Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trump Opposes Plan For US To Hand Over Internet Oversight To a Global Governance (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the out-of-control dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump opposes a long-planned transition of oversight of the internet's technical management from the U.S. government to a global community of stakeholders, his campaign said in a statement on Wednesday. Congress should block the handover, scheduled to occur on Oct. 1, "or internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost," Stephen Miller, national policy director for the Trump campaign, said in a statement. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a former presidential primary foe of Trump's who has refused to endorse the real estate developer, has led a movement in Congress to block the transition, arguing it could cede control of the internet itself to authoritarian regimes like Russia and China and threaten online freedom. Technical experts have said those claims are baseless, and that a delay will backfire by undermining U.S. credibility in future international negotiations over internet standards and security. Publicly proposed in March 2014, the transfer of oversight of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is expected to go forward unless Congress votes to block the move. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supports the Obama administration's planned transition to a global community of technologists, civil society groups and internet users, according to policy positions available on her campaign website.

25 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.

      Indeed. Nowhere else in the world has the robust guarantees of free speech that America has. The Brits have their libel laws, the French have their "religious symbols" bans. Many EU countries outlaw holocaust denial and/or hate speech.

      I finally agree with Donald on something. Has Hillary taken an official stance on this issue.

    2. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And before anyone says it, yeah the U.S. was wrong on Snowden and Assange and many other cases. But who else would you rather have calling the shots? A bunch of European countries who consider criticizing Islam a hate crime, or who want to ban all non-SJW's from being allowed to speak lest they hurt some Snowflake's feelings? Or maybe one of the hundreds of vile dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and religious wackjobs across the world who want to ban all speech criticizing them and their ideology/religion/cause of choice?

      Seriously, even Australia and Canada have gone down the insane rabbit hole of criminalizing basic free speech lately. So who else is left who even stands a CHANCE of preserving any semblance of free speech on the internet?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow, AND have potentially fractured standards.

      It's not as simple as us controlling it versus "them" controlling it. Unfortunately, the us-vs-them portrayal resonates better as a compact political sound-bite.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?

      what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in

      but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?

      what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in

      Considering that the US started the whole fucking mess and that Germany and Turkey had to take in MILLIONS upon millions of refugees despite being significantly smaller in size and despite not being the ones to initiate the conflict, yes, taking in 6,000,000 refugees (you seem to have misplaced the comma) would be a decent START.

    5. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Z80a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about just fixing where they live?
      It's a lot cheaper and don't have the whole awful cultural clash.

    6. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like. It wasn't all that long ago.

      Capitalism, like every other organisation, needs checks and balances. There's no other way to ensure accountability, and without accountability then unrestrained capitalists can do just as much damage to society as unrestrained communists or dictators. Moderate regulation is a necessary tradeoff to stop psychopath CEOs like Shkreli from efficiently strip-mining their markets to the bone.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    7. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about just fixing where they live?

      A good first start would be for America to stop sabotaging every attempt to end the conflict. America has consistently insisted that Assad has to go as a precondition to even talking about ending the war. Of course, Assad controls the most powerful army in Syria, has no reason whatsoever to agree to that, and America has no willpower to get engaged enough to force him out. So the war goes on, and on, and on.

      If you want to get something (in this case, peace), you have to give something up (Assad stays on in at least the Alawi Shia rump of Syria). That is the way negotiations work. You can't just demand everything you want, up-front, as a precondition to talking.

    8. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about they fix their own goddam house?

      Because the people with power don't want the war to end.

      Who wants the war to end:
      The refugees (obviously), but they have no power.
      The EU, but they are too politically impotent to do anything.

      Who wants the war to continue:
      The Russians, because they benefit from the chaos.
      America, because an end to the war would mean politically unpopular compromise.
      The Turks, because they can use it as leverage to get what they want from the EU.
      The Kurds, because they can keep their autonomy while the war sputters on.
      ISIS, because the war is their only reason for existing.
      Israel, because it divides and weakens the Arabs.
      Iran, because the war gives them influence.
      Assad, because he is winning.

      I would bet on the war continuing for a long time.

    9. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ichthus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the US has some of the most restrictive rules on speech of the western world.

      Back that shit up with factual examples, or get the fuck out.

      --
      sig: sauer
    10. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?

      what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in

      60,000? Were you planning to set up a recruiting booth inside a Daesh training camp? Daesh might not even have 60,000 fighters world-wide.

      Let in 600,000 refugees and you might get a handful who turn jihadi.

      You'll get another handful who commit murder, some others who steal cars, start businesses, become political pundits, stand up comics, teachers, professors, drug addicts, you'll even get a few Trump supporters!

      It's 600,000 people, you're likely to get a bit of everything, good and bad.

      And frankly lets be honest, you don't actually give a crap about terrorism.

      Anyone who gives it a moments thought realizes the US already has a lot of Muslims, and the easiest way to get a bunch of Muslim terrorists in the US is to elect Trump and essentially declare Muslims to be the enemy.

      So no, I don't think you're that stupid, I don't think you would have the same reaction if these were western European white Christians.

      Rather it's about race and culture, the US with an additional 600K Arab Muslims is a smidgen less like the US as you envision it.

      And if that's your true motivation then it's the argument we should be having.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    11. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ichthus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hell yes! As we repeatedly see on college campuses (campi?), hate speech is defined as anything that SJWs disagree with. If you disagree with that definition, please offer one of your own and we'll evaluate the need for "stopping" it together.

      --
      sig: sauer
    12. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So who else is left who even stands a CHANCE of preserving any semblance of free speech on the internet?

      A country that seizes domains registered in foreign countries at the request of corporations?

      Sorry I'd rather live with anti-hate speech laws, than do whatever the hell a corporation decides to allow you to do laws.

    13. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like

      That's not unregulated capitalism, and things are just as bad today: the powerful are just better at keeping a low profile.
      Also, corruption happens just as much in regulated systems as non-regulated systems.

      More regulation does Not eliminate or reduce the problem, not a single bit.

      And the issue is not specific to capitalism, and occurs with ANY system, including communism, where it is the government itself that tends to become corrupted absolutely, See: China/Russia.

    14. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really have no idea what Kerry is trying to accomplish in Syria. Not sure he knows, either.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty good racket determining what is and what is not hate speech. "How much money to appease your gods?" and all that.

    16. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Jack9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Syrians, who tend to be educated and hard-working, would do wonders for Detroit's economy

      The Detroit economy needs jobs, not hard workers. When the auto industry started shutting down factories, Detroit fell. Importing more labor, won't fix the problem.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    17. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Gussington · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He doesn't appear to understand the meaning of the word free trade because support for free trade were words out of his mouth after talking about implementing tariffs, though.

      He has no idea what he is doing. And just because you are upset with your plumber, you don't get your Real Estate agent to do the job because he has a nice smile.
      Hillary may not be ideal, but at least she's a plumber.

    18. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit.

      A more or less open, liberal internet. If China, or Russia, or whomever doesn't like it, they'll fork it? And how does handing control to an organization even more prone to bribery, compulsion, and control by inimical governments in any way ensure that the system remains open? If they "don't like it" that much, they'd fork it anyway. All your proposal does is allow them the opportunity to control the whole thing, not their fork.
      Simply, that's bullshit.

      If someone doesn't like something, you don't GIVE THEM THE OPTION TO CONTROL IT in order to preserve it. That's colossally dumb.

      --
      -Styopa
    19. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is bullshit.

      The Russians, because they benefit from the chaos.

      Wrong. Russia wants the war to end. They value regional stability, and Syria is their ally and has a strategically-located port that they use.

      Assad, because he is winning.

      This one is just plain stupid. Assad was losing until the Russians came in to prop him up. Assad wants the war over because if he loses it, he's dead. Assad wants stability and peace in his country (with him in charge of course) just like Russia does.

      The rest I'm not sure about, but I really fail to see how the Turks really want to have a war raging next door, terrorist attacks, and millions of refugees to deal with.

  2. What are the actual implications of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For example, what happens if I want to access content that another country and/or religion deems offensive to their god?

    Are those people now going to have a say in how the internet should operate? Will they be able to prevent me from viewing such content from another country?

    As much as I hate to admit it, even with all the stuff going on today, the US is still one of the least fucked up countries on the planet. It worries me what will happen to the internet if everyone suddenly gets their say in how it's operated. And I don't say this as an American either, since I'm Canadian.

  3. Re:Does anyone care what Trump thinks? by Stonent1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I feel the exact same way about Hillary.

  4. Re:Don't be afraid of this! by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    B.S. If conservatives wanted to censor the internet, they had 20+ years to do so. Ask yourself who is doing the censoring on college campuses these days. I'll save you the trouble of not answering the question and inform you that it's not conservatives.
    The bottom line is this: ICANN as it has been for the past 20+ years isn't broken and doesn't need changing.

  5. Re:Trump is right on this, as on many things by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't agree with everything Trump wants to do It's pretty obvious to anyone that knows anything Trumps position is way better for the internet than turning it over to an international panel that can start censoring the hell out of it.

    Trump is infamous for his proclivity for suing people and desire to use libel law against critics. If the Internet were governed by the US under a Trump administration I think you'd here a lot of grumbling from his administration about doing something about websites that are being unfair to Trump or the administration.

    He's already threatened to use the power of the presidency to go after Amazon because Bezos owns the Washington Post and it's been mean to him.

    Trump is far less racist than Hillary (just look at past Hillary remarks like arriving late because she was on "Colored People Time").

    Wow, your evidence of Hillary's racism is a misremembered SNL sketch?

    It wasn't even intentionally racist, it was supposed to be a joke about a politician inadvertently saying something racist (which they ironically did).

    I thought Trumpites understood the good "Hillary is a racist" stuff is back in the mid-90s with all the super-predator stuff, you really need to catch up on your twitter.

    Trump chose a black woman to win and work with on the Apprentice - sure it's a TV show but she did work for him and supports him, as do a number of prominent black celebrities.

    You're literally making the argument that Trump can't be racist because he has black friends.

    Trump also wanted to cooler evaluate NATO commitments before taking action,

    He seemingly wants to extort allies into paying the US for protection, I say seemingly because he doesn't have coherent foreign policy.

    and yet the media portrays him as a warmonger. Why?

    Because he's generally really quick to call for military action and to call for major war crimes like stealing other countries natural resources, up until the military action turns out poorly. And then he hops in a time machine and goes back to change his mind.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion