Slashdot Mirror
As ICANN Gains Full Oversight Of Domain Name System, Some Wonder If It Means the US Has Given Away The Internet (bbc.com)
The U.S. has given up its remaining control over the Internet. The formal handover, which took effect on Saturday, followed a last-ditch attempt by a group of Republicans to block the move. They had argued that the US concession would open the door for authoritarian governments get control of the network of networks, leading to greater censorship. From a BBC report:A judge in Texas has put the kibosh on a last-minute legal attempt to block the controversial decision for the US to give up control of one of the key systems that powers the internet. It's a move being breathlessly described by some as the US "giving up the internet" to the likes of China, Russia and the Middle East. For starters, while they can take the credit for inventing the underlying technology, the US never "had the internet" to begin with. Nobody did. It's a, duh, network. Decentralised. That's what makes it so powerful. But there are bits of internet infrastructure that some people and governments do have control over, and that's what this row is all about. One of them is the DNS - Domain Name System. This is the system for looking after web addresses. Thanks to the DNS, when you type bbc.com, you're taken to the correct servers for the BBC website. It saves you the grief of having to remember a string of numbers. That pairing of names and numbers is kept in one great big master file, the land registry of the web. The only organisation that can make changes is Icann, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. As of Saturday 1 October 2016, Icann will no longer be under US government oversight.
It's the smell of Freedom!
They had argued that the US concession would open the door for authoritarian governments get control of the network
Rather it has been liberated from the control of an authoritarian government.
...our ICANN overlords!
"They had argued that the US concession would open the door for authoritarian governments get control of the network of networks"
For example: The United States of America!
Eurotrash shitbags put people in jail for expressing unpopular thoughts. And that's *more* tolerance than you'll find in Africa and Asia. This is a sad chapter in the history of the Internet.
I've got the greatest. most fabulous, hugest network EVER!
People will be lining up to use my network, lining up around the world to use it I tell you.
But those people, those undesirables, from outside of our borders, they will NOT be able to use this fabulous, fabulous network because it will have a Great Wall protecting it, and protecting all of the Americans on this fabulous wonderful network.
TrumpNet is born
53000000 GET
"If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
...but this is bad how, exactly?
Not a problem. We can start on Internet 2.0. The re-write will be so much better now that we have a better idea of what we are doing.
2.0 can start off as a project to supply secure connectivity to the military, government and critical infrastructure; internal non-public facing usage. Basically take the important hacking targets off today's internet.
The US is one of the most repressive governments on Earth. I can't wait to get the fuck out of here.
Enough authoritarians can set up a BIND server that I think it's not really an issue any longer. As if Republicans were the ideological enemy of authoritarian governments.
I don't understand DNS.
I mean, presumably if I have a server somewhere, on Google cloud, AWS, at home, whatever, and it it has a public IP address, then I can have it serve up IP addresses of all my other machines when I give it some name. With whatever naming scheme I might like to use. I can make my own IP address lookup system.
Presumably if I can do that then so can Google, Facebook, Yandex, Baidu or whoever.
What I have noticed in recent times is that I never use a URL, never mind an IP address. I just type "youtube" or whatever I want into Chrome and it gets me to the right place.
The last remaining tricky part is getting that fixed public IP address. Which I thought was what IPv6 would bring us.
Some Wonder If It Means the US Has Given Away The Internet
"Some" refers to geniuses like Trump who worry about "The Cyber" and 400-pound hackers "sitting in their beds." And people like Ted Cruz, who is Ted Cruz.
At the other end of the argument, you have people like Tim Berners-Lee who wrote an editorial in the Washington Post rebutting Cruz's nonsense.
Slashdot has been wasting electricity with this "story" before. Seems like a waste. Or does Slashdot, like Trump and Cruz, also believe climate change is a hoax?
Once out of US control, there's no guarantee it won't be used for political purposes. The US is generally agnostic on political opinions due to our speech laws. Other countries not so much. Once someone is deemed a political liability or in violation of some countries speech laws, this international body will take them offline or push them to the dark web.
The same US who was pushing SOPA down our throats?
How is it good, exactly?
The concern is that in most respects, the US offers one of the wider definitions of freedom of speech. It's not perfect, but it really is better than most. Given US control, you can expect that to be reflected in management of the system.
US control is gone. So we will see what that brings.
Thinking about freedom of speech issues in Europe and the middle east, some countries have applied restrictions that far exceed those imposed by the US. Germany, Iran, etc. come to mind. So the question arises as to how much influence they will be able to exert upon the new management.
Oh well. Brave new world, folks. Onward!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
In the sense that the organization in control of root name servers will no longer be under government authority. Would you feel the same way if it was Russia instead of the US?
Mainstream republicans, and even TBL may be full of it. But dissing slashdot for running with this story? You've demonstrated the value of your comment.
"Nobody did. It's a, duh, network."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A relative of mine was freaked out about this because pundits made it sound like these countries would be in a position to dictate policy over how we run our slice of the Internet. When I explained how the Internet works and how the US has absolutely no obligation to ever follow their dictates, even going so far as to fork the DNS system if absolutely necessary to keep them from controlling our slice of the Internet the reaction was "then... what's the big deal?"
It seems a lot of people angry about this don't understand that the federal government has precisely no legal obligation to give a flying fuck what other governments think about our domestic internet policies. So if we want to let the NSA steal all of North Korea's secrets and drop leaflets in North Korea showing installation instructions for TOR and how to get to the NSA's cloud hosted wikileaks clone for the juiciest data the DPKR doesn't want its people to know, the rest of the world can't do anything to stop us--just like they can't right now.
... control freaks want to micromanage the internets.
The US government could easily militarise Icann in an instance if it wants to. Don't think for a second this wouldn't happen if push came to shove. The US still has control over the entity so long as Icann rests inside US borders.
Could be good to get things going to build another internet now that there is a perception that the "internet" will be run by cronies like Turkey's Dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Hillary when she becomes pRESIDEnt.
Also, now that ICANN is formally a "company" without US Gov oversight they may want to go to NASDQ and raise some cash in a stock offering! Start day-trading on its derivatives and drive it into bankruptcy.
Ha ha
globalists who are your masters do not want state sovereignty in any way, especially that pesky USA, so they want to centralize as much power as they can on a global scale
The USA is to be powerless. Globalist billionaires and private trillionaires will run the world, and mind controlled sheep will still think voting for trump or hillary make a difference in a rigged election :) :) :) :) :) :)
Just stating the obvious, but having control of the DNS servers is really helpful for surveillance.
While you might not know the details of the conversation, you would know who is looking for what. Like directory assistance, knowing which people are calling (or looking for) say John Gotti is a really big intelligence advantage. Being able to route that call through one of your network taps gives you the rest of the advantage of interception then. Having some US Corporation in control means automatic '3rd party rule' for all of that data. I think that the rest of the world just figured that gig out.
Glad to see it out of our hands, perhaps this is the 'start of the end' with respect to US hegemony over the world's private conversations.
At the sake of being labeled a redneck from Murica, just remember people, that if the USA wasn't here, the world would still be in the dark ages and shit would be a lot worse. I see people talking trash about this country but in reality, how much shit have we invented that pushed good ole planet earth forward? When the rest of the lot on this rock wants to kill 13 year girls for getting raped? By in large we do fucked up shit, but we also do good shit and are trying to leave this place and head to the stars. But who am I kidding? I will get labeled as "stupid" or "not logical". Enjoy the comforts people of earth that by in large, our country helped create and pushed forward. Freedom, love, respect etc...is a good thing. Fuck off if you think otherwise. I love this country and the internet but fuck, handing over control isn't a good idea. Hope we have some people from US sitting on the board or some shit. Have a good day peeps.
The DNS system is not the internet. The Internet works just fine without it- except for those pesky IP4 and IP6 numbers. This is such a smokescreen.
Everything the internet could be transitioned to a separate US controlled DNS system in the event of emergency. Would it be a shock to the system because everyone uses DNS? Of course. But new root servers could be deployed in short order.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
The only thing critical contributed by the US was TCP/IP. Sure, for a time the US was custodian of the top-level part of the DNS system, but if they had misbehaved too badly, it would just have been taken away from them forcefully. That would have been rather easy, as the majority of the top-level DNS servers are not located in the US anyways. One level below, the US was never relevant except for some domains. Country-specific domains were always under control of that country. Even .com and the like would have been removed from US control if abused too badly.
So, no, nothing was really given away, because the US never had real power over the Internet.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I give it 2 years or less before some major thing is shut down by demand of some muslim country for being 'offensive'.
Bet.
In the scale of the UN.
The free speech countrys are vastly outnumbered by the oppressed shitholes.
I predict this thread will be full of liberal shills explaining to everyone why it's good to give more control over the internet to countries which do not protect freedom of speech at the constitutional level and routinely infringe upon it.
than a single government, don't you think?
"they had argued that the US concession would open the door for authoritarian governments get control of the network of networks"
Someone needs to explain to the US that they already have an authoritarian government.
Entrenched class system with little social mobility, pervasive surveillance of the entire country, secret prisons, gerrymandered political system...
When the US orders other nations SWAT teams to raid the homes of people who have never been to the US and have them extradited because of alleged theft of imaginary property, then yea, thats pretty authoritarian.
I predict this thread will be full of alt-right jackoffs who don't understand how the internet works and who for some reason hate the idea of privatizing ICANN, but have been hollering for the US Postal Service to be privatized for decades.
What's next, confused alt-righters? You gonna argue for nationalizing the energy industry, phone companies and ISPs too? Make up your goddamn minds.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The handover to Icann is a compromise that appears to suit the country very nicely, and not just because Icann will remain in Los Angeles.
If anything, they've handed it over to leftist interests - the same kind that use organizational control to push narratives.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
USG has sold off or given away everything, pretty much, to the shadow puppet-masters the right and the left fight to front for. What's one more thing? Technically, ICANN, which everybody I know gave up on after that 1st sham election, is a US corporation, too. FWIW. Shrug.
Ironic, though, coming after the FCC deciding it owned the Internet, last year.
Within US control there is no guarantee it won't be used for political purposes!
But when the US controlled it, it was controlled by a country that did not protect freedom of speech and which routinely infringes upon it.
3 letters, TPP. More is coming. This is part of corporate globalization. Once they divest themselves of their countries of origin they have to answer to no one, right?
How different is it from yesterday? Only difference is that the US Commerce Dept had oversight, now they don't. I'm fine w/ ICANN being a completely independent organization, I just don't want UN or any other oversight to replace the US oversight that's no longer there. I'd go a step further - I'd like the IETF and IANA to be completely independent 'international' organizations like ICANN, and ARIN - I'm pretty much open on whether it should be under US oversight or a subset of OAS oversight.
Once out of US control, there's no guarantee it won't be used for political purposes. The US is generally agnostic on political opinions due to our speech laws. Other countries not so much. Once someone is deemed a political liability or in violation of some countries speech laws, this international body will take them offline or push them to the dark web.
The US of Obama and Clinton is not the same in terms of being agnostic of political opinions, free speech laws be damned. This is a government that tried to put the makers of the movie 'Innocence of Muslims' in jail, during the Benghazi consulate riot. The US is as willing to censor anti-Islamic speech just like that of Saudi Arabia, Iran or anyone else. There is nothing redeeming about the US commerce department having oversight.
I'm fine w/ ICANN becoming independent: only caveat I'd put is that I'd like to see NO oversight on them - not UN, not Russia, not EU, not anybody. If that can be assured, I'd also support IETF and IANA going fully independent
I have a vision of the future where this is actually going to bring us together as "a people".
Sure, some countries may abuse the power of trying to block DNS records they feel are immoral, or whatever their excuse is. Fact is, the more this happens, the more will be exposed that these countries are censoring what doesn't really belong to *any* governmental body. The U.S. has had its fair share of abuse over their control of the Internet and the DNS. Who are they to say they're the most qualified, most moral? That's just arrogant IMHO. Not saying they're the worst, but it's not up to any one nation to decide.
And who will defend against abuses of power now that they're equally divided? The netizens. The people of the Internet. The hackers. I'm honestly looking forward to seeing how this pans out. I think it will be something that may just bring people of Earth closer together, seeing how we can cooperatively administrate the largest network in the world.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
looks like he was right on the money
Make AC Posting Great Again.
Their not totally independent...their headquarters are still in the US...they still can get raided by some SWAT-style Justice Department team if needed.
I have a vision of the future where this is actually going to bring us together as "a people"... And who will defend against abuses of power now that they're equally divided? The netizens. The people of the Internet. The hackers. I'm honestly looking forward to seeing how this pans out.
I wish your utopian view of reality will win out, but given that it hasn't for all of human history, I'm pretty skeptical.
More likely, existing large powers (China, Russia, and others) will see this as an opportunity to grab more influence, and devote far more resources than any netizens are capable of spending to bend ICANN and the DNS system to their will.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Way to prove him wrong there, popefagzo. So sick of your Ctrl+Left shilling.
Yes. And freedom goes with it. Now the mullahs, eastern kleptocrats and strongmen of the world will decide what YOU can see.
The concern is that in most respects, the US offers one of the wider definitions of freedom of speech. It's not perfect, but it really is better than most.
That depends on what freedoms you prioritize. The US priority is that the government cannot restrict freedom of speech but turns a complete blind eye to corporations restricting that freedom for employees or for others by suing. While this does not carry the threat of jail lifetime financial ruin is just as effective in silencing people and the power is controlled by entities which the people have zero control over.
European countries tend to have a more comprehensive view and put restrictions on what speech both government and corporations can restrict. However those restrictions are less comprehensive that US government restrictions. Personally I tend to think that the European system results in more free speech than the US system in situations that matter to most people while the US system ends up with more free speech for groups of the extreme fringe of society e.g. holocaust deniers, racists, extreme religious groups etc.
An old statement about ICANN says that the ideas people were coming up with for international governance would lead to more censorship. I don't see a newer statement directly on the topic.
and am very much against this. Not everyone thinks alike despite generalizations for convenience/blame.
I already got modded down for saying what someone else got modded up for saying - this is another move towards corporate control under "globalization"; a stateless evil entity is much harder to contain and bring to heel than one based in an actual country with (physical) assets to be seized.
I love the smell of cord cutting in the morning. TV media has sucked for years and now the internet does too. Its time to get a hobby and quit blowing money on this bullsh-t. It costs too much anyway.
Why would a 'liberal dipshit' want the US to have more control over the Internet?
"alt-right"?
I'm glad you keep up with the catchy labels your masters at CNN, or the DNC really, are feeding you.
What are the Kardashians up to these days?
It DOES give away control and freedom. If it does nothing as many suggest, then why hand it over to the international community in the first place then?
Reading all the comments and seeing that the vast majority of people posting have absolutely no clue how the DNS works makes me wonder if there are still nerds here.
Why not utilize blockchain technology to decentralize this and give control to the public?
Did it ever belong to the US
Bye, Bye Internet!!
When I type BBC.com I get taken to a website with Big Black Cocks.
If I get a vote I vote for things going in the direction of global representative democracy, and an abolition of nationalism and patriotism.
Seriously though, if you want a layperson-ized answer, the answer is that every country will still have pretty strong control over all computers and networks that reside within their borders. Same as it ever was. Think- Great Firewall for all who want one. Again, same as it ever was.
Their employees would have to get citizenship of another country and physically relocate in order to satisfy your requirement that they be out of the arms of US law
It's not a requirement, just a thought-process game about the potential future of President Trump wanting to "do something" about "the cyber", so he sends the DOJ to "take down the internet's headquarters" or such. I wouldn't put it past him to go try and seize ICAAN because someone on the internet made him upset.
The handover to Icann is a compromise that appears to suit the country very nicely, and not just because Icann will remain in Los Angeles.
If anything, they've handed it over to leftist interests - the same kind that use organizational control to push narratives.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.