothing wrong with being suspicious where
the government is concerned. He seems mainly concerned about
various types of hacking attacks on "infrastructure".

[peacebird]

29. Tenet wants to decide who has access, place bets it's not US

bemildred said: "If you read the statement, he's just calling for better security
in web transactions and such. He's not trying to censor that I can
tell, although there is nothing wrong with being suspicious where
the government is concerned. He seems mainly concerned about
various types of hacking attacks on "infrastructure".


Actually that is not what I read in the wash times report on his speech. He specifically states that access to the web "might need to be limited" - read below and then tell me he's not threatening our access. I'm betting the people he considers "serious" and responsible enought to gain access to the web are only people SHOPPING. Somehow I bet he will decide people posting news or opinion sites are a threat because terrorists can post messages that way. Anyone want to take that bet?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041201-114750-6381r

" The way the Internet was built might be part of the problem, he said. Its open architecture allows Web surfing, but that openness makes the system vulnerable, Mr. Tenet said.
Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously, he said.
Mr. Tenet called for industry to lead the way by "establishing and enforcing" security standards. Products need to be delivered to government and private-sector customers "with a new level of security and risk management already built in."
The national press, including United Press International (UPI), were excluded from yesterday's event, at Mr. Tenet's request, organizers said. "

[bemildred]

33. peacebird, Flammable Materials:

I don't like Mr. Tenet, I think he's an asshole, so I don't want
the be defending him. Nevertheless, I am an expert network programmer
and administrator, and what he says makes perfect sense and is not
about restricting our access to the network (IMHO). I have worked in
defense, and military secure networks are NEVER allowed to be
connected to the internet for precisely this reason. As I read it
he's talking about Micro$oft and Windoze and their utter inability to
build and field an even moderately difficult to hack system. There is
in fact a real risk to the US infrastructure as he states it from
hacking attacks, identity theft, etc. and it has nothing much to do
with preventing us from connecting to whatever sites we choose.

[Jose Diablo]

42. OK, we need to get back to basics on security

The consensus is that certain companies are lax on building secure systems. I have a different view.

It is impossible to build secure systems. For every defense, there is a hack. The view needs to shift from thinking that security can be achieved to a view that security is impossible to completely achieve with interconnected systems.

Once we begin to understand that security is impossible, then we begin to see that the only solution to problems of identity theft and loosing privacy is to never allow a central storage and easy access to data, period.

Now what we are seeing is everyone jumping on the bandwagon trying to centralize data, even off-shoring this data. This is not what should be happening if Tenet is really concerned about peoples security.

If everyone would acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to totally secure a system, any system that is interconnected electronically, then the real solution to security becomes clear. Never centralize the data to begin with and force paper trails for obtaining data. Yes, make it more difficult, not easier to obtain the data. Screw efficiency.

[bemildred]

44. Interesting thoughts.

It is possible to build much more secure systems, they exist already,
it's just not easy or cheap, and US business these days is very into
easy and cheap.

You are correct that the propensity for centralization and the consequent
brittle architectures with single points of failure is stupid. To be
robust one must have redundancy, that's why the internet is designed
with arbitrary levels of redundancy built in. That's why they are
going nuts trying to figure out how to control it, there is no central
control point.

They like the centralization precisely because it facilitates control,
and they give control a much higher priority than security. It's their
Achilles heel, in a way.

[Jose Diablo]

53. On redundancy and control

I am reminded of very very old telephone switches. The old rotary switch.

These old switches operated by following the dial pulses. There was no central controlling device. The customers phone was in effect the controller and the switch was wired so that when the 3-4 digits had completed pulsing, bingo a metallic connection was established between the originating and destination telephone. Simple and the routing was fixed by wiring.

The internet is much like (not exactly) this architecture, except the DNS name to number translators naturally. And this is why it is so sturdy and uncontrollable.

Now compare this to what is normally needed for a 'controllable' network. To implement a controllable architecture would need something like translators to determine the routing path through the net. A corresponding device would be the controllers to decide the optimum path. However, to introduce a central controlling point would introduce potential failure points.

Would a controllable yet more failure prone network be better overall? I think not. But I am sure security wants this.

I tell you, these guys in security will be the death of us all with their agenda's they force on us. I have seen over the last 35 years growth in security (from a company perspective) from when it was decided to have a guard at the door to keep the wino's out of the stairwell to goose-stepping bastards that believe themselves to be Himmler reincarnated.

I remember this one in Chicago wasn't paying attention and jaywalked behind a bus and the bus knocked him down, everyone cheered, but unfortunately he lived. All the Nazi's are not in government, and society is filled with these buttholes.

[bemildred]

58. What you need for a controllable network are bottlenecks.

The DNS system is as close as you get in the current arrangement, and
does not offer the needed selectivity. One can filter domains, but
the correspondence between domains and real world things gets nebulous
rapidly as one goes up in the DNS hierarchy. Also, consider the issue
pointed out in the next paragraph WRT it's effects on a "controllable"
DNS system.

What you say is true, but I am not much worried because any controllable
network will not scale. The IP architecture was not done the way it was
to thwart control, it was done that way because that is the only way
to get a network that will scale arbitrarily. Scalability requires
locality of reference to avoid arbitrary growth in communications
overhead. Control has to be distributed in order for the net as a
whole to be scalable; this allows bounded growth of local traffic
"almost everywhere".

All of this does not mean we should not keep an eye on these fuckers,
but they cannot have the internet they love so much to sell crap and
make money and at the same time change it into a controllable media
like broadcast TV and radio.

[Jose Diablo]

61. If control is distributed then

it is extremely difficult control from a central point. This is the charecteristic of the current internet.

And if a class of special control packets are developed to send control messages to these distributed control points, then that just gives hackers another way to cause havoc as you can be sure altering the protocol stack and spoofing phonie control packets will occure.

To control the internet to the extent they would want, control access and content, would require an out of band signalling method for these control messages, to prevent access to the control methodology of each control(routing) point. But then like you say, it would not scale well without adding to the underlaying control signalling network.

As for filtering, its possible to filter the corporate servers, but how to filter the backbone and through servers. Whats the criteria, 'long boners'? Suppose somebody wanted to buy/sell long bone knives. The internet gonna disallow this product?

No, the current design works just fine, keep increasing the fabric speed but keep the control distributed. And if the corporations want to sell to John Q Public, then it will be very difficult to also shut down the alternate news and private communications.

In the end though, it is who do you trust to bring 'advancements' to the network? I don't trust anyone in this administration to do anything without politics playing a key role. Everything they do is partisan with a hidden agenda of maintaining and increasing their private power.

[bemildred]

63. "long boners". LOL.

Otherwise, I think we agree.

[Flammable Materials]

32. C'mon, man. It's like the old Soviet Union. You have to read between ...

... the lines.

It's the frog in the pot analogy. You don't just turn the heat up to boiling immediately; the frog will jump out. You turn the heat up gradually, so the frog doesn't notice until he's cooked.

[natrat]

45. slow cook froggy

like alot of other things internet restrictions will be implemented under the guise of terra control. Seems like the trade center was the center piece of their plans wether it was lihop or mihop. Somehow i think sex sites will still factor into it because of the money to be made. "dont it always seem to go ,ya dont what ya got til its gone...." ta ta

[genieroze]

39. This is how it starts.

Once you open the door a crack it doesn't take much to open it all the way, just a little push.

[bemildred]

40. There is nothing wrong with a bit of well-founded paranoia.

It just doesn't appear to me that that is what Tenet is talking about.

[genieroze]

41. Well, this is how it starts.

Give these people an inch and they go the mile. Look what happened to p2p and the RIAA brown shirts. Arresting 12 year old girls and grandmothers. We are talking about Bushco here. These fascists don't know the phrase give and take, only take, take and take some more.

[bemildred]

43. They have lost more than they have won Sir.

It's my business to know. Have you heard of PGP and the cryptography
wars? They are facsist swine to be sure, but their powers are not
infinite, and we need to stand up to them, not gibber in fear.

[Occulus]

55. I think that's what it'll come to, right there

strong encryption generated at the point of use (the end user's terminal), data sent in encrypted form to servers, decrypt, post, encrypt the response, send it to the user, decrypt, etc.

My question is, why isn't there a browser that does this yet?

Why isn't everything p2p already encrypted?

[bemildred]

59. The technology is already there.

I expect it is already being used where needed. I don't bother
myself because I'm not doing anything that is illegal where I live.

And it does require arrangements to be made on both ends.

SSH/SSL can handle most requirements rather easily, and they are easy to
set up and maintain on Unix systems. Security on Windoze is touchier.

Here's a link:

http://www.topology.org/soft/crypto.html

The basic question in my mind is why should I hide from these weasels?
That's what they want. I'm not doing anything wrong, just exercising
my Constitutional and human rights, and they can blow me if they don't
like it. It's telling to me that Zimmerman walked away a free man in
the end.

[Baclava]

24. This could be it...

The only way they'll get my free internet porn is to pry it from my cold, dead fingers...

[natrat]

46. "cold ,dead sticky fingers"

[Cogito ergo doleo]

25. Ham Radio R.I.P. (Buried by BPL)

And if BPL (broadband Internet service via powerlines) happens, we can kiss CB and Shortwave radio goodbye, too. BPL polutes the band that allows communication around the world without needing satellites or repeaters. This does not have to happen- fiber, wireless broadband, cable, and DSL work fine. More here:

National Association for Amateur Radio
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/index.html#TUTORIAL

[Liberty Belle]

26. Someone needs to organize a campaign to stop this.

Can we organize groups of on-line activists to talk with every single member of Congress on this issue, do a press release and put it on PRWIRE.com and USNEWSWIRE.com (public interest news service), hold a press conference--something as big and splashy as possible is needed to stop this now! We should get every single blogger, liberal and activist organization and website to e-mail each of its members. Think how many of us there are--if someone would take the lead and come up with a plan.

[natrat]

47. "every single member of congress"

almost every single member of congress wants this-What do you think this is a democracy or something?

[Liberty Belle]

27. Kick! The a.m. crowd needs to read this, please!

[George_S]

28. But Bush isn't concerned about bin Laden?

But Tenet, who left the CIA in July after serving as director for seven years, warned that al-Qaida, though its first-tier leadership had been largely destroyed, remained "a sophisticated, intelligent organization with enormous capability."

[tanyev]

34. This immediately made me think of the

TBRNews archives I was reading last night.

November 28, 2004 : “Congratulations to you people on the net! Your comments and articles have had an impact on the powers that be whether you know it or not. Your existence didn’t stop vote fraud on a big scale but it did: postpone an attack on Iran, a pushing in public for a universal draft, a wholesale trashing of the Social Security system (in essence, Grandma’s check cut in half and no medical benefits under SSI), and other items. They hate all of you around here but can’t find a way to shut the cursed internet off. Too many businesses (all contributors to the Jesus-based Republicans) use it and they can’t send the FBI around to put mandated filters on every computer in the United States (which they would love to do. There have been discussions with computer builders about this but they never went anywhere.

It's from this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2771938

I know the credibility of these reports is debatable, but I was surprised to see a story that Tenet is making statements about internet security. Wasn't he rode out of town on the rails? Or maybe he is still a loyal soldier.

[genieroze]

36. Here we go. eom

[genieroze]

37. Yeah, it's called freedom a-hole

"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability,"

[bushisanidiot]

48. What happened to the idea of free trade? are the repukes gonna charge us

for talking to our friends on the internet who are overseas now? will we be taxed if we sell stuff on e-bay?

the u.s. government does NOT own the internet and should keep their filthy hands off of it.

[Demeter]

49. Hey Tenant: BOO!

You have just been bombed by the truth. The FBI can't help you. Trained vicious attack dogs can't protect you. Neither Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Fried Rice nor any RW Evangelical hellfire-spouting hypocrite can block you. You are just going to have to suffer--turnabout is such sweet sorrow.

[sattahipdeep]

51. Corporate governance

Governance is the exercise of political power.

Tenet called the CIA's new slate of managers "one of the strongest, most
diverse and corporately directed teams in the history of the agency."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25386-2001Apr30?language=printer

[SKKY]

60. They can have my internet...

...when they pry my mouse from my cold dead fingers.

[Jose Diablo]

64. Still pumped-up usin' the mouse eh? LOL

[prayin4rain]

62. Let me just say I have really enjoyed our time together. n/t

[lanlady]

65. I was at the conference that Tenet addressed--

--and his remarks failed to raise a single eyebrow.

It's all about the arrogance of power, folks.

[phantomvotes]

66. New World Order includes internet Governance????

http://www.wgig.org/


Press document

25.11.04

WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE CONCLUDES FIRST MEETING IN GENEVA
Meeting for the first time from 23 to 25 November 2004 in Geneva, the Working Group on Internet Governance, which is to make its recommendations to the World Summit on the Information Society in 2005, has made headway in deciding the elements to consider for its agenda, the structure and outline of its report, as well as issues such as openness to those who have a stake in the Information Society.
The 40 members of the Working Group, appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on 11 November 2004, were chosen in their personal capacity from the different stakeholders - Governments, private sector and civil society- to represent all regions. The Group’s Chairman, Nitin Desai, is Special Advisor to the Secretary General for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
As requested by the first phase of the World Summit, held in Geneva in December 2003, the Working Group will make proposals on the governance of Internet in a report to be considered at the Tunis phase of the Summit in November 2005. The Group is expected to submit its final report to the Secretary-General in July 2005.
Mr. Desai stressed that the Group, which had enabled a "space for dialogue", had got off to a good start. He noted a high degree of openness among the members and mutual confidence. "I was impressed with the constructive atmosphere evolving throughout this meeting. This has allowed the debate to move up to another level", he said.
The Group and stakeholders also praised the positive balance struck to ensure inclusiveness and equitable representation in the process. In order to build on the atmosphere of cooperation and enhance future deliberations, Mr. Desai suggested holding open meetings to discuss substantive issues and immediately making available the agenda papers to all parties concerned. Furthermore, individuals competent to speak on issues could also contribute to the Group’s work through open consultations.
Meeting in private session on 23 and 25 November, the Working Group considered organizational issues, such as the agenda for its activities, the structure and outline of its report, the scope of its work and its priorities.
In an open round of consultations on 24 November, stakeholders set out the issues they wished to see on the agenda – the "mobilizing material", in the words of the Chairman. These included a definition of the Internet and Internet governance; the current situation, including the main players and their functions, and current Internet governance mechanisms; the major public policy issues and priorities; future developments and scenarios, both technological and policy/regulatory; and proposals for action.
The Working Group agreed on a timeline for meetings, the next one taking place from 14 to 16 February 2005 in Geneva, back-to-back with the second meeting of the Preparatory Committee for WSIS (17-25 February 2005). This will allow the Working Group and the Committee’s participants to interact on the issues. A preliminary report will be presented to the Preparatory Committee II. Another three-day meeting will take place in April 2005 followed by a final, longer meeting in June 2005 to draft the final report.
The tasks of the Working Group include:
· Developing a working definition of Internet governance;
· Identifying the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance;
· Developing a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of governments, international organizations and other forums as well as the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries.
Contact: Markus Kummer, Executive Coordinator, Secretariat of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), e-mail: [e-mail], Tel: [phone]. Secretariat website: http://www.wgig.org.

[Merlin]

70. If Tenet were still in gov, this would bring thousands out on the streets.

Let them fucking try to jimmy the internet. There will be a backlash like nothing these asholes can imagine. And I'll be right out there with them.

Maybe this is what the 2nd ammendment is for. If they make a move to take away internet freedom, I'll take the godam hills. There are limits. There is a line this government had better not cross. Actions have consequences.