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).