Who should have control of the internet?

[Timber Loftis]

Not even presumptuous. Only a handful of politicians in that committee were behind this crazy notion that they should dump money in to making Arpanet something that would be available for public use, as opposed to simply a military communication system. He had to explainify to some stupid reporter that funding something meant "creating" it, from a legislator's standpoint.

But, Gore suffered from the very basic fact that the media just DID NOT LIKE HIM, probably because they saw him as very "wooden" (translation: boring). So he got the crap end of every possible outcome with them.

Back to the topic at hand, now . . .

[Ilander]

Quick question:

What about terrorism?

We all know the US can play that card at any time, and for the most part be truthful about its threat. So why would the US give up control of a communication device that it can (and probably DOES) monitor closely, a media that terrorists have been known to utilize as much as anyone else?

Not a chance the US is giving up the ability to shut down sites. Not a chance at all...the No Such Agency (look at the initials) gets far too much information from the internet for any conversion of power to take place.

[Thoran]

Well I still think it was presumptuous... some credit was definitely his due but that was over the top. "Insured funding" or "supported development" or something along those lines would've worked just find and not been nearly as susceptable to abuse.

Ilander... no matter what happens, countries will have control over the network in their own countries. US and other nations will continue to expand their monitoring capabilities on the net, and retain the ability they now have to shut down domestic sites they find objectionable. The US 'control' of the net doesn't allow them to do anything regarding these things that other countries can't do.

For instance, the US can't shut down child porn sites origonating out of Russia... all we can do is either complain to Russia or arrest Americans consuming that crap.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thoran: Well I still think it was presumptuous... some credit was definitely his due but that was over the top. "Insured funding" or "supported development" or something along those lines would've worked just find and not been nearly as susceptable to abuse.

Other points in your post ring true, but I haven't quoted them.

Regarding this whole "Inventor Al" thing, let me say that HERE is an excellent article on the truth of these things, and it matches up with all the various article I've read. Ancient history now, of course, and hopefully the last time I'll go [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] on the issue. Enjoy the read. it's a great spin story and lesson in politiking.