Though Republican lawmakers have painted this moment in Internet history as 'doomsday,' and rallied a last ditch-effort to block it, at midnight on Saturday the U.S. government cede control of the web's core naming directory to a multi-stakeholder nonprofit.
How interesting that GOPers would argue for continued control by the government.
Bodes well for a future where unhackable encryption and quantum computing will also give us the security to finally govern ourselves online. No more professional politicians making decisions according to who gives them the largest bribes.
Republicans simply hate the idea of "free."
Whether it's a free education or a free internet or free air to breath.
What Capitalist Republicans crave is profit.
Privatize everything and profit from all of it.
And Control. They love Control.
Um, this seemed to be a case of nonprofit privatization.
I think the reason for this bkwrites is that in certain instances, although very few at this point, "control by the government" runs counter to corporate governance that so many corporate Democrats and Republicans alike, in actuality favor. Kind of like that whole ALEC thing that is all about corporate governance.
I emphasized Republicans in line with the very astute and excellent point you were making, broadening the discussion a tad.
Oh, and on topic.
Well if the neocons oppose it it must be a good thing.
I agree. That says it all.
I'm not knowledgeable on this subject.
But I know this, there's no way on God's green Earth the US military is going to cede control of the Internet to anybody, just as their five bases control the Global Positioning System.
How soon we forget - how easy it is to think something positive is happening.
Perhaps someone like Snowden could comment?
A pity we didn't get more substantive details of the what and the way, in stead of the he said, she said kind of report that is basically contentless.
Just as we now have the ability to have decentralized power (e.g. rooftop solar panels and batteries), we should migrate to a decentralized Internet.
Each home could have a specialized encrypting router with multiple fiber connections to all of the adjacent neighbors. Encrypted packets similar to TOR could then travel throughout the system independent of the normal ISR services. When the system got large enough, the ISRs could be bypassed entirely. In small systems, there could still be some connections to traditional ISRs, but all local traffic could still be decentralized.
The government would really hate such a decentralized system because they would not control it (and could not monitor it easily like they can now).
This is one of the worse that could happen. First it is an organization that is not connected to the government. Probably no over site at all. Next a multi stake holders means someone is going to get paid. They will want compensation, Internet governance means control over the content. I would imagine That business stake holders will be the ones that will select what would be allowed on the internet. it will be like watching the news controlled to what you will be able to read.
**nce the Internet's inception, the U.S. government has worked together with businesses, technologists, individuals, and civil society organizations to ensure that the Internet remains a tool that can bring about social, economic, and political change and further the realization of human rights. These are the same stakeholders that developed the transition plan's detailed governance and accountability measures and stand by those measures today.
I saw this same statement on Democratic underground and guess what they kicked me off because I didn't agree with them
One of the key words are civil society organizations.. If they think that some posts represent civil disobedience or any threatening content. I would imagine you will not be able to post
Sorry, I don't get the point of this. "Adjacent neighbors" would seem to be accessible by sneaker transfer, or even yelling. The great thing about the Internet is being able to speak with folks across continents and oceans as if they were neighbors.
Did you miss the word "nonprofit"?
I'd really like to see an in depth discussion of this by people who have a deep knowledge of this. As of now I'm still not sure if this is a good thing or not.
I did not explain well.
As adjacent neighbors connected, there would be islands of connected houses that would not not need individual connections to government controlled ISPs.
With enough adjacent connections, individuals could connect all the way across the country which would not only be a far more robust network, but would be isolated from government control. Such a system could provide a safe Internet even in countries with repressive and controlling governments.
Still don't get it. You're proposing a return to hardwired intranets? What would they have to share that they weren't getting from the outside?
I'm not sure since it wasn't my proposal, but I think the idea is simply that this would be a technically and economically (except for the very poor) feasible way to construct an internet that would be free of government or corporate control. The only thing special about your neighbors is that they are physically close, and you can thus connect to them with a short length of cable. And then they're connected to their neighbors, and pretty soon it adds up to a worldwide decentralized network.
Personally, I think it's a rather naive proposal: it really doesn't address the problem of governance - it simply assumes that if the government weren't controlling the network, everyone would just act in good faith and we would have complete freedom online. I really doubt that, but I do think this would be technically feasible, if enough people could agree on compatible technology for the network.