The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What are the implications of a Internet handover to the private sector?  (Read 2351 times)

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
What do you think? Could the Internet become a global technological bubble with this move? Does the US government and Obama could moderate the Internet?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/09/us_government_green_lights_transition_of_internet_to_private_sector/
 


 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
I don't think a transition to ICANN (or not, this year) will significantly affect the internet.

China and some other countries will continue to strictly control internet usage in their country.
- The USA and most other countries will continue to closely monitor the internet in their country (and other countries).
- Criminals will continue to hack into people's accounts and continue to crash sites
- Innovation on the internet will continue through the RFC (Request For Comment) process

The internet has made a name for itself as a progressive environment with rapid development of standards.
- It certainly is very different from the way international telecommunications standards were developed under the International Telecommunications Union (ITU-T) 20-50 ago, with everything done on a 4-year cycle.
- Standards-making bodies like the ITU, ISO, IEEE and ETSI are now working much more like the internet standards process.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Quote from: Ted Cruz
Imagine an internet run like many Middle Eastern countries that punish what they deem to be blasphemy. Or imagine an internet run like China or Russia that punish and incarcerate those who engage in political dissent..."

http://www.insidesources.com/cruz-threatens-obama-appointee-with-prison-over-internet-handover/
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: US Politician
Imagine an internet run like many Middle Eastern countries that punish what they deem to be blasphemy.
The cross-border nature of the internet already clashes with laws in various countries.
- In Europe, eBay was forced to take down Nazi memorabilia which was quite legal to trade in the USA
- Many internet companies are moving their income from the countries in which they earned it, into countries with zero or near-zero company tax rates. International law is just starting to take action on this.
- US security agencies have spied on their own citizens without a warrant
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
This internet handover may be illegal, according to a specific rider in the federal budget of 2016:

Quote
“Sec. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/30/exclusive-breitbartgravis-poll-reveals-americans-strongly-oppose-obamas-internet-handover/

Also, this mean the end of the First Amendment protection of free speech over the web. :(
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Isn't strange that this Internet handover deal could happen one month before the critical US elections ?



 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: tkadm30
This internet handover may be illegal, according to a specific rider in the federal budget of 2016
That rider does not make it illegal, it just makes it more complicated. For example:
- NTIA is currently funded by Congress to continue running the internet administration. They can't spend Congress money on planning to hand over to ICANN - but they could just stop administering the internet. Messy but possible. (I am yet to see a government department that decides not to spend money which is already allocated!)
- Or ICANN could do all the planning, and NTIA could just agree to it.
- Or NTIA could use non-Congress sources to fund the planning; I am sure that Russia and China would be happy to put up some Roubles/Yuan to help!
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
What could be done to stop this from happening ?
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: tkadm30
What could be done to stop this from happening ?
Why don't you want it to happen?
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Quote from: tkadm30
What could be done to stop this from happening ?
Why don't you want it to happen?

I'm very concerned about this handover because it could deter our freedom of speech and create repression by promoting a UN-like ideology over the web. Imagine the world wide web owned by Facebook and Google requiring you to sign in into your account to access the web... Or worse, imagine that Facebook moderate your comments on the naked scientist forum... There's many ways this could be a bad thing for the neutrality of the web. 
 


Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: tkadm30
UN-like ideology
What do you see as the UN ideology?
- World Peace?
- Freedom from Oppression and Disease?
- The ability to communicate between individuals, organisations and countries?
- The ability of people and goods to move between countries?

...and how would you contrast this with, say, a "Donald Trump ideology"?
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
What do you see as the UN ideology?
- World Peace?
- Freedom from Oppression and Disease?
- The ability to communicate between individuals, organisations and countries?
- The ability of people and goods to move between countries?

...and how would you contrast this with, say, a "Donald Trump ideology"?

I regret sincerely but the UN is a failure. The UN is a globalist organization dedicated to human slavery and creating terrorism. The Internet and the US doesn't need the UN to prosper.

How would you see the Internet from Syria if this Internet handover is accepted by the US congress? Do you think the current Syrian regime could communicate over the Internet freely if the Domain Name System is controlled by the UN?

It is highly debatable that world peace could ever be achieved with the UN agenda for the new world order. Global repression and tyranny is in my opinion the ultimate objective of the UN. The First Amendment needs to apply to the Internet, in order to protect our rights from despotism and oppression. 
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Congratulations Evan, ICANN will now moderate the Internet.

I guess this is sad day for freedom of speech.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: tkadm30
I guess this is sad day for freedom of speech.
Just be glad that a previous US government proposal failed: they wanted to mandate an encryption chip in every computer which would have a "back door" known only to the US government.

Well, you still have the freedom of speech (at least for one more day).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
 

Online mrsmith2211

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
IMHO the biggest downside is the ability to link to a website other than IP address is controlled by a privately owned company
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: mrsmith2211
the ability to link to a website other than IP address is controlled by a privately owned company
I first made accessed the internet from home when the only way to reach a site was using its IP address. You really don't want to return to those days... (especially with IPv6!)*

Today, you can also reach sites by their URL, which is (slightly) friendlier - but good luck remembering that this thread is topic 68352!

Most people today find websites by entering search terms in a search engine, plus modern web browsers have a cache of recently visited sites which it tries to match.

Yes, the search engines are controlled by private companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft and they do show ads. But there are a raft of them competing for your attention - plus other discipline-specific sources like medical indexes and generalists like Wikipedia. Plus the "Personal Assistants" like Siri and Courtana...

Would you rather have a privately-owned Google search, or a search engine which only listed content authorized by the government of China or the USA?

*Our UNIX-based computers at work had better tools for accessing the internet, but they were mostly text-based.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2016 20:50:10 by evan_au »
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote
the ability to link to a website other than IP address
There have been some half-serious attempts to define a new internet architecture where you describe what you want (the Content), rather than the current model in IPv4/IPv6 where you describe whose server it resides on (the Network).

This is part of a general migration towards Content Delivery Networks, currently dominated by Akamai (most people have never heard of Akamai, even though most people have used them), but also with more well-known operators like Google and Amazon.

IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses, enough for almost 4 billion addresses, but not enough for the current population of the world.
IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses, and I'm not going to try and express 1038 in trillions.
Proposals for CDNs assume something like 256 or 512 bits for addresses, leading to jokes like "I've got so many addresses that I don't have any room for data...".

But there is a fundamental difficulty with trying to define a representation of every kind of content that someone may want to create, someday.
So I think we are stuck with search engines for now.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
We may need to go back to our roots, and revert to the Wood-Wide Web.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
How do you define "cybersecurity" now that the Internet DNS has been transfered to the private sector ?
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: tkadm30
now that the Internet DNS has been transferred to the private sector
This is not a recent change. Unless you actually work for the government or the military, the odds are that you have been using a privately-operated DNS for as long as you have been using the internet.

There have been top-level servers on each continent for many years; for political reasons these could not possibly be operated by the US government.

A recent survey showed 51,482 name servers from 204 countries, most in private hands; see: http://public-dns.info/

Quote
How do you define "cybersecurity"?
Resiliency in the face of equipment malfunctions, software malfunctions, accidental changes in software configuration, criminal intrusions, spying by governments and private organisations, and government-sponsored cyber-attacks.

The motivation may be financial gain, military advantage, commercial, political, religious or ideological gain, titillation, vandalism, respect from a peer group or the pure intellectual challenge of it.

Certainly the DNS server network is one way that attacks can be made, for example by directing people to a web site that looks like the genuine thing (but isn't), or by cutting people off from websites in another country (something that governments sometimes do, with varying degrees of due process).

The spy agencies in various countries are on the lookout for such weaknesses and attacks (as well as finding weaknesses and conducting attacks on other countries). The outcome would not be that different if the top-level DNS server was operated by the US government, a private organisation, or another country.

In many ways, cybersecurity is like the immune system - there are resources that could be attacked, plenty of potential attackers, and a series of mechanisms that try to defend against attacks.
- You can crush your computer the first time you receive a suspicious email - but that is definitely too severe
- You can defend against attacks by never connecting to the internet, WiFi or USB sticks - but then your computer is not very productive.
- Or you can keep your virus scanner up to date, and avoid opening suspicious-looking emails. Make regular backup copies, and recognise that sometimes something will get in and cause damage.

...this comment is triggered by a discussion at: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68555.0
« Last Edit: 08/10/2016 22:42:51 by evan_au »
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: tkadm30
What are the implications of a Internet handover to the private sector?
I think the biggest impact on the USA will be purely psychological.

It will occur when the US is brought into line with the rest of the world, and US domain names are forced to end with ".us". I think that the driver will not be the private sector, but the government sector.

By the way, this is a naming convention that was defined by the US government, but never applied to itself.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
I think the biggest impact on the USA will be purely psychological.

Not so fast... Globalist think tanks (CFR) are now seeking real-time surveillance of all individuals on the Internet through a "Digital Object Architecture": http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/10/26/authoritarians-seek-real-time-surveillance-of-all-individuals-on-the-internet-in-global-conference/
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
hello world

evan, do you think the Internet handover will repress freedom of speech?

 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: tkadm30
Globalist think tanks (CFR) are now seeking real-time surveillance of all individuals on the Internet through a "Digital Object Architecture"
The NSA & FBI already try to do real-time surveillance of everyone in the world. Why is this any different?

Quote
do you think the Internet handover will repress freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech applies to US citizens and is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  It is not necessarily protected for non-citizens visiting the USA, or for US citizens travelling abroad. You need to respect the laws of the country in which you are located at the time.

Freedom of speech is already limited in various ways - some good, some not so good.
- China bans any criticism of the government
- Thailand is more selective, and just bans criticism of the King
- Germany bans anti-Semitism
- France bans pro-Nazi speech
- A number of Middle Eastern countries ban immoral Western websites
- My country bans child pornography and pirate video sites
- Many countries (including the USA) are sensitive about their treatment of minorities, past and present.
- Most countries ban their citizens from conducting terrorist attacks, inciting others to terrorism, or providing information & resources for terrorist attacks within their own country.
- Policies are much more variable when it comes to promoting attacks on other countries...

Our legal systems were developed as a very local thing, and struggle with the fact that the internet ignores many of these historical boundaries.

Every 4 years, US citizens have the right to freedom of speech in the election of the President.
- But one candidate this year has stated that he will ignore this most public voice of the people (if it goes against him). This sounds like a rather severe repression of the US right to Freedom of Speech...
« Last Edit: 01/11/2016 19:52:54 by evan_au »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums