Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!

All your base are belong to U.S.

shadow boxershadow boxer The Finger Painter & Master Ranter
[url]http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7757[/url]


Calls to end US domination of the internet

* 10:00 31 July 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Paul Marks


WHENEVER you surf the web, send emails or download music, an unseen force is at work in the background, making sure you connect to the sites, inboxes and databases you want. The name of this brooding presence? The US government.

Some 35 years after the US military invented the internet, the US Department of Commerce retains overall control of the master computers that direct traffic to and from every web and email address on the planet.

But a group convened by the UN last week to thrash out the future of the net is calling for an end to US domination of the net, proposing that instead a multinational forum of governments, companies and civilian organisations is created to run it.

The UN's Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) says US control hinders many developments that might improve it. These range from efforts to give the developing world more affordable net access to coming up with globally agreed and enforceable measures to boost net privacy and fight cybercrime.
“In theory the US could decide to delete a country from the master root server”

US control also means that any changes to the way the net works, including the addition of new domain names such as .mobi for cellphone-accessed sites, have to be agreed by the US, whatever experts in the rest of the world think. The flipside is that the US could make changes without the agreement of the rest of the world.

In a report issued in Geneva in Switzerland on 14 July, the WGIG seeks to overcome US hegemony. "The internet should be run multilaterally, transparently and democratically. And it must involve all stakeholders," says Markus Kummer, a Swiss diplomat who is executive coordinator of the WGIG.

So why is the internet's overarching technology run by the US? The reason is that the net was developed there in the late 1960s by the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in a bid to create a communications medium that would still work if a Soviet nuclear strike took out whole chunks of the network. This medium would send data from node to node in self-addressed "packets" that could take any route they liked around the network, avoiding any damaged parts.

Today the internet has 13 vast computers dotted around the world that translate text-based email and web addresses into numerical internet protocol (IP) node addresses that computers understand. In effect a massive look-up table, the 13 computers are collectively known as the Domain Name System (DNS). But the DNS master computer, called the master root server, is based in the US and is ultimately controlled by the Department of Commerce. Because the data it contains is propagated to all the other DNS servers around the world, access to the master root server file is a political hot potato.

Currently, only the US can make changes to that master file. And that has some WGIG members very worried indeed. "It's about who has ultimate authority," says Kummer. "In theory, the US could decide to delete a country from the master root server. Some people expect this to happen one day, even though the US has never abused its position in that way."

Unilateral US action is unlikely, however. The DNS system is managed on behalf of the Department of Commerce by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a not-for-profit company. "Our job is to make sure internet addressing happens stably and securely," says Theresa Swinehart, ICANN's general manager for global partnerships. And it does so, she says, in conjunction with its government advisory committee (GAC), which includes members from 100 countries to ensure diversity of opinion.

Even Kummer admits that ICANN does a good job on achieving international consensus, at least regarding changes to the DNS. "ICANN scores quite highly on involving all stakeholders. Anyone can go to a meeting, take the microphone and give a view," he says. The problem? It's an ad hoc process. And with the internet now a critical global resource, some governments, particularly in developing countries such as China, India and Brazil, want a forum where vast swathes of internet policy - from cybercrime to spam to privacy protection - can be both discussed and acted on.

Only then, they say, can vital non-DNS issues such as the high cost of net connections to many developing countries be made fairer. Right now, the WGIG report notes, internet service providers based in countries that are remote from the internet backbone links - the large "fat pipes" connecting continents - must pay the full cost of connecting to these networks. This can be prohibitively expensive for developing nations and there is no "appropriate and effective global internet governance mechanism to resolve it".

The WGIG put forward a number of options for change, all of which include enhancing the roles of ICANN and the GAC or the formation of a new all-embracing internet policy body that would be in charge of ICANN instead of the US. The WGIG's proposals will now go to the vote at the International Telecommunication Union's World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia this November.

Whatever the WGIG decides, it will have a tough time changing the US government's opinion. Only last month, US assistant secretary of commerce Michael Gallagher reasserted America's claim to the heart of the net. "The US is committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorising changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file."

Battle, it seems, is about to begin.

China and iran to censor the net

The report issued by the UN's Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) on 14 July recommends that any future governing body does not restrict the freedom of expression of web users, as enshrined in its universal declaration of human rights.

Yet China and Iran, both of which took part in the working group, are currently building the most heavily censored online infrastructures anywhere in the world, according to recent research from the OpenNet Initiative, which monitors internet filtering and surveillance by governments.

"The main message is that measures taken to fight cybercrime should not lead to human rights violations," says WGIG group coordinator Markus Kummer. "China and Iran were with the group consensus on this matter. They did not object to the wording." He thinks China sees the UN declaration as "open to interpretation".

Researchers at OpenNet, a joint venture of the University of Toronto in Canada, Harvard Law School and the University of Cambridge, have found that China's Communist Party-run internet service providers (ISPs) routinely filter out content they deem politically unacceptable. They also appear to hire fake commentators who post pro-government statements on blogs and message boards.

By remotely accessing computers within Iran via a number of routes, OpenNet also found that 34 per cent of the 1465 weblinks they tried were blocked. Some 15 per cent of blogs and 30 per cent of news sites were inaccessible - as were 100 per cent of porn sites.

But what alarms some is that ISPs might be harnessing western technology to aid and abet this sophisticated censorship. For instance, OpenNet found that Iran's ISPs seem to depend heavily on a package called SmartFilter, made by Secure Computing of Seattle, Washington, to stamp out access to what the government deems unacceptable. But the company says its software is being used illegally.

Meanwhile, networking and routing company Cisco Systems of San Jose, California, has come under fire for supplying routers with site blocking, filtering and logging functions to China.

But Cisco's Asia-Pacific spokesman Terry Alberstein, says the technology it sells is the same as that used the world over. "The router technology that lets some countries restrict access to certain information is the same as that which lets our public libraries limit access to unsuitable content. And the blocking technology has other uses, in combating viruses, worms and denial of service attacks."

In any case, blocking access to websites is not rocket science, and nor is logging who is viewing what. China now produces thousands of computer science graduates every year, and Iran has a new religious hard-line president in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If there is the will to censor and watch people's internet activity, it will happen with or without outside help.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yup... this sort of democratisation needs to happen.

Comments

  • bobobobo (A monkey)
    Counter point: if it ain't broke...
  • JackNJackN <font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
    heh... Yeah, that's ok, the UN's here now, we can handle it...

    I think we should form an Alter-net...

    ;)
  • TyvarTyvar Next best thing to a St. Bernard
    The problem is when has the UN been known for efficency.

    Im with bobo, for once a governmental body is doing a job, pretty well, and not messing things up.

    If we change things around our luck may not last.

    Secondly why is it if the UN ran the internet cybercrime could be combated more efficently?

    I think alot of people need to find out more about notions of soverignty, representatition, accountability and nature of legal systems.. :rolleyes:
  • PSI-KILLERPSI-KILLER Needs help
    The UN is filled with unelected politicans, Not really an example of democracy.
  • MundaneMundane Elite Ranger
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PSI-KILLER [/i]
    [B]The UN is filled with unelected politicans, Not really an example of democracy. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Not to forget how democratic USA is today, even WITH election......
  • MessiahMessiah Failed Experiment
    The problem with the UN as it is today is that [b]some[/b] govenments get too much power.
  • FreejackFreejack Jake the Not-so-Wise
    Actually I believe it has more to do with certain individuals having too much power, as evidenced by the oil-for-food scandel.

    Jake
  • TyvarTyvar Next best thing to a St. Bernard
    Oil for food, child sex scandles in Africa, missing money, blah, blah, blah.

    Franky if people read the charter of the UN, and saw how it was orginized and what goes on there, they would stop seeing it as some sort of panacea for the worlds problems.
  • [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mundane [/i]
    [B]Not to forget how democratic USA is today, even WITH election...... [/B][/QUOTE]

    You seem to be implying that the US is not democratic, or is distant from being democratic. Would you care to explain how you come to that conclusion? Keep in mind that the Federal Executive Branch is only one aspect of our vast system of Federal, State, and Local governments. Do you believe the US is less demcratic than most EU states?
  • While the formal administrators of the DNS system manage their duties nicely... who cares where they are located. (Might as well be in the US.)

    It is the system itself... which needs to have resistance to various types of abuses... because so much depends on it.

    Unfortunately, the DNS system is centralized, and designed to propagate its updates in centralized fashion... which inherently, renders it vulnerable to some kinds of events.

    At some point in future, as our dependence on networks grows even further... DNS must simply be gradually phased out, in favour of a more resistant, semi-centralized or de-centralized system.

    Someone must propose such a system. There is no hurry yet, but some day, it must happen.

    In my opinion, neither the UN nor US government... is the right body for that. Organizations like IETF, W3C, ICANN... those perhaps. But not political organizations.
  • JackNJackN <font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
    The US built and started the internet. People, agencies, corporations, and countries wanted in on it.

    Quit whining about who controls it, or build your own...

    nuff said...
  • MundaneMundane Elite Ranger
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Konrad [/i]
    [B]You seem to be implying that the US is not democratic, or is distant from being democratic. Would you care to explain how you come to that conclusion? Keep in mind that the Federal Executive Branch is only one aspect of our vast system of Federal, State, and Local governments. Do you believe the US is less demcratic than most EU states? [/B][/QUOTE]

    I can begin with how Bush forced through the selection of the ambassador for the UN. But I am not bothering to argue regarding it.
  • [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
    Quit whining about who controls it, or build your own...

    nuff said... [/QUOTE]
    Besides, even though it's centralized... nobody really controls the DNS *system*. It is based on voluntary cooperation. For all it's worth, the root node could be on Mars (though data links would get kind of tense). The root node merely distributes updates, which strictly speaking, nobody has to download, but everyone (every big DNS server) does.

    Should an irreconcilable dispute arise between operators, any DNS server can stop receiving updates from upstream servers (or pick who it receives updates from) -- and start resolving names exactly as its operators like (to the point of offering themselves as an alternative root node).

    The price to users would merely be massive confusion, and wholesale disruption of services -- so I personally hope the DNS system is secure enough against any malicious exploit, and irreconcilable disputes won't arise before time finally comes to implement a better name resolution system.

    Stuff like DNS is best managed by non-profit organizations... who generally won't make a big fuss about their dealings. Noisy entities like governments can coordinate "cybercrime prevention" till their heart is content...

    ...but ought not interefere with stuff like DNS, even if it happens to formally be in their jurisdiction.

    Which is, to my knowledge, the current status quo. The US government has formal jurisdiction over the heart of the DNS system... but for everyone's good, it won't mess with it.
  • TyvarTyvar Next best thing to a St. Bernard
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mundane [/i]
    [B]I can begin with how Bush forced through the selection of the ambassador for the UN. But I am not bothering to argue regarding it. [/B][/QUOTE]


    I dont know how they are reporting it in Europe, but that was perfectly legit, he will sit till the start of the of the 110th congress.

    Its called a "Recess appointment" and its MENT to be used to fill vacancies when congress isnt in session. Which it currently isnt, they took a break and wont be back in till september I belive. although you couldnt tell they were on vacation by the amount of yacking thats going on.

    In the mean time while congress was diddling around, and then off the position was empty, it needed to be filled, so the president used his powers as granted by the consitution, article 2 section 2 paragraph 3.

    Its not even that unusual of an event.
Sign In or Register to comment.