U.S. Aims To Give Up Control Over Internet Administration 279
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.
Hmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (Score:4, Interesting)
The notion that giving Saudi Arabia an equal footing here as the US, is bone chilling. Its sort of well known that a lot of countries out there have no concept whatsoever of free speech. They burn christian churches down in Saudi Arabia and so on. This is a really bad idea.
Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (Score:2, Interesting)
You may as well claim that negotiating trade agreements with China will force the US to become a communist state.
Interesting that you say this.. We are dependent on china, and we are moving towards a heavily centralized state. Note this is not meant as correlation.
Re:America's loss is the enemies' gain (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's nice, let the bigot flow through you...
I'm sure there's some religions I'm not against. I'm against, ironically, the extremely bigoted ones. Which includes Christianity, specifically. Christians believe themselves to be superior. Ironically, I feel that makes them inferior. Is it ironic both because of my sense of superiority (relative) or because it's the opposite of what they're trying to achieve? Sure. But then, if there is something that puts people below other people, it's treating people badly. And that is what people do when they think they're better than other people.
I don't go scraping Jesus fish off of people's cars or anything. But some assface did scrape the Darwin fish off one of my cars gone by. And that, friend, is why I am anti-religion in a nutshell — that is, writ very small. There are good people who are also religious, even though their religion is doing harm. I suppose I'll do my best to hate the sin and not the sinner.
Re:Hmm.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The reason to let the US continue to be a steward of the the network they created and gave to the world:
Gary Johnston: We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit
That simple. Really. We're dicks. But there are big fat huge assholes out there that will really FUCK you hard - like Nigerian hard, like gulag hard, like mines in Africa hard, like Falun Dafa | / Falun Gong being thrown in prison hard. We are dicks, but when you call us big, fat arrogant hypocritical dicks, we do listen. The rest wont.
Re:Halfway there (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't be done. There's no way to resolve disputes - without some form of centralised management, there's no way to make sure [company].com goes to the company with brand recognition and not some fraudster. The only way to allocate addresses would be first-claim (Perhaps with a proof of work to keep someone from registering by the trillions), which is just too vulnerable to abuse. The resolution system could be decentralised, but not the management, unless you are willing to abandon human-readable addresses. Which defeats the purpose.
Let the posturing begin (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: Hmm.... (Score:4, Interesting)