Obama signs internet over to United Nations

[Tomsen]

4 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Sooo instead of the NSA wiping their ass with the law, it will be every NSA equivalent of every country?

That is already how it is. NSA is just the one getting the most light in this dark era.

 

[samcool55]

Just now, Tomsen said:

That is already how it is. NSA is just the one getting the most light in this dark era.

 

Sooo what does the sign mean then?

If all the NSA equivalents already do the same sh*t as the NSA i don't see the point in all this apart from making it look like this is a good thing.

[Prysin]

13 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Sooo what does the sign mean then?

If all the NSA equivalents already do the same sh*t as the NSA i don't see the point in all this apart from making it look like this is a good thing.

because atm, the NSA can, through the FBI and other instances abuse the shit out of the laws, due to servers being hosted, often, in the US.

The "other NSA's" cannot do this remotely as easily. By making the internet truly "international", just like we have international water, we can also make broader, but internationally applying laws. Instead of just catering to US laws (which more often then not is actually going against the constitutional laws of some EU countries).

[Tomsen]

9 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Sooo what does the sign mean then?

If all the NSA equivalents already do the same sh*t as the NSA i don't see the point in all this apart from making it look like this is a good thing.

You might want to look into IANA and what their are responsible.

Lets take an example, when the internet was first put in use, the US assigned a whole lot of IP addresses to themselves. Other countries had to essentially buy IP addresses from them. Internetwork surveillance is on a higher layer and is not even relevant in this subject, and it is done in a domestic fashion. (The intelligence agencies share information to their alliances), see the five eyes.

[samcool55]

19 minutes ago, Prysin said:

because atm, the NSA can, through the FBI and other instances abuse the shit out of the laws, due to servers being hosted, often, in the US.

The "other NSA's" cannot do this remotely as easily. By making the internet truly "international", just like we have international water, we can also make broader, but internationally applying laws. Instead of just catering to US laws (which more often then not is actually going against the constitutional laws of some EU countries).

Ooh well now it makes sense to me

 

I hope this is a good thing then. Since the brexit stuff i'm paying more attention what the EU does for me (i live in belgium) and tbh they are doing good.

It seems to me that the EU is much more pro-privacy and is actively fighting for net neutrality for example.

 

Let's hope they can tell the USA to not allow anti-privacy stuff when they ask the UN to allow whatever they come up with next.

(The EU isn't technically part of the UN but with countries supporting stuff the EU decides about it makes sense they do the same thing in the UN).

 

Or i'm completely wrong, that's also an option. I'm not really familiar with politics.

25 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

You might want to look into IANA and what their are responsible.

Lets take an example, when the internet was first put in use, the US assigned a whole lot of IP addresses to themselves. Other countries had to essentially buy IP addresses from them. Internetwork surveillance is on a higher layer and is not even relevant in this subject, and it is done in a domestic fashion. (The intelligence agencies share information to their alliances), see the five eyes.

It would be nice that something like IANA isn't under control from a specific country.

Especially in times of war i can see such organisation or whatever it is being abused by the government and giving the US an unfair advantage (not that any war ever has been a fair fight)

 

Such thing should be neutral, and i guess the UN is as close as we are going to get atm...  Better than nothing probably!

 

[Tomsen]

47 minutes ago, Prysin said:

because atm, the NSA can, through the FBI and other instances abuse the shit out of the laws, due to servers being hosted, often, in the US.

The "other NSA's" cannot do this remotely as easily. By making the internet truly "international", just like we have international water, we can also make broader, but internationally applying laws. Instead of just catering to US laws (which more often then not is actually going against the constitutional laws of some EU countries).

This is on a whole nother layer, which is nothing relevant to this topic. That is services providers like google, facebook and such, have servers all over, and do some data-shufftling between them. This is nothing relevant to the backbone of the internet or IANA responsibilities.

EU has, iirc, already instated certain laws for data locality (that certain data cannot be shuffled to foreign servers).

 

 

16 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

It would be nice that something like IANA isn't under control from a specific country.

Especially in times of war i can see such organisation or whatever it is being abused by the government and giving the US an unfair advantage (not that any war ever has been a fair fight)

 

Such thing should be neutral, and i guess the UN is as close as we are going to get atm...  Better than nothing probably!

That is what their are working towards. Also, in the long term, no other superpower country is going to allow that a single other country (or nation of countries) to keep such influence over such matters. (Things don't progess themselves, you better believe some organizations have been pushing for this).

[SurvivorNVL]

So, the Internet is going from the sociopathic American government to the sociopathic international government?  Good show.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, samcool55 said:

I always thought the internet is a decentralized thing.

It is.

 

4 hours ago, samcool55 said:

This stuff sounds like the internet is somehow going to be a centralized controlled thing and enabling worldwide censorship of internet things...

That's because the media in general (and I am including people in this thread) has absolutely no idea about how the Internet works. I wouldn't be surprised if they think "the Internet" is this:

 

4 hours ago, samcool55 said:

Is it really that bad or am i just understanding this all wrong?

No you're understanding it correctly. It's that most other people don't understand it.

 

 

 

I still haven't found an article that explains what exactly is going on.

[Tomsen]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No you're understanding it correctly. It's that most other people don't understand it.

 

 

 

I still haven't found an article that explains what exactly is going on.

I'm quite surprised how many thinks internet surveillance is relevant to this topic. 

 

If you do find one do share.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

I'm quite surprised how many thinks internet surveillance is relevant to this topic. 

Because it seems like people think "the Internet" is a single computer that you access. Ted Cruiz, the moronic fear monger has tried to scare people by saying "it might even end up in the same building that's responsible for censoring western websites in China".

 

 

Basically, people who don't understand what is going on are just screaming about things they are worried might happen.

 

 

From what I can tell, Obama wants to give over ICANN to the UN. If that's what is going on then pretty much nothing will change when it (hopefully) goes though.

I'd rather have ~200 countries, out of which like 10 are pure evil (so 5%), have control over ICANN than the US (which is 99% pure evil).

[Tomsen]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Because it seems like people think "the Internet" is a single computer that you access. Ted Cruiz, the moronic fear monger has tried to scare people by saying "it might even end up in the same building that's responsible for censoring western websites in China".

 

 

Basically, people who don't understand what is going on are just screaming about things they are worried might happen.

 

 

From what I can tell, Obama wants to give over ICANN to the UN. If that's what is going on then pretty much nothing will change when it (hopefully) goes though.

I'd rather have ~200 countries, out of which like 10 are pure evil (so 5%), have control over ICANN than the US (which is 99% pure evil).

That might be true for the elder and more tech-illiterate people, but I was thinking more inline of the members of LTT forum, who atleast should have a basic understanding of the internets structure.  Ted Cruiz is always a joy to listen to, but we all now who he is trying to reach with those statements, the old conservative people.

 

That statement couldn't be more true. Sad how it seems to go on without any kind of fallback, but then again where would Donald Trump be if that was the case.

 

Nothing would change if that was the cause, atleast not for those who consumes internet. 

[samcool55]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It is.

 

That's because the media in general (and I am including people in this thread) has absolutely no idea about how the Internet works. I wouldn't be surprised if they think "the Internet" is this:

-snip-

 

No you're understanding it correctly. It's that most other people don't understand it.

 

I still haven't found an article that explains what exactly is going on.

Well i'm happy you made some things clear.

 

I'm learning atm about internet and the ISO layer things so i was really worried i missed something in class... (i never missed one of that subject btw, i did skip others but they were unrelated to internet :p)

 

The internet itself is quite complicated and takes months/years to understand so i can imagine people think it's just a black box.

 

And funny note: some people argue the internet does have a weight, about the same as a strawberry.

Electrodes carrying data all over the world have a bit of mass, it's almost 0 but they do have weight to it that you can measure with the right tools, and if you count all of them in the world at a specific moment some say it's similar to the weight of a strawberry. No idea if that's true but it seems to make sense to me...

 

Anyway, i stopped following most news sites atm, most of them don't even know what they are talking about anyway.

North korea for example, where i live they keep saying "they don't have internet" or BS like that while it's completely false.

They should do something about it but that would be against laws and rights so i completely ignored it.

[TheSuspenceful]

This is a very good thing. we need to become more united. 

[Teddy07]

I honestly trust many other countries more then the USA. They are only bullying other countries because they are strong in military and economy

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

We just went from domain registration (correct me if I am wrong, IMO the article was confusing), to internet surveillance, to the American elections and general politics, to food chemistry.

 

So then... what does A have to do with B, B have to do with C, C to do with D, and Cthulhu to do with the Easter Bunny?

[HalGameGuru]

1 hour ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

We just went from domain registration (correct me if I am wrong, IMO the article was confusing), to internet surveillance, to the American elections and general politics, to food chemistry.

 

So then... what does A have to do with B, B have to do with C, C to do with D, and Cthulhu to do with the Easter Bunny?

The Easter Bunny is an avatar of Cthulu, who is fed by the mechanisms of food chemistry, which is misappropriated by politics, which is decided by elections, which are guided by internet surveillance, which is dictated by which addresses a .com points to... I think that explains it...

[TidaLWaveZ]

wtf...

 

Didn't know Obama owned the internet.

 

I did however know that Obama seems to do and get away with whatever he wants like passing or changing laws without the approval of congress.

[DXMember]

I see this as a pre-emptive strike to defend the Internet against what's to come...

 

Trump is bringing trade back, so we can make American grapes again.

[SansVarnic]

Some commentors on this subject have moot points concerning this issue. 

Apparently few here really understand the UN and the history behind the workings of the UN.

 

Besides pointing that out, for the US to sign over control of the Internets working to this so called "governmental body" that has not done one ounce of good in most of its entirety, ICANN is not even under US control so AGAIN Obama is usurping authority from outside of his office to do this... And this move even if it was under control of the US government, has to be signed off by the Senate as stated by Law when it concerns anything dealing with the UN.

There will be no good to come from this move. And I am not saying this necessarily from the point of view of being American. To much ignorance is abundant in this thread on this subject.

 

I said my piece and will leave at that.

[DutchTexan]

On August 29, 2016 at 5:27 PM, SansVarnic said:

Some commentors on this subject have moot points concerning this issue. 

Apparently few here really understand the UN and the history behind the workings of the UN.

 

Besides pointing that out, for the US to sign over control of the Internets working to this so called "governmental body" that has not done one ounce of good in most of its entirety, ICANN is not even under US control so AGAIN Obama is usurping authority from outside of his office to do this... And this move even if it was under control of the US government, has to be signed off by the Senate as stated by Law when it concerns anything dealing with the UN.

There will be no good to come from this move. And I am not saying this necessarily from the point of view of being American. To much ignorance is abundant in this thread on this subject.

 

I said my piece and will leave at that.

"Apparently few here really understand the UN and the history behind the workings of the UN.

 

Besides pointing that out, for the US to sign over control of the Internets working to this so called "governmental body" that has not done one ounce of good in most of its entirety, ICANN is not even under US control so AGAIN Obama is usurping authority from outside of his office to do this"

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

The problem with people is that we are predictable. Therefore, people are easy to manipulate. Especially, when one has a message enmeshed with strong emotions. If one can make an emotional argument and repeat it over and over, then most people believe and defend it. Additionally, if you include social conditioning, cultural engineering in the form of mob rule, then 'popular' beliefs are reinforced. Thus, completing the cycle of mental manipulation. This goes hand in hand with conditioning a specific world view, a political philosophy, all in aims of pressing an agenda. 

 

Intelligence is not required to feel emotions. Emotions yield the strongest reactions. 

[dalekphalm]

15 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

"Apparently few here really understand the UN and the history behind the workings of the UN.

 

Besides pointing that out, for the US to sign over control of the Internets working to this so called "governmental body" that has not done one ounce of good in most of its entirety, ICANN is not even under US control so AGAIN Obama is usurping authority from outside of his office to do this"

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

The problem with people is that we are predictable. Therefore, people are easy to manipulate. Especially, when one has a message enmeshed with strong emotions. If one can make an emotional argument and repeat it over and over, then most people believe and defend it. Additionally, if you include social conditioning, cultural engineering in the form of mob rule, then 'popular' beliefs are reinforced. Thus, completing the cycle of mental manipulation. This goes hand in hand with conditioning a specific world view, a political philosophy, all in aims of pressing an agenda. 

 

Intelligence is not required to feel emotions. Emotions yield the strongest reactions. 

Much could be said about your own positions. There's plenty of evidence that the US abuses it's limited power over the Internet already. Yet there appears to be no evidence of the UN abusing power over iCANN, which is already a company controlled by a UN sanctioned coalition of governments. If iCANN hasn't been abused, why would we think IANA would be abused either?

[DutchTexan]

58 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Much could be said about your own positions. There's plenty of evidence that the US abuses it's limited power over the Internet already. Yet there appears to be no evidence of the UN abusing power over iCANN, which is already a company controlled by a UN sanctioned coalition of governments. If iCANN hasn't been abused, why would we think IANA would be abused either?

Maybe everything I said was a lie. I will consider it.

 

Hopefully, you too will consider your entire understanding of existence, holistically.