Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Aims To Give Up Control Over Internet Administration
schwit1 writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post: "U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move likely to please international critics but alarm some business leaders and others who rely on smooth functioning of the Web.
Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance last year." Reader Midnight_Falcon points out this press release on the move from Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance last year." Reader Midnight_Falcon points out this press release on the move from Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
I don't have much love for the US government, but I don't trust US corporations not at all. And there are a lot of foreign governments I don't trust to act in the best interests of the Internet. I am not sure how to feel about this.
This carries big implications in NSA's spying/QUANTUM program, which use U.S. control of the DNS system to exploit systems.
As much as I dislike US policy, I'm betting that there will be a awesome push for the UN to take control and everyone will quickly be beating their heads against the wall over it. Well, I'm sure everyone is going to enjoy the new age of super-censorship in order to avoid offending *insert groups* feelings.
Om, nomnomnom...
There goes the neighborhood.
Please kill that awful shadow of a company for what they have done to the internet, well, more the web.
DNS is the worst possible thing, and worse yet, the broken URI system that went and done a complete 180 from the original ideas that was going to follow a similar hierarchical system like newsgroups.
And now we are suffering even more from their bullshit by them making the TLD system so generic that it has literally zero meaning now. Now any random tit can come in and sneakily steal customers from you, be it legit or not, by using your name on some random other TLD that you haven't bought yet because you are a small company.
Not only that, it makes stealing login data and such considerably easier.
I remember it used to be you'd only need to watch out for crap like slashdot-org.leethacker.com or stupid stuff like that. Now it can literally be something stupid like slashdot.snickers. How that fuck will anyone know 100% that it isn't real without checking the original websites? It is going to cause a monumental waste of time and security resources.
Fuck you ICANN. Fuck all of you. You have ruined the web.
Fool.
I'm fairly certain that in asking this question that I'm just being a biased Californian-based US citizen, but aside from being better able to allow internet users to hide from spies, what other benefit will this action bestow? And actually will this actually allow internet users to better hide from spies? I thought the US is doing an alright job, except for the peeping that is - they should have done a better job at that... Anyhow, now to read the friendly article.
If Obama has his way it'll be surrendered to China along with a slew of national treasures and an invite for the Chinese masses to join ObamaCare.
The only thing that makes ICANN relevant is that they control the root zone that everybody uses. These days, if a few of the larger tech companies (Microsoft/Google/Mozilla/Apple) got together and decided to start their own DNS root zone, ICANN would become irrelevant rather quickly (since those companies control the browsers and mail clients everybody uses, and can do their own DNS lookups).
I'm not saying that would be a good thing, just that I find it interesting that ICANN is seen as being "in charge" as if they have regulatory authority when in reality they only have a say because people use their root zone by convention.
Developing the technologies and protocols of the internet was done at the expense of U.S. taxpayers by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Similarly, the Panama Canal was built at the expense of U.S. taxpayers for its great strategic value.
In 1977, President Carter signed a treaty giving up U.S. control, and today China has a great deal of control over this asset:
http://themengesproject.blogsp...
What strategic asset will the U.S. give up control over next... the Global Positioning System, perhaps?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
37425 97702 97702
478 69590 69590 89984 89984 53760
Seriously - my background is mostly with v4. Doesn't v6 incorporate a better name resolution mechanism? I'd always assumed so, since it was going to vastly increase the amount of address space to be tabulated.
Now let's find a way to replace DNS with a decentralized system.
I don't need a link to LMGTFY, TYVM. Although after what I've learned in under thirty seconds, I do need a drink.
Whatever wrong you can accuse US of, China and/or Russia have done worse both to their own citizens and to other countries.
Every modicum of control we give up, surrender, or otherwise lose, is a gain for the much less savory regimes. There is no escaping it...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
a move likely to please international critics but alarm some business leaders and others who rely on smooth functioning of the Web.
So, because something isn't US led, it becomes inefficient? Give me a break...Or are you kidding me?
While the US has been beating the internet like a redheaded stepchild it must not fall into the hands of an organization like the UN. Suddenly the internet will be whored out for every little pet project. Without a doubt suddenly the priorities of managing the internet will have nothing to do with the smooth flow of data from A to B but will reflect whatever whim or fancy that pops into the collective mind of the UN combined with whatever various countries can vote buy to get.
So if China wants to block something then they will buy a pile of votes from the Caribbean or Africa and suddenly 10,000 site vanish. Or if you criticize the UN you site will be taken down for 80 different reasons.
But the worst part is that the UN might be the most sclerotic organization running these days, (short of Sears) so any critical changes that need be done simply will end up in committee until it is way too late.
Plus the UN is a firm believer in "Real Politic" so they will cave in to every NSA type out there as opposed to fighting them tooth and nail. But don't worry they will publish papers as to how they are supporting internet freedom.
So if you want Russia, Bahrain, China, and even North Korea having a vote on the internet then putting it in a place where the UN will grab it is how that can happen.
A better idea would be to hand the internet over to a collation of countries that have a decades long history of good government, low corruption, low nationalism, and non-interference,: So I am thinking Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Austria, Canada, Austria, and of course Switzerland. You will notice that I am leaving out countries like France, Britain, Spain, Italy, the rest of Asia, all of Africa, and all of Eastern Europe. Quite simply it would be a disaster to give these countries any say in one of the most important technologies on earth. And if any of the left out countries wanted to leave the internet I doubt that anyone would notice.
Couldn't we like get some other organization in place instead of one headed by the UN? The unspeakable retards who wander the halls, the perpetual bureaucrats who have no one to hold them accountable will be in charge of this? The ones that gave us the IPCC? Fuck that, we need an alternate Internet, one without the UN and their interference. Or how they are biased away from showing all sides of an issue instead favoring the most politically expedient ones.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
That's maybe the biggest question here. The US hands over control of the internet. Ok. Fine. Sounds good on paper. But who gets control? And please don't say "nobody". Like it or not, certain things need to be policied by some entity. The two things that immediately spring into the mind are domain name control and IP address assignation. Pretty much anything where "globally unique" is a key feature will have to have some kind of controlling entity.
And the very LAST thing I could possibly see as beneficial is if that control was handed to certain entities that would all too eagerly take control of it. Namely corporations with an interest in controlling those resources. Can you imagine what it would be like if a for-profit organization takes over certain aspects of the net? Especially the "globally unique" ones? If you thought domain name turf wars have been problematic, you ain't seen nothing yet.
I'm certainly not someone who thinks it's a perfect solution to hand the control of an important resource to a single country. Far from it. If anything, handing it to the EU sounds sensible, considering how much infighting is going on there and how much bickering, the chance that they could use it against the rest of the world is sufficiently small. Ok, I'm kidding. But I guess it is easy to understand how it's hard to find a good governing body for something like this. Who should take over?
The UN? Please. Take a look at how much success they had with world peace and world hunger and ponder how much more important those two things are compared to the internet. Then consider how much success they'd have policying and governing the internet.
A multi-national consortium? Where's the difference to the UN?
The EU? As I said, considering how much in-fighting and bickering is going on there, it probably carries the lowest risk of anything bad happening. But also the lowest chance of ANYTHING happening when something needs to be done. Plus the highest chance that it will eventually be sold off to the highest bidding corporation.
Decentralize it? Good idea on paper, that was essentially the basic idea behind the internet, but it has deviated from that a long while ago. It's very unlikely that this can still fly. Most likely we'll be running into severe problems before long. Especially when certain countries decide it's a good idea to do a few things differently so they can more easily avoid doubleplusungood ideas to reach the plebs.
Who should take control? I can't really think of many good alternatives, but I'm eager to hear suggestions.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So we can see what they do w/it!
Blows my mind that people think the DNS root servers are like some "centeral internet brain", or that moving the DNS root out of the US will help hide you from the NSA. As if ICANN exerts any control whatsoever on the DNS servers at their local ISP beyond what that ISP/government allows. People with no knowlege of the subject shouldn't hold strong opinions the said subject.
As for the bit about Saudi Arabia being a better steward than the US... how the fuck am I supposed to get off on porn if all the women are wearing burkas?
I'm wondering what happened to all the ./ers who argued that Obama would NOT actively try to remove the US from its unique superpower position. All those who said "he doesn't dislike America, that's ridiculous. His wife misspoke when she said they've never been proud of their country."
see parent
If the US does give up control, I give it five years before it devolves into a fragmented mess of politically charged globs of disconnected non-functionalism.
Of course, that's when we learn we really can live without it, after all.
Does this mean that the FCC will finally get out of the way of state governments enacting meaningful regulation of ISPs, because otherwise this is a largely symbolic nothingness.
What gives, and why is the internet broken right now?
i got 4 results when searching Google for slashdot.org
Yes, the US controls ICANN. I can think of a lot of organizations that'd handle it a LOT worse!
The UN? Pfft. PLEASE. Probably the most spineless, useless organization extant (aside from various RIAA and MPAA type entities).
The Federal Dictatorship of Bumfuckistan demands that all sites containing mentions of *INSERT HERE* be taken down! They infringe upon our national and religious beliefs and are an insult!
*UN stops slurping cock for half a second* Okay!
Could you imagine some jackass kleptocrats like Nicolas Maduro, Putin or Cristina Kirchner calling the shots?
Or worse. China and North Korea?
I may not trust my government (and anyone who does, nowadays, is an idiot), but I HONESTLY don't see a better candidate out there.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Such short sightedness.
Right! Damn Obama for passing the Patriot Act! If only George W Bush was still president!
... They were warned. The US should have kept control of the internet, however... there was a price. And that was respecting the authority they were given and not abuse it.
They did... just as they have abused every other position.
Top to bottom, the US federal government is out of control. Abusing state rights. Abusing individual rights. Running roughshod over allies. Even abusing the separation of powers thus violating their own rights.
Its a general lack of respect. They think they don't have to follow any rules. They make the rules we have to follow. But for them... there is no law... there is no ethics... there is no morality... there is no honor.
I'm sorry... but the US federal government needs an enema.
Right now someone feels I'm attacking their political faction. I'm not. This isn't an attack on any particular political faction. They're all fine and terrible in equal amounts. However, that isn't the problem. The ideology is not the problem. Its the actual people that are there.
It was said by one that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think that's wrong... I think another person said it better when they said that power attracts the corruptable. And that is what we have in government now. They need to find work outside of politics. With very few exceptions they're all compromised.
The alternative is simply taking what happened here to the internet to a greater extreme throughout everything else hte government does... eg they need to lose control of more things.
The FAA recently lost a court case to regulate private drones. That's good... we need more of that. The FDA needs to lose some cases about their interference with drug companies because they're causing shortages and causing prices to increase.
There are many examples. They're bad for society.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
No doubt this is all Obama's fault! It has nothing to do with loosing the high moral ground by torturing or by spying on the whole world. Nothing to do with loosing the backing of nearly the entire world by botched invasions after 9/11. ALL OBAMA!
Verisign is a disgusting lap dog for the U.S. government. Every 28 year old hipster dipshit Java programmer there earns just south of $200,000. Whatever private keys you want, NSA, no problem, here you go. Need control or influence on DNS, name services, or registrant info? Sure thing, here it is. I think the US is a great example of free speech (at least relative to the alternatives), but as others have posted out, the US gov't, and its lackey, Beltway-bandit lapdog minions like Verisign have ruined it for the rest of us.
$170k is a good income for a programmer (stock options will cause variance)
Are you attempting to brag about your income? Are you suggesting I should be happy to take a serious pay cut despite how much I am causing my employer to profit? Are you attempting to effect change in the industry? Something else?
Nazi propaganda must be beaten, not hidden. The best way to discredit an idiot is to hand him a microphone and let him speak.
Further, hiding it makes it impossible for later generations to recognize the very seductive ideas when they reappear, later, without the "NAZI" label on them.
It's a classic example of the adage about being doomed to repeat history if you fail to learn from it. How can you learn from it if it's censored away?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Every time this subject comes, there is howl from the Americans about "freedom", as if people on /. knew what it is. There are several reasons why this leaves me feeling a bit nauseated - let me just recount a couple:
1. I am old enough to have lived through the Vietnam years. I have read about the McCarthy era, and I believe we have all seen the Iraq wars. I remember how America was one of the staunchest supporters of South Africa under apartheid etc etc. As far as I can see, freedom to American is mostly a matter of convenience; you guys seem all out for freedom and the right to free speech, when it doesn't really cost you much. Yes, I know - I'm being harsh, and probably too much so, and I shouldn't generalise, but Americans in particular need to shut up and think before spilling their guts about "freedom", just once in a while.
2. Words like "freedom" and "censorship" are highly charged, and they are mostly abused as a cover-all and an excuse for why it is OK to be a filthy parasite on society. So, when you roll out "freedom" as your argument without qualification, it is 99% likely that it just means "I don't want to give up my ...." (substitute "porn" or whatever it is this time).
3. There is no such thing as absolute or perfect freedom. There will always be rules and limitations, and most of them you don't even want to be free of, if you were to think about it. The best anybody can hope for is enough freedom to feel happy about your situation and your prospects; and that is not really all that much. You want to feel that you can speak openly without fear, and that you can choose to pursue your own happiness in the way you see fit. Most people don't really want to be free from social context, even if they say so - as the song says "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose".
4. What you see as freedom may feel like slavery to another person. Take the stupid furore in Europe about whether muslim women should be allowed to wear a burqa in public; if you ask themselves, they actually want it in most cases, but no, no, they have to be forced to accept our kind of "freedom". If you don't see the flaws in that sort of logic, then I'm afraid there is no helping you.
I am all in favour of allowing people freedom, and think it is best to avoid banning things in general, but true freedom starts with respect for others.
because as much as you can criticize, they are the best pick for an internationally recognized organization that does not have ulterior motives like private companies or even many NGOs.
Sorry dude but many feel the same about the US. They are just too restrained to mouth-foaming shout about it.
Note that this move is broader than just ICANN. IANA functions are actually run in close coordination with a number of organisations, for instance, regional internet registries (RIRs) and IETF who decide about address allocation policies and protocol number allocations.
Here are some initial reactions from all of these organisations:
http://www.iab.org/documents/c...
I think I understand what GP was saying here, but when I read it I thought of exactly the same criticism as you.
Giving someone a platform *inherently* gives credibility to w/e they say next.
I do agree w/ GP that Nazi and other b.s. ideology needs to be "beaten not hidden" very much.
There's a lesson to learn here & I'm trying to figure it out...
Maybe it's this: The GP that we're responding to really made a great point about free speech followed by a statement that *sort of* logically flows from the first point. I remember a poster on a teacher's wall from middle school with 3 chicks, one with beak open others beaks closed. The caption read,
"It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Which is awesome + seems to bolster the "give the idiot the mic" comment...
What is different is the "microphone" implies a **public gathering**...in that context you simply cannot just give the microphone to any idiot willing to take it because of human nature.
I know this seems pedantic but it's not in my mind. GP makes a great point but I think the lesson is that free speech isn't the same as letting anyone use a public forum. It implies choice...***who chooses who gets to speak*** becomes the deciding question of who will have the most influence.
It's too complex to give a one-sentence answer. The variable is context. In an undergrad philosophy class all students should feel welcome to ask questions, but not free to dominate the discussion.
No one wants to be "that guy"...
Thank you Dave Raggett
browsing the comments you seem to be in the minority...most of the posts on this article go a step further than you and **admit the dont' like it**
it's funny to note how different commenters qualify their comment in support of the US government **controlling the internet**
let's remember this moment...
as soon as an article is posted about a **domestic issue** the trolls come out in droves....comment after comment....endless discussions between "libertarians" vocally opposing **anything** the US government does and their detractors.
let's remember this...and moderate accordingly
Thank you Dave Raggett
While it may not be a lot of things it pretends to be - I'd still much prefer USA administration than the likes of China or Russia having any say whatsoever at present. Russia is a corrupt, backward and bullying society which I would never want to have any influence on the internet. China needs to develop some more and doesn't have the strongest rule of law.
Can you give a specific example of how free speech is limited in europe? Cause i'm from east block and never saw anyone get in any trouble, unless they were making shit up. You can freely express your opinion, you can even say prime prime minister stole money and nothing will happen to you. Free speech is special for you in USA somehow. Like freedom. You are so proud of it you fail to realise it is something very common. > The UK already has filters for the pirate bay and pornography. Oh, so that is free speech limitation? Let me remind you that it is your country that beeps curse words on tv. Which seems kind of retarded, but hey, you are free speech lovers. You must have your reasons. :)
Not that it seems to matter at all to the administration, but does the commerce department even have the authority to give up control to an international body without an act of congress?
... except for all the other alternatives.
The next best candidate is the UN.
Much more corrupt, both it's bureaucracy and politics.
The purpose of the UN is to give folks a place to talk instead of having a war.
For this task, it's got two purposefully warped decision making bodies.
The general assembly is controlled by the shear number of small states.
The security council is controlled by the veto power of a few states.
Neither has the mindset required to run the Internet way we expect it to be governed.
The US administration may have hit a new low.
Or maybe it doesn't matter?
If we are only talking about the DNS.
I can always point by computer to a DNS server of my choice.
Unfortunately, this is seeding control to corporate interests.
Unless sombody like the EFF steps up?
Here is what I think, for what it's worth:
So I welcome this move
The US has been shown repeatedly to not be trustworthy, and I for one rejoice this news. PLEASE get the internet out of the hands of the US. Then we'll actually have a chance to scale back this billion headed beast called the NSA.
You should probably go partake in a conversation in which you can at least pretend like you know what you're talking about. You've blown it for this one.
You asked for a specific example and I'll give you one. France prohibited Yahoo from showing pictures of old WW2 nazi uniforms on its auction site. Here's the wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... . Germany also has very strict laws about "neo-nazi" propaganda.
"Can you give a specific example of how free speech is limited in europe?"
Yes. Libel laws in the UK. What a joke.
eric, a Chinese front company controls Cristóbal and Balboa (the ports at either end of the canal). It's entirely possible that Chinese nukes are warehoused in those locations. That's not just force projection, it's highly asymmetric force projection.
Here is an easy one, in the USA you can dress like a Nazi and have a march and nobody will care, see how far you get in the EU before you are imprisoned. Then there are the EU hate speech laws, the UK porn filters which also seem to filter anything to do with piracy, I'm sure others will chime in with plenty more.
Bitch all you want about the USA but censorship has always been hard to pull over here, not so much in the UK and EU. Ironically it seems everybody is for this because of the NSA who haven't censored shit, they WANT you to talk as that is how they get the data.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
well, if you want to be fair, yes, damn him for signing an extension to the patriot act, taking ownership of it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If censorship is hard to pull over there, why are cursewords forbidden on tv? Or nudity? If you dress up like nazi, you won't be imprisoned in most of europe. Germany went a bit far, but they had their reasons :). If you dress as KKK, what will happen in usa? Can you guarantee you will be free to spread "white power" statements? I kind of doubt it. You pepper sprayed students just sitting in park peacefully protesting.
Personally I don't see why hatespeech should be legal, since I don't see how that is limiting our freedom of speech in any meaningful way? What is so great to have absolute freedom of speech, when making it absolute just legalises lying and you are free to character assasinate anybody. And his ability to fight is none, if he does not have the resources. And then, when company does it, you get Foxnews. And then you have 50% of population beliving creationism.
I'll have to keep this short as its late..1.-Yes, in fact not 3 hours from me is a KKK compound and they have their marches and white power picnics and nobody cares. The closest thing you get to "censoring" is the fact that the media doesn't care enough to show up but if the viewers don't care neither does the media.
2- The USA is the size of the EU so you will ALWAYS have a few "gangbangers with badges" somewhere that will act like Brownshirts. I'm sure those protesters got a big ass check after they got done suing while the brownshirts are working as mall cops.
3.-As far as "legalizes lying" I'd say the UK has that done pat thanks to their libel laws, look at how nobody would say shit about the Top Of The Pops DJ being a Pedo until AFTER he had died, even though they knew as early as 1971. And it isn't like its trivially easy to fight back thanks to the net but call me crazy, I'd rather not have a world where rich pervs like Jimmy can do what they want because the press is afraid to say boo.
4.-As for Faux News...I guess you missed the memo because not only is Fox News missing the mark but they are bleeding the right wing dry by making them out to be the "rich old white people party" and thus showing that yes free speech works because people WILL see through the bullshit in time.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
see op
Yes. Libel laws in the UK. What a joke.
"I'll sue you in England!"
Private companies have been in charge of this for years. Now, it's simply going to be international companies.
This is how they will effect control over the Internet. By allowing "International" corporations to control it, and they will restrict it according to their direct orders from THEIR governments, or if their country has adapted the TPP, it would in effect impact us here in the United States, even if the treaty is invalid here.
This gives them extreme control over the internet, and it can't be allowed under ANY circumstances.