Dean Anderson writes: > Well, they think we are the chauvenists of unilateralism. If we had > played more fairly and honestly, they might not be so suspicious of our > motives. What has been unfair and dishonest thus far? Dominance by the U.S. does not automatically equate to unfairness and dishonesty. The only reason there is an Internet at all is that the United States built one. If it had been up to the developing countries, the only communication available today would be paper cups and taut string, and it would be available only to a few dictators. > So I think the developing world views it as about freedom > from the undue control and influence of a unilateral power. These developing countries are still trying to grapple with the challenge of clean running water for their populations; why do they care about the Internet? The real concerns of the Third World are three: (1) they want more money from the West for their corrupt governments; (2) they want to suppress any form of free speech that might undermine their corrupt governments; and (3) they want more money from the West for their corrupt governments. > Actually, these admirable goals do require government > involvement. Digital independence and sovereignty scarcely seem like admirable goals; they are just synonyms for censorship and restricted access. > Without laws to punish the crackers and the DDOS'rs, there > is no network security or stability. It is not necessary to intervene in the technical implementation of the network to punish crackers and others; it is only necessary to find them. > One cannot fight international crime without Interpol, and > organizations like Interpol cannot exist without respect for > national soveriegnty. By definition, an organization like Interpol requires the partial sacrifice of national sovereignty. If all states were entirely sovereign, no interstate police organization could exist. The same is true for the Internet (and the telephone network, and postal services, and so on).