• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet

American said:
Yeah, give up control and trust the other clowns to keep it going.
Click to expand...

Oh noes! They're going to break the internets! The system of tubes will crack and all of the information will fall out!

Can you actually give a reason this is a bad thing. What would be a negative consequence?
 
It is threads like this that drive home to Americans the terrible devastation that multiculturalism has wreaked upon America and the formerly great American culture.

How true it is that you cannot create a sense of culture and national pride with an immigration contract.
 
Ray410 said:
It is threads like this that drive home to Americans the terrible devastation that multiculturalism has wreaked upon America and the formerly great American culture.

How true it is that you cannot create a sense of culture and national pride with an immigration contract.
Click to expand...
UHH.jpg
 
RiverDad said:
But this wasn't a battle which hinged on a technical issue, it was a political battle, so why is everyone mocking the political concerns by pointing to technical issues? Why, it's almost like the mockers don't understand the political issue in play whereas those who were complaining so much knew that they were playing a political game and that their complaints weren't mere technical minutia.
Click to expand...

It's the political recognition of the functional reality.
 
spud_meister said:
Oh noes! They're going to break the internets! The system of tubes will crack and all of the information will fall out!

Can you actually give a reason this is a bad thing. What would be a negative consequence?
Click to expand...

Without the United States, who will clean the lolcats out of the tubes?!
 
Funnily enough, on the 25th anniversary of the WWW this week, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was asked how he felt it had all gone. His response? "I didn't expect the cats!"
 
:popcorn2:

American said:
Obama signs order outlining emergency Internet control | Internet & Media - CNET News

President Barack Obama signed an executive order last week that could give the U.S. government control over the Internet.
With the wordy title "Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions," this order was designed to empower certain governmental agencies with control over telecommunications and the Web during natural disasters and security emergencies.

According to The Verge, critics of the order are concerned with Section 5.2, which is a lengthy part outlining how telecommunications and the Internet are controlled. It states that the Secretary of Homeland Security will "oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment" of national security and emergency preparedness measures on all systems, including private "non-military communications networks." According to The Verge, critics say this gives Obama the on/off switch to the Web.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty leftwing to me. I don't trust the govt with stuff like this. Legislation like this was blocked last year, so why is Obama going against the will of the people?
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American said:
U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet - The Washington Post
By Craig Timberg, Published: March 14

U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the 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 last year to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance.

The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.

“We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan,” Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, said in a statement.

The announcement received a passionate response, with some groups quickly embracing the change and others blasting it.
Click to expand...

Barack Obama is a ****ing jackass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Wiseone said:
I got another one.

In your mind strength is having a marginal influence over who gets what kind of domain names on the internet, but having a universal healthcare system that would keep our citizens healthy and productive while costing the government less than what it already spends on healthcare is a weakness?

Are you embarrassed yet?
Click to expand...

This is America son, people dont like the govt telling them what to do, and they certainly dont like being taxed if they dont.
 
US Conservative said:
This is America son, people dont like the govt telling them what to do, and they certainly dont like being taxed if they dont.
Click to expand...

Well apparently you like the idea of the government telling people what kind of internet domain names they can register, except that right?
 
US Conservative said:
:roll: Thats your best shot?
Click to expand...

I guess he forgot you were a corporate slave and what corporations want, you want. Do you know why corporations lobbied against turning over the internet? I don 't but I am curious to know?
 
US Conservative said:
:roll: Thats your best shot?
Click to expand...

You said the government shouldn't tell people what to do, but here you are defending the government's oversight of an organization which is responsible for telling people what kind of internet domain names they can and cannot have.

That seems like a pretty good shot
 
Wiseone said:
You said the government shouldn't tell people what to do, but here you are defending the government's oversight of an organization which is responsible for telling people what kind of internet domain names they can and cannot have.

That seems like a pretty good shot
Click to expand...

You think this is about domain names? Way to go thinker.
 
eohrnberger said:
Not sure of traceroutes from EU locations to EU locations going through Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania area. I didn't think that the expensive and slower long lines across the Atlantic would make that type of traffic routing viable. I made mention of that strictly from the perspective of what makes traffic routing optimization sense. Reality could be different, I'll admit.

My house is on one cable system, and my friend a few doors down is on another. I'm surprised that it has to go from Michigan to Chicago to jump across and get to the other house, but wherever the first bridge between the two is geographically located I guess.
Click to expand...

Yes that is the theory I agree. It should go the shortest route possible, but it does not always do that. I admit that I have not done trace routes recently, but many moons ago (early 2000s to late 2000s) it certainly was so for specific sites.

But one example of meddling by the US in the internet was the case of Rojadirect.com. It is a Spanish site, located in Spain and servicing Spain with video streams of sports events. According to Spanish law this is legal, but according to US law it is not. The DHS/FBI seized the domain a few years ago, despite the fact that .com was not technically an "American domain", nor the servers were not located in the US. They also charged the owners but as far as I know the case was latter dismissed because no crime had been committed on US soil, but the domain is still being held.
 
PeteEU said:
Yes that is the theory I agree. It should go the shortest route possible, but it does not always do that. I admit that I have not done trace routes recently, but many moons ago (early 2000s to late 2000s) it certainly was so for specific sites.

But one example of meddling by the US in the internet was the case of Rojadirect.com. It is a Spanish site, located in Spain and servicing Spain with video streams of sports events. According to Spanish law this is legal, but according to US law it is not. The DHS/FBI seized the domain a few years ago, despite the fact that .com was not technically an "American domain", nor the servers were not located in the US. They also charged the owners but as far as I know the case was latter dismissed because no crime had been committed on US soil, but the domain is still being held.
Click to expand...

Once again, we can see the result of over zealous government intervention, and in this case, it seems wholly unfounded.
 
eohrnberger said:
Once again, we can see the result of over zealous government intervention, and in this case, it seems wholly unfounded.
Click to expand...

Well the streams were/are illegal according to US law (and many other laws), just not Spanish. Point is the US should not have any jurisdiction to seize any domain's on servers that are not located on US soil.
 
PeteEU said:
Well the streams were/are illegal according to US law (and many other laws), just not Spanish. Point is the US should not have any jurisdiction to seize any domain's on servers that are not located on US soil.
Click to expand...

Agreed. As the streams were illegal in other countries, I could see / understand / would agree with restrictions imposed on the stream providers making them ensure that their streams were / are prevented from being delivered to IPs other than where they were legal. Firewall or server rules perhaps?
 
Ray410 said:
It is threads like this that drive home to Americans the terrible devastation that multiculturalism has wreaked upon America and the formerly great American culture.

How true it is that you cannot create a sense of culture and national pride with an immigration contract.
Click to expand...

What the **** are you talking about
 
I can't say I'm surprised by two peoples' posts in thus thread.
 
eohrnberger said:
Agreed. As the streams were illegal in other countries, I could see / understand / would agree with restrictions imposed on the stream providers making them ensure that their streams were / are prevented from being delivered to IPs other than where they were legal. Firewall or server rules perhaps?
Click to expand...

Block the site from being accessed from the US.. but seizing the domain did not do that.. it still out there and easily accessed in the US.
 
PeteEU said:
Block the site from being accessed from the US.. but seizing the domain did not do that.. it still out there and easily accessed in the US.
Click to expand...

The Fed's just don't 'get' the Internet. Must have something to do with Al Gore 'inventing' it. Probably equally confused.
 
eohrnberger said:
The Fed's just don't 'get' the Internet. Must have something to do with Al Gore 'inventing' it. Probably equally confused.
Click to expand...

It is not the "feds", it is politicians in general.. and it comes down to age for the most part. They actually think that the Internet has borders and are trying to keep those borders in place so to keep political control through outdated laws that have not been adapted to a world with the Internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom