Posted on 09/24/2016 6:12:42 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
“Internet freedom is now at risk with the president’s intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship,” said Stephen Miller, Trump’s national policy director, on Wednesday.
Internet experts call such criticisms off-base.
Under the new ICANN regime, nations will be able to censor content “no more than they are now,” Jim Waldo, a professor and chief technology officer for Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, writes in an email. “These worries are more evidence that the people voicing them don’t understand how the technology works.”
In fact, moving away from US control may be able to preserve free speech by keeping the system free from government control.
“The best defense against foreign governments exerting control over the Internet is to finish the transition on time,” the Center for Democracy & Technology and other advocates of Internet freedom wrote in a joint statement earlier this month. “The transition of these functions away from the US government removes an excuse for authoritarian countries to demand greater oversight and regulation of Internet issues.”
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
EXACTLY Rooster...CCNA..
UN...police the Internet.. In the States....HAHAHAH
If the functions performed by ICANN were so mundane, no one would care where it is located, or who has the most control over it.
When I read. “Harvard Professor ........ “ I quit right there. No professor of whatever from Harvard, is going to state anything but the liberal bible!
The standards and behavior for ICANN can certainly be changed. My guess is that they would be able to add filters and remove websites if they wish.
I also don’t doubt that the muslim brotherhood has found a way of expressing their views on this matter to Val Jarrett and obama.
Obama already made his Secret Deal with the New Owner and is just waiting for his Check or will it be cash in an Unmarked plane
The system that is being transferred includes controlling ISPs, domains, names. A simple block or deletion of a domain takes out a business, blog, personal website.
This Harvard professor needs to explain how the above won’t happen. It indeed will happen when a group is empowered to control it without a representative arm of the people.
Keeping it in the USA keeps it under the influence of Congress and because it is now a household and business utility, any attempts to tax or regulate it will be met with a public revolt. Whereas, if an international group were controlling it, public backlash in the USA would be ignored.
So why has China and Russia lobbied for it to be out of our control? Why?
Is there any good reason to change it?
Conservatives have been slow to understand and accept that conflicts between the US Government and other world governments are no longer "Us vs. Them" - they are "Them vs. Them."
Regardless of ICANN, the average Internet user has no allies in any government.
If you don’t believe that ICANN could be used for more than assigning names/addresses upon request, you should do a little more research. It could be used for a lot more. And if it’s under a different governing body, it will be — especially if it’s under UN control.
Pretty much.
No joke
All it takes is political will
Transferring management of root DNS servers will allow other powers to hijack any subdomain at will. MIL, GOV, ORG, COM, you name it. Any root server operator can override your subdomain. They can make your email go where they want to.
Get it?
B.S. article
I’m a geek.
Let’s say that you want to read and communicate on freerepublic.com (or other conservative sites) and type in this forum’s name. If ICANN’s root server for domains is controlled in, say Brussels, and some liberal there wants to block this forum it is child’s play for the root server’s administrator to do so. Don’t know about everyone else, but most would not know how (or may not be able to even look up) Freerepublic’s xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx IP address as an alternative if our friends overseas decide to block freerepublic because they deem it a hate site (or decide to block conservative sites for the “greater good”).
Should we retain some kind of control of this possibility, or do we trust our globalist “friends” (like Soros) to behave themselves?
...and can delete web addresses, too.
He who controls the addresses controls the flow of information.
I have never seen a more evil President that the Obamanation of American desolation and Hillary is his finger puppet that only fools would vote for in their arrogance and ignorance and hatred of the American Constitution.
[Is there any good reason to change it?]
Does the word bribe come in play here. The Clinton foundation did it and got rich. The free internet will become the politically correct internet and only liars will control it, the persons who sell it will be gifted, like the Clinton foundation.
We need to keep it because England and Germany are also busy shutting down bad-think on the interwebs. Just about everybody is worse on free speech than the USA (not meaning to imply that we don't have some troubles there).
How do Snowden and Assange come down on this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.