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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why do you see enemies in one of our largest trading partner? Enemies everwhere... China will never attack us, for the simple reason that we buy a LOT of stuff from them. Why kill your largest customer? So..... calm down. sheesh. Oh, Russia? Yeah, that old cold war mentality isn't quite gone... sigh.
They may not be enemies of the US, but they certainly seem to be enemies of freedom of speech and the concept of the Internet in general. I can't say I'd like to see either of them given more power over it.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
You can always tell a USian by how much Kool-aid he's drunk about the UN.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
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.
Don't worry, I'm Canadian and in general most of us up here have 0 faith in the body working properly. This is also reflected by our governments official policy on the organization, especially with their election of dictators and despots to various human rights bodies, and arms control groups. Believe whatever you want to believe, but if you think allowing governments that rape, torture, and murder people on the street(as official policy) for voicing any opinion that rests against them is a great idea, not sure if insane or just crazy.
Om, nomnomnom...
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!!!
And if it were gone — from the softer among the minds — the events unfolding in Ukraine should put it right back, where it belongs.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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
Who is talking about media, you softheaded dimwit? The talk is about governments — US government is giving up control of the Internet, not US media. And what we yield, the Chinese and the Russian governments pick up.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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
Many countries ban certain kinds of "hate speech," have DUI checkpoints (like in the US), have the equivalent of the TSA, and even spy on their citizens. While I would definitely agree that education in the US is abysmal, I would also say it's the same way everywhere else (And being able to read a certain level isn't much of an accomplishment. Real education starts after that, but no country seems to want educated citizens).
Thank you Dave Raggett
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. :)
Ahh yes, you back an organization that cleanses ex Nazis and other criminals? They rate up there on my list just like the IOC and both have been refuges for Facists, Nazis and criminals for a long time.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Here is what I think, for what it's worth:
So I welcome this move
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.
A lot of programmers are unaware of what is happening to salaries in the industry, so they take jobs that are lower paid. This drives down salaries for all of us. Of course, $170k isn't the maximum you can get, but it's a decent salary.
I'm trying to help people know that salaries have gone up, which will benefit me, too.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"Can you give a specific example of how free speech is limited in europe?"
Yes. Libel laws in the UK. What a joke.
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
Whatever wrong you can accuse US of, China and/or Russia have done worse both to their own citizens and to other countries.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
For the longest time I thought you were just being an arrogant douchebag
I probably am. Thanks for the tip.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Yet, Russia attacks a country through which it delivers the majority of the gas to Europe. I too though that the cold war mentality is a thing of past. But events from last month made me think again.
Yes. Libel laws in the UK. What a joke.
"I'll sue you in England!"