Surrendering the Internet?

Been hearing recently about the Obama administration's intention to surrender control of the internet to an international committee, rather than the US-based non-profit that currently oversees domain names and addresses. Can't figure out what problem this is supposed to solve, why it is deemed necessary by the White House, or in what way this could be a good thing. Also can't discern how it is that the Executive branch of the US government has the authority to simply "give away" something of this magnitude.

Hard to see how such a move would accomplish anything positive. An international body, incorporating more oppressive regimes, with no guiding principles similar to those embedded in the U.S. Constitution, into the decision-making processes, would almost certainly be inclined to impose more restrictions on freedom of speech, and perhaps misuse the power of the internet for political purposes.

I'll admit I'm not the most tech-savvy guy out there, and I'd love to hear the thoughts of those who have a better understanding of just what is at stake here. Just seems to me like surrendering a HUGE piece of U.S. sovereignty for no good reason.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

ejgorman

While I haven't heard about this yet, it doesn't surprise me. There have been many attempts (some successful) to relinquish oversight of certain aspects of our life to international bodies. I suspect dark net would become more popular if oversight becomes overbearing and bitcoin is already in place for transactions on dark net. Americans tend to lean towards civil disobedience and we tend to find ways to circumvent government oversight.

PAtoNH

"Digital Trends" has a good primer on this topic here:

Why is the U.S. surrendering control of the Internet?

0patience

Control of the internet will become one that you will click on something and if the International body has decided it doesn't fit their criteria, whether it violates your rights or is legal in the US, you won't see it.
They will decided what is allowed on the internet. Period.
You and I will not have a choice.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
- George Washington

Puff_Dougie

0patience:
Control of the internet will become one that you will click on something and if the International body has decided it doesn't fit their criteria, whether it violates your rights or is legal in the US, you won't see it.
They will decided what is allowed on the internet. Period.
You and I will not have a choice.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
- George Washington

That is surely what will happen if we stay "dumb and silent." Why is there no pubic outrage over things like this? It's like we're a nation watching our freedoms being steadily taken away, but it's all on TV, so it's like we're watching a reality show... but it's happening to us! Our forefathers were willing to draw a line in the sand, but our generation doesn't even seem to care as long as we've got a few bucks in our pockets and some gas in our tanks.

perkinke

To me this sounds like more of the "Obama's gonna take your guns!" paranoia than a real issue. But even if so, so what? TONS of our actions are governed by international treaties and no one notices. From the way our telephones interact and are numbered including cell phone frequencies, to water rights on some of our major rivers even down to goose hunting on the west coast. We are already one of the most heavily censored nations on the planet (MPAA, FCC, public indecency laws, and if you don't think that's true buy a true international package and watch some European TV) so I really don't think anything will change for us, in fact it is likely to open up a lot more if it gets out from under American Puritanism. Besides, it's more than a bit hypocritical to say that we get to make those decisions for everyone else, but no one gets input into our decisions. Not that that's anything new, it's the dark side to American exceptionalism. Another thing to think about, how successful has the international community been in regulating important things like, oh, say genocide?

0patience

Puff_Dougie:
0patience:
Control of the internet will become one that you will click on something and if the International body has decided it doesn't fit their criteria, whether it violates your rights or is legal in the US, you won't see it.
They will decided what is allowed on the internet. Period.
You and I will not have a choice.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
- George Washington
That is surely what will happen if we stay "dumb and silent." Why is there no pubic outrage over things like this? It's like we're a nation watching our freedoms being steadily taken away, but it's all on TV, so it's like we're watching a reality show... but it's happening to us! Our forefathers were willing to draw a line in the sand, but our generation doesn't even seem to care as long as we've got a few bucks in our pockets and some gas in our tanks.

Agreed.
It's the frog in the cook pot. Turn the heat up very slowly and it won't even realize it's happening until it's too late.

Something to consider.
Here is how they want the internet. Assume that you like to check out things from another country.
Let's say a specific island country or things made in said country.
Since those things are embargoed in the US, the international body can restrict access to ANY site that contains any of that information, because they are not held to worrying about your freedoms.
They will be able to ban you from visiting any site that they want, with no justification.

Hundreds, if not thousands of sites will disappear overnight. They will be banned from the internet for certain folks.
Remember years ago, television was an open source for products. Over the years, advertising certain products have been banned and continue to face restrictions.
Imagine what the internet is like for China and Korea. That is what we will be faced with.
Is it possible that won't happen? Yes, but the probability is there.
I hate to even say this, but One World Order, here we come.

SleevePlz

So we want our government to control the internet? We want Obozo interfering with our online lives, spying on us, controlling what we can and can not see? Seriously though, I'm shocked that people want the government in control of this stuff rather than an NGO. I thought every thread in the NCR was in favor of less government. Now I'm confused. Lol.

SleevePlz

0patience:
the probability is there.

Based on the TV example, the probability is already there with our government in control of it as well.

Puff_Dougie

I get what you're saying, Kevin... and I'm not a gung-ho 'Merica-first-and-only guy, but it seems to me that it matters who holds the authority to regulate (or purposely NOT regulate) a platform for speech as powerful as the internet. Maybe this transition won't have much of an immediate effect, but does it set the stage for some oppressive regime in the future to wrest control and institute censorship for political or religious reasons? While I would readily acknowledge that the U.S. has its share of problems, our Constitution and Bill of Rights provide a foundation for freedom and liberty that is not found in places like China or Russia. And since it was primarily American research and development, as well as financial resources, that gave the internet to the world community, it seems only right that we maintain control of the infrastructure. I don't think that qualifies as hypocrisy. It's not like the internet just popped out of thin air and America claimed it. It was conceived, developed and perfected here.

0patience

SleevePlz:
So we want our government to control the internet? We want Obozo interfering with our online lives, spying on us, controlling what we can and can not see? Seriously though, I'm shocked that people want the government in control of this stuff rather than an NGO. I thought every thread in the NCR was in favor of less government. Now I'm confused. Lol.

The problem I see with this one is WHO is going to control it and what boundaries will they be held to?
I see no problem with the govt relinquishing the control over it, but who do you allow to control it?
ICANN? If ICANN controls it, who will regulate them?
And who will decide how they control it? Currently, the way things are ICANN is regulated by Europe, Asia and the US govts.

Puff_Dougie

SleevePlz:
So we want our government to control the internet? We want Obozo interfering with our online lives, spying on us, controlling what we can and can not see? Seriously though, I'm shocked that people want the government in control of this stuff rather than an NGO. I thought every thread in the NCR was in favor of less government. Now I'm confused. Lol.

Don't misunderstand... I'm not arguing for government control. That's a different issue altogether. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. government, via the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, already oversees the key functions that control the internet. This is now being ceded to the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). My point and question is simply about whether it is wise or safe for control of the infrastructure of the web to be surrendered by the U.S. and shifted to an international conglomeration which might easily be influenced by more oppressive governments that aren't founded on the principles of liberty outlined in our Constitution.

If they were talking about moving control of the internet away from the government into the private sector, I would be in favor.

SleevePlz

Puff_Dougie:
If they were talking about moving control of the internet away from the government into the private sector, I would be in favor.

Isn't that exactly what is happening? ICANN is a private organization, right? Shouldn't they have had control from the get go? It seems to me that the internet as a whole should never have been in our government's control. Maybe I'm missing something.

perkinke

Puff_Dougie:
I get what you're saying, Kevin... and I'm not a gung-ho 'Merica-first-and-only guy, but it seems to me that it matters who holds the authority to regulate (or purposely NOT regulate) a platform for speech as powerful as the internet. Maybe this transition won't have much of an immediate effect, but does it set the stage for some oppressive regime in the future to wrest control and institute censorship for political or religious reasons? While I would readily acknowledge that the U.S. has its share of problems, our Constitution and Bill of Rights provide a foundation for freedom and liberty that is not found in places like China or Russia. And since it was primarily American research and development, as well as financial resources, that gave the internet to the world community, it seems only right that we maintain control of the infrastructure. I don't think that qualifies as hypocrisy. It's not like the internet just popped out of thin air and America claimed it. It was conceived, developed and perfected here.

The same argument could be made of air travel, yet that is intensely governed by international treaty and we restrict the rights of our citizens to travel as much and likely more than any other western nation. Ever heard of a Canadian "no-fly" list? The fear that this could be used for economic sanctions is probably well founded and deserved, considering we are trying to sanction Russia for doing virtually the same thing we did in Iraq, and we didn't even bother with the pretense of rigging an election. Might be good for us to be more accountable to the international community.

jd50ae

SleevePlz:
Puff_Dougie:
If they were talking about moving control of the internet away from the government into the private sector, I would be in favor.
Isn't that exactly what is happening? ICANN is a private organization, right? Shouldn't they have had control from the get go? It seems to me that the internet as a whole should never have been in our government's control. Maybe I'm missing something.

Sure would like to know who the members are.

Some of the PC forums I belong to are already predicting a heavy hand and censorship.

This is a serious question and no bad feelings are implied or intended. Other then that red-neck bible thumping prejudiced far right FOX news I have not seen this mentioned any where else as of 2 days ago. Where did any of you, hear about it.

Puff_Dougie

SleevePlz:
Puff_Dougie:
If they were talking about moving control of the internet away from the government into the private sector, I would be in favor.
Isn't that exactly what is happening? ICANN is a private organization, right? Shouldn't they have had control from the get go? It seems to me that the internet as a whole should never have been in our government's control. Maybe I'm missing something.

Like I said, I'm not a tech-savvy guy. But as I understand it, ICANN is a non-profit organization but is heavily controlled and influenced by the U.S. Commerce Department (which used to oversee the internet). ICANN is under contract with the Commerce Department and the contract will expire in 2015. So, currently these internet operations are overseen by a private entity (ICANN) under contract with the U.S. government. The plan is to broaden the influence and oversight of ICANN's functions by including other governments from the global community. That's not moving to private-sector oversight, but rather multi-national government oversight.

SleevePlz

jd50ae:
Sure would like to know who the members are.

Some of the PC forums I belong to are already predicting a heavy hand and censorship.

This is a serious question and no bad feelings are implied or intended. Other then that red-neck bible thumping prejudiced far right FOX news I have not seen this mentioned any where else as of 2 days ago. Where did any of you, hear about it.

The ICANN website has its employees listed in the About Us page. Out of curiosity, was Fox News lamenting or celebrating Obozo losing control of our internets?

jd50ae

SleevePlz:
jd50ae:
Sure would like to know who the members are.

Some of the PC forums I belong to are already predicting a heavy hand and censorship.

This is a serious question and no bad feelings are implied or intended. Other then that red-neck bible thumping prejudiced far right FOX news I have not seen this mentioned any where else as of 2 days ago. Where did any of you, hear about it.
The ICANN website has its employees listed in the About Us page. Out of curiosity, was Fox News lamenting or celebrating Obozo losing control of our internets?

The first time I heard them reporting on it that was all they did, report it. And yes subsequent "expert" interviewees all pretty much expressed concern. Personalty I do not like the sound of it. It (IMHO) is right up there with the un and the 2nd Amendment, in that it allows non American groups to decide what we as Americans are allowed to do, or not allowed to do. Granted all the information has yet to be presented, but if obozo is involved I am automatically suspicious.

blutattoo

At the risk of sounding contrarian, wouldn't the US be just as restrictive as an international committee if not more? I mean we have huge corporations with extremely powerful lobbies who want to restrict what we see right now. For years every broadband ISP throttled internet access to specific sites. Call it corporate censorship, and the government did nothing. It wasn't until the net neutrality movement gained a foothold that companies had a light shined on their unscrupulous practices and they took a voluntary approach to it even if they don't follow it fully. In the EU at least some countries have regulations forcing net neutrality, in the US we have none. In the end it's not likely to matter my guess is the status quo will stay the same if the big money from ISPs wants it to stay that way.

jd50ae

blutattoo:
At the risk of sounding contrarian, wouldn't the US be just as restrictive as an international committee if not more? I mean we have huge corporations with extremely powerful lobbies who want to restrict what we see right now. For years every broadband ISP throttled internet access to specific sites. Call it corporate censorship, and the government did nothing. It wasn't until the net neutrality movement gained a foothold that companies had a light shined on their unscrupulous practices and they took a voluntary approach to it even if they don't follow it fully. In the EU at least some countries have regulations forcing net neutrality, in the US we have none. In the end it's not likely to matter my guess is the status quo will stay the same if the big money from ISPs wants it to stay that way.

Why...you contrarian..you.

I do understand and appreciate what you are saying....but....as you say "internet neutrality" has been adopted by some, but the number is not impressive at all. I would love a total internet neutrality but the what do you do about kiddy porn which some countries have no problem with. And what would you do about the 100's of animal cruelty sites that, only because of the private watch dog groups keep from assaulting us.

Again IMHO, the other problem is I have a very big objection to the un or any "body" telling us what we canor can not do.

And as you have pointed out the big money has already got both feet in the door and I do not believe for one moment that an international body would not sooner or later become political if not down right abusive about the US.

And as I said previously obozo has his hands involved in this and that alone makes me worry a lot. And sad to say there will be some kind of corruption every step of the way....add that to politics and it could be very scary.

All of what I have said is of course my opinion and does cause me to question all of it. I mean no disrespect nor do I expect everyone or anyone to agree with me.

Amos Umwhat

I heard a few minutes of Glenn Beck talking about this the other day, but know very little about it. It seems like a dumb idea.

With that said, I'd rather our government than any other government be in control, and privatization does not mean greater freedom in most cases. In fact, it seems to usually mean that some unaccountable individual dictates what he/she will allow.

Anyone read Isaac Asimovs science fiction stories from the '60s about how computers would reach a 'critical mass' effect after reaching global proportions, develop consciousness, and eventually rule everything? Hmm....maybe that's why the NSA headquarters is 5 times the size of the Pentagon?

webmost

Here's what happened to net neutrality.

jd50ae

And here is an interview on FOX, the red neck bible thumping right leaning gun carrying cable news, that is interesting at least. did you know that slick willy is against giving it up..?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3381179839001/why-is-the-us-about-to-give-up-control-of-the-internet/?intcmp=features#sp=show-clips