Trump: Internet control belongs to US. Period

[Atmos]

3 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

this has nothing to do with free speech or "power over the internet" . ICANN is simply in charge of stuff like assigning domains , IP's etc . They have no control over the content itself , or free speech . That is up to the network providers themselves , but not ICANN

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Except we're not handing over that control to those countries. We're handing that control over to iCANN - which already has control over a decent amount of the Internet (Or more specifically, some of the infrastructure), and has been doing totally fine.

 

Americans need to consider that most of the Internet Users in the world are NOT American. As a Canadian, I don't trust the US Government. Full stop. I want to take away control from them as soon as possible.

3 hours ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Except IANA doesn't control the internet? The only thing it has a say over is the IP addresses assigned to the US and regulating the use of Well Known Ports. Neither of those being controlled by ICANN will impact the security of the US. Besides, Trump himself has basically called for Internet censorship here in the US.

Then allow me to frame it like this, so you can better understand.

ICANN is completely reliant on contributions to stay afloat. Rather unlike the current system, which is funded by tax revenue from the citizens who use it. If you want to learn where a company's allegiance lies, look where its funding comes from. In this case, from foreign countries such as russia or china. Countries and political parties who have absolutely no interest in allowing some ideas to see the light of day. Say what you will about america, but we don't openly censor or imprison homosexuals like russia, or blatantly cover up public massacres and riots like china.

Now, you want to argue that ICANN doesn't have control of the internet? It's quite to the opposite, they would be given control of the most vital point of the internet infrastructure. Imagine a post office if you will, ICANN represents the address directory for lining up incoming and outbound mail, with a street address. Now what if ICANN was being funded almost entirely by a foreign body who has no wish to allow a particular address from sending, or receiving mail. ICANN can  then rework their directory and skip over the former street address, or never issue it a street address at all. Forcing mail through a series of hoops and difficulties to get to its intended location.

 

Keep in mind this is the same group who accepted bribes to enact a new domain specifically targeted at being predatory and forcing brands into registering them for outrageous prices to protect their image. A move that was described by ICANN's advisors as being openly predatory and exploitive towards brands. It was openly hostile and ill-intentioned. But no, this is the group we're now allowing to control our internet address infrastructure. Sure, seems fair enough.

 

3 hours ago, gtx1060=value said:

it's a non profit though. its better that all countries have some say rather than politicians from one country pulling strings

And if half of those countries controlling it are absolutely against freedom of information? No, then at that point its not better than american politics we don't openly censor or imprison homosexuals like russia, or blatantly cover up public massacres and riots like china. 

[Beskamir]

3 hours ago, Atmos said:

whether he knows what dns or url is, is irrelevant. 

 

He understands though that handing control of the internet to countries who strictly censor anything anti-government, or anytbing they feel harmful, is quite possibly the worst decision the us can make.

 

I am, for once, in 100% agreement with trump. 

 

Unless this is stopped, we can all kiss the internets freedom of information goodbye. 

How I understand this, the idea here is to give the internet to the UN which is not controlled by any nation or for the US to take full control of it. Since the US is just a single country I consider them just as likely to use their control over the internet to censor it as any other country. The best chance of keeping is free is to give it to several countries which won't want to agree on censoring stuff.

 

Of course I could just be wrong since I didn't read too deeply into this topic.

[Briggsy]

no big surprise. a couple of 69-70 year old's running for president, in a technological age that is 3-4 generations beyond them. It's frightening just thinking about the ignorance that flows through Trump and Clinton, both who went to school learning on chalk-board tablets. That's not to say either of them are not intelligent, but neither of them grasp the information age in any functional manner.

[Serin]

F*ck off.
Sincerely,
The rest of the world.

[dalekphalm]

43 minutes ago, Atmos said:

Then allow me to frame it like this, so you can better understand.

ICANN is completely reliant on contributions to stay afloat. Rather unlike the current system, which is funded by tax revenue from the citizens who use it. If you want to learn where a company's allegiance lies, look where its funding comes from. In this case, from foreign countries such as russia or china. Countries and political parties who have absolutely no interest in allowing some ideas to see the light of day. Say what you will about america, but we don't openly censor or imprison homosexuals like russia, or blatantly cover up public massacres and riots like china.

Now, you want to argue that ICANN doesn't have control of the internet? It's quite to the opposite, they would be given control of the most vital point of the internet infrastructure. Imagine a post office if you will, ICANN represents the address directory for lining up incoming and outbound mail, with a street address. Now what if ICANN was being funded almost entirely by a foreign body who has no wish to allow a particular address from sending, or receiving mail. ICANN can  then rework their directory and skip over the former street address, or never issue it a street address at all. Forcing mail through a series of hoops and difficulties to get to its intended location.

 

Keep in mind this is the same group who accepted bribes to enact a new domain specifically targeted at being predatory and forcing brands into registering them for outrageous prices to protect their image. A move that was described by ICANN's advisors as being openly predatory and exploitive towards brands. It was openly hostile and ill-intentioned. But no, this is the group we're now allowing to control our internet address infrastructure. Sure, seems fair enough.

 

And if half of those countries controlling it are absolutely against freedom of information? No, then at that point its not better than american politics we don't openly censor or imprison homosexuals like russia, or blatantly cover up public massacres and riots like china. 

Here's the problem that I have with that you are saying.

 

1st: Your entire first half of your post is talking about hypotheticals. First off, no single country is a majority funder. You say Russia and China fund it - yes, true. But so does the UK, Canada, and many other nations. There are, I believe, 111 nations on the Global Advisory Committee.

 

That would mean for Russia to "take control", they'd need 110 other countries to agree with them. Or at worst, 55 countries.

 

With that in mind, the US Government still largely controls the Board of Directors for iCANN anyway...

 

You're talking about situations that "might" happen. Well guess what? I KNOW the US Government is spying on my government, my fellow citizens, and the citizens of our allied countries, including the US's own citizens. I know the US Government doesn't have my best interests in heart.

 

So why would I - being a Canadian - want a KNOWN violator of freedoms and rights (The US Government, through the un-constitutional use of the NSA), to keep control over this, over a group of over 100 nations that contains (among other countries) the entire free world? If Russia or China want to start some shit, they're gonna have to deal with or overrule the US, and her Five Eyes allies, not to mention the entire EU and other Western Nations?

 

Let me put it this way: The risk of Russia or China abusing iCANN's control is a LOWER RISK compared to the US Government.

 

If Russia or China had exclusive control over iCANN, perhaps I would share your concerns. But they do not. They are a tiny minority of those who share control.

[NavyCuda]

59 minutes ago, stconquest said:

It makes sense.  You generalize the political parties like they are living entities.  What I mean is you do not mention any specific policy or politician.  All you are doing ranting about the Canadian political spectrum here, in a thread about Trump's (and Cruz's) stupidity.

 

You seem to hate multiculturalism, or a push towards it.  My Canadian upbringing involved a lot of Greek being spoken.  Do you know Greek?  Well then, you are diluting MY Canadian experience; you live in a world that does not speak Greek.  Are you afraid of diversity for some reason?  What is this "Canadian Culture" you speak of?  Does it really exist?

 

Politicians need to convince people to vote for them.  They have to market themselves.  It should be the standard to be the person you tell people you are.

I live just outside the town that bears my family's name.  My family has been here well over a century to the best of my knowledge.

 

Perhaps you're right, I generalize too much.  In way the ideologies of the different parties are comparable to something living.  The Canada I grew up in was very accepting of different people from different areas of the world, as long as they wanted to be Canadian.  I grew up in a rural area, but my two best friends were Korean and Indian.  My wife is a German immigrant. I had some native friends, but being white I was too nervous about partying on the reserve.

 

Someone else above me brought up Canadian politics and it set me off.  Is it so much to ask that someone be able to speak understable English(or French) in the service industry?  Is it so much to ask that if you're asked politely to back your vehicle up so it doesn't get run over by construction equipment, you don't yell back in stuttered English "You're not cop." and close your window.  That's my problem with multiculturalism, the segregated racial groups and the distain they end up having for one another.

[2FA]

1 hour ago, Atmos said:

Now, you want to argue that ICANN doesn't have control of the internet? It's quite to the opposite, they would be given control of the most vital point of the internet infrastructure. Imagine a post office if you will, ICANN represents the address directory for lining up incoming and outbound mail, with a street address. Now what if ICANN was being funded almost entirely by a foreign body who has no wish to allow a particular address from sending, or receiving mail. ICANN can  then rework their directory and skip over the former street address, or never issue it a street address at all. Forcing mail through a series of hoops and difficulties to get to its intended location.

That is absolutely not how DNS works in the slightest. The only DNS servers that it can manipulate are its own which is in actuality is very low number. DNS servers do not go to the IANA and ICANN to synchronize, they synchronize with all of the other DNS servers across the web.

 

The US funds IANA because it is in charge of our numbers, Russia and China give funding to ICANN because it is in charge of their numbers, there is no difference. We will likely start funding ICANN as well when IANA is transferred over.

 

Please for the love of god stop acting like there are central authorities where data has to pass through. That is absolutely not the case and you are absorbing so much nationalist propaganda. You name Russia and China but what about France and Great Britain. They also have oversight on ICANN. They are also major powers in the UN and are both permanent members of the Security Council. Stop acting like the UN is ran by China and Russia exclusively because it isn't. Also, stop with the self-righteous American attitude, it embarrasses the rest of us Americans. America is not innocent when it comes to manipulation.

[rattacko123]

US Internet was already managed by US, Trump just doesn't approve of obamas decision to let the international organisations manage it. 

[Atmos]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Here's the problem that I have with that you are saying.

 

1st: Your entire first half of your post is talking about hypotheticals. First off, no single country is a majority funder. You say Russia and China fund it - yes, true. But so does the UK, Canada, and many other nations. There are, I believe, 111 nations on the Global Advisory Committee.

 

That would mean for Russia to "take control", they'd need 110 other countries to agree with them. Or at worst, 55 countries.

 

With that in mind, the US Government still largely controls the Board of Directors for iCANN anyway...

 

You're talking about situations that "might" happen. Well guess what? I KNOW the US Government is spying on my government, my fellow citizens, and the citizens of our allied countries, including the US's own citizens. I know the US Government doesn't have my best interests in heart.

 

So why would I - being a Canadian - want a KNOWN violator of freedoms and rights (The US Government, through the un-constitutional use of the NSA), to keep control over this, over a group of over 100 nations that contains (among other countries) the entire free world? If Russia or China want to start some shit, they're gonna have to deal with or overrule the US, and her Five Eyes allies, not to mention the entire EU and other Western Nations?

 

Let me put it this way: The risk of Russia or China abusing iCANN's control is a LOWER RISK compared to the US Government.

 

If Russia or China had exclusive control over iCANN, perhaps I would share your concerns. But they do not. They are a tiny minority of those who share control.

And so that invalidates all of specifically ICANN's previous predatory actions?

If someone else had control, I might be okay with it, but ICANN has demonstrated time and time again they are only out for themselves.

[SurvivorNVL]

8 minutes ago, Atmos said:

And so that invalidates all of specifically ICANN's previous predatory actions?

If someone else had control, I might be okay with it, but ICANN has demonstrated time and time again they are only out for themselves.

I'd say let's just give the internet back to its creator and fully decentralize it.  No organizations.  Go back to the internet wild-west, or we can do different and yet similar and localize the internet like we used to have it.  

[Serin]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

 

 

That would mean for Russia to "take control", they'd need 110 other countries to agree with them. Or at worst, 55 countries.

 

 

Or just one of the security council nations to veto....
I'm usually opposed to that throwback of a veto power but it would seem to be a good thing in this context of batshit crazy hypotheticals.

[SeriousDad69]

6 hours ago, gtx1060=value said:

Im done, if he becomes president and has control over the internet, any dissenters will have the fbi knocking at their doors and their ips ddos ed and any anti-trump websites shut down. He's run his corporation like a dictator, you can't say that he won't run america like a dictator. I may be canadian but i fear for the safety of the world if donald trump becomes president. As bad as hillary is, at least she won't start WW3 and a nuclear armageddon

Your post gave me brain cancer lol

[SeriousDad69]

Donald Trump's entire political philosophy is putting America's needs, wants and interests first in anything and everything so I don't doubt he would not want that falling out of our hands. A significant portion of the American people are tired of our government putting others first and Trump is the backlash.

[LAwLz]

I don't know what saddens me the most. That a tech centered forum knows so little about basic stuff, or that so many people just agrees/disagrees with someone just because it was said by person X or Y. 

I guess when politics gets involved, all logic and reason goes out the window. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 hours ago, Atmos said:

snip

You do realize that ICANN has been defacto in control of DNS assignments for literally 18 years (since 1998) right?

 

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't know what saddens me the most. That a tech centered forum knows so little about basic stuff, or that so many people just agrees/disagrees with someone just because it was said by person X or Y. 

I guess when politics gets involved, all logic and reason goes out the window. 

Not just politics... but it isn't a new issue... Darn humanity and it's systematic failures...

 

http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/

[stconquest]

3 hours ago, NavyCuda said:

I live just outside the town that bears my family's name.  My family has been here well over a century to the best of my knowledge.

 

Perhaps you're right, I generalize too much.  In way the ideologies of the different parties are comparable to something living.  The Canada I grew up in was very accepting of different people from different areas of the world, as long as they wanted to be Canadian.  I grew up in a rural area, but my two best friends were Korean and Indian.  My wife is a German immigrant. I had some native friends, but being white I was too nervous about partying on the reserve.

 

Someone else above me brought up Canadian politics and it set me off.  Is it so much to ask that someone be able to speak understable English(or French) in the service industry?  Is it so much to ask that if you're asked politely to back your vehicle up so it doesn't get run over by construction equipment, you don't yell back in stuttered English "You're not cop." and close your window.  That's my problem with multiculturalism, the segregated racial groups and the distain they end up having for one another.

You can't blame your issues on immigrants and call yourself Canadian... if Canadian is meant to be anything good.  Look at your examples, a traffic altercation and not even that... his freaking accent bothers you.  You are projecting your fears and anger as someone has done to you previous.  What you are displaying is learned behavior, bad behavior.  I experience the same as you, yet I don't seem to carry it around in order to spew it out into the world... I don't consider it troublesome.  Did you think life was some perfected path to your grave? 

 

Sorry to break it to you, but you have it good here.  We have been free from war for a long time.  How about we give other families a chance to experience our life here... free from war.  Think about it.  Some of them were born into war, literally.  You understand war here on earth is a bunch of people doing the wrong thing, right?  From the politicians, right down to the soldier.  You can justify it anyway you want but in war, bad shit happens.  There are no heroes.

 

The governing body letting refugee families live here (yes, vetted... geeez) is as much a hero as any soldier on the ground.  The governing body that you ruthlessly mock in a generalized way.  (don't get me wrong, be critical)

 

Liberals, not the party... it feels like it is a freaking huge waiting game.  I would be considered a liberal by many.  I personally am not satisfied with the status quo of many industrialized nations, including my own.  I look to the south and see the same bad attitudes and harmful ideologies that I can find up here... except the effect on the US culture is a multitude greater (arbitrary assertion).  To me, personally, it feels like "liberals" are waiting for religious groups, bad corporations and corrupt politicians to change... or die off. 

 

I figured this life out a long time ago... the life that is lived among others, that is.  I know the value of community and how it can progress.  If world peace broke out tomorrow, I would still carry a heavy burden:  my death.  I would deal with it the best way I can (as I do now), but it would always bother me.  This is something people learn to ignore, death sucks man.  No matter how we convince ourselves that we accept it as an inevitability, it will eat at us until that moment comes.  Everyone of us goes through this.  Don't let your fears and anger dictate the message you send out into the world or your name might as well be changed to Trump... yeah and the nearby town as well.  

 

Last thing (damnit, I will stop):  You say that you want immigrants to want to be Canadian.  How does it look to immigrants to have generational Canadians look down on them and even sometimes wish they were not here... that means back into a war zone.  Are they more likely to embrace a version of themselves in the Canadian "politiscope", or less likely?  Given the chance, most of the immigrants will become part of a Canadian culture that does not exist today... and that does not mean it is a bad thing.

[jaggysnake57]

what scares me the most is thast trump actually has a chance of becoming one of the worlds most powerfull person......americains eh

[TheReal1980]

Oh ok, so they wrap it in a package with Trump so it will look like everyone else is for it.

Btw, I don´t think this requires you to understand what ftp and url means, instead, this is something for lawyers and corrupt politicians to play with.

Personally I don´t know what to make of this. I prefer the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution over what the UN has with all it´s different countries.

[TheReal1980]

5 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

what scares me the most is thast trump actually has a chance of becoming one of the worlds most powerfull person......americains eh

I don't think the US President is the worlds most powerful person, far from it. Military power is not everything, controlling the money supply is much more powerful.

[manikyath]

there's two issues here:

- the internet is not a USA thing, it is an international thing. russia and china theoreticly deserve at least equal right of control as the USA does.

- before control over "the internet" was transferred to this international organisation, it was very much already under control of said organisation. the transfer is in reality not much more than some paperwork and a puppet show.

[Misanthrope]

Look guys here's a few things I should say

 

1- Trump will probably win. He might not become president, cause Hillary would just fucking cheat probably, but he will win.

2- I am completely unfaced by the possibility. I say this as a Mexican, with Mexican-American family living in Texas and California and I'm still unfaced.

3- He will not build a wall worth shit.

4- He won't make us pay for it (Simply because we can't even if we wanted to)

5- He won't deport even a healthy percentage of illegal immigrants.

6- He won't close down the internet.

7- He won't start WW3

8- He generally won't be able to do much of anything at all just like no US President is ever able to.

 

It's extremely sad that the roles are completely reverse and the paranoid and delusional ones are just the Democrats this time around but are just as batshit insane about Trump as Republicans were, and still are, about Obama.

[TheReal1980]

14 minutes ago, manikyath said:

there's two issues here:

- the internet is not a USA thing, it is an international thing. russia and china theoreticly deserve at least equal right of control as the USA does.

- before control over "the internet" was transferred to this international organisation, it was very much already under control of said organisation. the transfer is in reality not much more than some paperwork and a puppet show.

That "paperwork" can change everything. The Magna Carta was also written on a piece of paper and it made lots of changes.

[cazetofamo]

I don't believe any ine country should have control of the internet. Actually, what would happen if it became its own political entity?

[manikyath]

36 minutes ago, TheReal1980 said:

That "paperwork" can change everything. The Magna Carta was also written on a piece of paper and it made lots of changes.

but the thing is, the international organisation was for all intents and purposes already under control.

[Inkz]

14 hours ago, gtx1060=value said:

I fully agree, sorry my american friends, but america thinks that just because it has military might, it can force it's neighbours and allies to do whatever the hell it wants to. That may have worked 300 years before, but this is a new era.

What are you talking about? America wasn't even founded until the late 1700s and it stayed isolationist for a good part of the 1800s. I do get your point, though it is a bit of an exaggeration.