Adam is absolutely right on this one. In fact, Europe is even more vulnerable to this than is USA because of its many national states. Okay, there's something called EU, but there are enough national interest in each of the member states to make a situation quite different from the US.
I imagine that this bill is meant as an option for USA to do what China is trying to, ensuring access and control over traffic across international borders. In the case of an "emergency" of course. What I really don't understand is the need to pass such a bill in peacetime,. Do someone really see such an emergency coming up? Wonder what such hedging-in would to for US access to international intelligence, by the way. One example from two years ago: I made some very interesting traces of network traffic directed towards Iran. From both London and Oslo, all traffic was routed via Ireland to Washington DC before returning across Europe. Given the number of root name servers in Europe, there is absolutely no technical reason why the traffic should cross the Atlantic back and forth before going through Russia or the Middle East as far as I can see. I guess my point is that there is so much international interdependence on the electronic infrastructure by now, that I doubt this bill will change much unless a world-scale war emerges. Under such conditions, it would make sense to take precautions, and not only for USA and China. The way the infrastructure and traffic is managed today already allows for more control than probably any of us are aware of. Jostein 2009/4/16 Adam Maas <a...@mawz.ca>: > > The costs of building out serious backbone hardware have already > turned Tier 1 networking into a near-monopoly. The internet has > evolved from a distributed network to a tiered network with almost all > of the tier 2 providers having no more than national reach and tier 3 > providers having nearly disappeared outside of datacentres, hosting > and the occasional small regional ISP. Its got nothing to do with > enabling the monopolists and everything to do with moving the > controlling capability from the tier 2 providers to the government > (Ironically the Tier 1 providers exercise little control over content > and service delivery, it's the Tier 2 regional providers who control > that and thus are at the forefront of pay-for-QoS and other such silly > ideas). > > > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
