| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
FBI Shows UN How Internet Governance is Really Done
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 4 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
1. What you define as expressions, other people would define as crimes. May I remind you that it is illegal in the US also to reveal the identity of say CIA agents.
2. This is not about internet governance, because the servers in question didn't "govern" the internet in any way. They had no cntral position in hw the internet at large works. They were just ordinary web servers. Internet governance is about the root servers and tlds' name servers, ip-addresses, routing policies, etc. It's about how the internet at large is run, not about a couple of lowly webservers somewhere in the UK.
3. Most hacking incidents cross geographical borders. In order to have effective law enforcement, the police need to be able to investigate issues on foreign servers.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re:You need to rethink "internet governance"
by Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
>1. What you define as expressions, other people
>would define as crimes. May I remind you that
>it is illegal in the US also to reveal the
>identity of say CIA agents.
Oh, you mean like what the Bush admin. did? Anyway, if a newspaper published images of CIA agents should they shut down the entire newspaper and all associated wire services for five days? Or should the people responsible be prosecuted?
>2. This is not about internet governance,
>because the servers in question didn't "govern"
>the internet in any way. They had no cntral
>position in hw the internet at large works.
>They were just ordinary web servers. Internet
>governance is about the root servers and tlds'
>name servers, ip-addresses, routing policies,
>etc. It's about how the internet at large is
>run, not about a couple of lowly webservers
>somewhere in the UK.
This is your, arbitrary definition of Internet governance. It is not the one in use by the people involved in the global debate over IG. You can get up to speed on that here:
http://www.internetgovernance.org. [internetgovernance.org]
>3. Most hacking incidents cross geographical
>borders. In order to have effective law
>enforcement, the police need to be able to
>investigate issues on foreign servers.
No disagreement here. The question is, who set the rules for these investigations? The point I am making is that these kinds of transnational law enforcement agreements constitute "Internet governance," despite the fact that most Americans are in denial that such a thing exists.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
