OBAMA TO DEREGULATE INTERNET; GIVE AUTHORITY TO "SELF POLICING REGULATORS" THAT REPRESENT BIG $$

What you're describing is literally the opposite of technocracy. Are you completely fucking retarded? Stop using words you don't know the meaning of.

...

Thought you folks cared about the internet being under the control of actual dictatorial regimes.

Trying to hoist up day dere rate of profit
It won't work forever

It's the same as the TPP to us: since we're concerned about all of capitalism, it's hard to really care much about one SINGLE instance of capitalist exploitation. It's only liberals and ancaps who really get riled up about it, because they usually just ignore mass starvation, global warming, mass unemployment, poverty, slavery, war, etc.

That's a funny way of putting it, as the article explicitly states in the first paragraph that ICANN is EXEMPT from anti-trust laws and the handing off to the UN of domain naming power is a way of avoiding renewing the exemption.

If anything, it's statutorily unregulated as is. Giving power over to shitty authoritarian nations on the UN is just going to be a big clusterfuck, though.

How the fuck does giving the internet to the UN give it over to dictatorial regimes? Doesn't the international community vote on policies?

Because while the USA sucks, the UN is largely composed of outright dictatorships, including a large portion of the Security Council.

So if I'm reading this and applying my networking knowledge correctly he is basically giving away America’s DNS root severs and top level domains to the UN? That seems like a really odd and pointless thing to do.

I brought this up over on 4/g/. The UN is not going to get control over the Internet because it would mean continued US control over it (the US, as a UNSC member, can veto any decision other members advance). The entire point of ICANN leaving US control is exactly that: so that the US has no control over it.

Other countries want US control over the Internet ended because while the US has no respect for DMCA violations or privacy, they generally do not support censorship. Specifically, America's intelligence dragnets only work when there is a free flow of access to information. Censorship, especially against suspected groups, works against this goal. Also American companies, aside from copyright law, want an open Internet so they can freely do commerce.

Specifically, let's look at the EU. Most member states want to do exactly what China, Turkey and Russia do: openly censor their Internet and wall it off from the rest of the world. But they couldn't as daddy USA controlled ICANN and did not let them screw with the Internet itself. Now that the US is out of the picture, expect more censorship in places like France or Germany. It would not be surprising if individual governments could simply switch off DNS servers at their discretion in the near future, like China already does domestically.

He's not, the entire basis of the argument is that ICANN, in order to avoid antitrust law violations, must be given over to a state agency and the author (a libertarian) suggests that it would be the UN. It's clickbait garbage. In real life, ICANN is a non-profit company (yes, these sorts of setups exist) and therefore exempt from the majority of antitrust law. Also, even if they were in violation of antitrust law (a thing that only the courts would figure out after years of litigation), Congress could just write them the necessary loophole or delegate US DNS router control to a subsidiary of ICANN majority owned by the US government.

Point is, the article OP is referencing is full of shit.

So, basically, piracy might be fine, but don't say things that make big brother mad?

If you live outside the US, then yes. America is not a role model, but their First Amendment more or less guarantees freedom of speech. It's why the US even allowed the Internet to be "free" in the first place, a cablevision-esque Internet does their military no good.

On the flip side, other countries get shafted as they want the ability to actually enforce their speech laws. It's important to remember that the US is only ceding control because either it does so gracefully, or other countries will simply build their own protocols or take their servers by force. This would undermine the US's dragnets. This wasn't an easy decision for the US to make, because all American businesses want a US led Internet of which they will naturally dominate.

Another thing to remember: the US leaving ICANN means it's easier for individual countries to shut out or screw over US businesses. China does exactly this, websites run by state owned conglomerates and tech companies load far faster than non-state websites.

Interesting. So, since I live in a country with a feminist Prime Minister, should I worry?

Which one?

There's more then one? Canada btw

Yes. And Trudeau is fag. He doesn't have the political will or the guts to do too much. I would be more afraid when one of the neocons get in power.

Also, two examples come to mind:

1. Uber. Their aggressiveness isn't tolerated outside the US and America leaving ICANN means countries will have a greatly expanded set of tools to shut their operations down. Why bother arresting drivers when the state can simply lock them out of the Internet at the base? Imagine if, every time you tried to make a phone call, the phone server would be told to drop your line.

2. Ironically, Amtrak is able to employ very similar tactics on their property, as are most metro systems. Trains don't use the normal Internet, it's routed through FCC-compliant trackside telco equipment owned by the RR and not an ISP (as to not interfere with signalling). Anyway, at any point the RR can simply shut the Internet off. This is exactly what happened in many OWS protests, including the Oakland port shutdown. It's also how Amtrak responded to the BLM Emeryville Amtrak shutdown, which was complete with UPRR Special Agents (private police) clearing the scene (UPRR property) instead of the Sheriff. Imagine this but on a national scale (Not in the US though, PDs and ISPs aren't allowed to play chicken as it annoys businesses. The example listed here, while generally applicable outside the US, is the exception inside the US).

Actually I'd be more worried about France going full retard and trying to make Minitel 2, and Qubec adopting it. Anything can happen now that the US has left ICANN.

bump

Do you faggots even know what ICANN is? They've already had control of the internet for about as long as its been around.

DNS is not a "control" mechanism. It introduces standards.

Seriously, what the fuck is with you, people?

Well technically speaking since they do write the standards they have control, my point was its stupid to be worried about this as ICANN has had de facto independence since it was founded. We should just be glad its a non-profit organization

Depends on the views of those in control of it. Control of the root layers of DNS can most certainly be used wrongly. Censorship via dns purging, hijacking and rerouting is done routinely.

The tech concept itself of course, is necessary. It does matter who does control it, and depending on who it is it can definitely (as is reality) be used as a way to control information. The only proper control of the internet, and dns root servers, is public and completely passive maintenance.

bump

China and Russia and nations that seek to be their lackeys have disproportionate power.

Euro nations (not exactly the strongest in free speech) also will have a say.

control the standard, control the people

example: banks control the standards of trade thus they control most governments

DNS can be used as a control mechanism though.
When the uk started banning sites such as the pirate bay, they at first did it with DNS.
That said it's pretty ineffective, all you needed until more measures were implemented was to just use the ip address.

Wasn't ICANN created in the first place to avoid DNS going independent? Jon Postel incident, yes.

why do we need domains on the first place? What is so bad about just typing an IP?

I have had this 203.252.231.26/ bookmarked for years and nothing bad has happen.

This. Given the US is the only country ever to legislate freedom of speech they were the perfect legislature for ICANN. I assure y'all that the UN will use this to block 'hate speech'. Kiss goodbye to the chans. See yous on reddit.

because IPs can and do change, and even if they don't, load balancing requires multiple IPs for different servers on large enough networks, do you think Google or Amazon could function on just one IP? And besides that, remembering numbers is far more difficult than a simple domain name, this is common sense here.