Internet Control

[Snowhog]

That Being Said, Saturday will be interesting as that is the day the deal is supposed to go down.

There are some very large corporations which want it to happen, but even the head of the FCC is warning about it.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/...-irreversible/

You may not care for the host of the show, but the FCC Commissioner has a point to be considered.

And for those wondering what this is about:

Internet Oversight Transfer Clears Hurdles To Take Place Saturday

[TWPonKubuntu]

So now we watch. What will actually change about Internet usage?

I don't expect to see anything major happen until after the US elections, but I'm not optimistic about what might change after that. Remember the boiling frog.

[GreyGeek]

Internet Control

Ianp5a, what "interference" in the operation of the Internet is the US doing? Spying? Name a significant country that isn't.

Right now, the biggest threat to freedom in the Internet is coming from corporations (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and others) which suppresses opinion that differs from their CEO's political slant. They also are too willing to submit to demands of dictatorships solely for profits. They've never met a Marxist dictator they didn't like.

For the last two years there has been a lot of behind the curtains activity at the UN. As a body the majority of members want to regulate online communications to minimize opposition to their leaderships rule. The fact that despite having TWO YEARS to block this illegal transfer on Constitutional grounds Congress did nothing more that a public show of hand-wringing while at the same time used the pending transfer as a fund-raising email to fatten their re-election campaign funds, which they can convert to private funds when they retire from "public" service or get voted out of office. It seems obvious to me that they didn't want to keep freedom of expression on the Internet for the same reasons the dictatorships don't, or the EU doesn't. But now, Internet speech can be regulated by the UN and our politicians can claim that it is out of their hands and they can't do anything about it. So sorry, but you'd better zip your lips.
Currently, access to the Internet is via Internet Service Providers, who are greedy enough. The "cost" of UN supervision of the Internet will require a tax on usage, not on bandwidth, just like cellphone data plans. The "poor" will be allowed a fixed number of GB/mo free. The wealthy countries will have the cost of their data plans doubled to pay for the UN tax. And, so sorry, they'll have to abide by UN speech codes. See speech codes in the EU and China, for example. Both are run by Socialists.
Internet use won't flounder, however, and IPv6 will boom. Everyone will be assigned an IPv6 address and a set of subnets under it for connecting their devices to the web. That will also include video/ audio monitors in every room and car. Business without an IPv6 number will be impossible.

Like a Social Security Number those numbers will be assigned to you for eternity, to tag every piece of your data the government keeps on you. Eventually, the only computer you will be allowed to own will be a smartphone. When you buy it your IPv6 address will be burned into it and the unit sealed for life. That device won't have much memory because all your data will be stored on the UN cloud. Just like Windows apps, which embed a user identifiable GUID in every document sent from your Windows computer, your IPv6 address will be on everything emanating from your cellphone.

I'm 75, so I probably won't live long enough to see it, but you will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ianp5a]

People don't trust the US government. And it it not necessary or even helpful to have a single foreign government with veto power. Especially one where big corporations have a huge lobbying power. And might possibly get Trump as president. Who is seen as dangerous and extreme in the rest of the world.

The level of scaremongering going on is outstanding when seen from outside the US.

[whatthefunk]

Internet use won't flounder, however, and IPv6 will boom. Everyone will be assigned an IPv6 address and a set of subnets under it for connecting their devices to the web. That will also include video/ audio monitors in every room and car. Business without an IPv6 number will be impossible.

Like a Social Security Number those numbers will be assigned to you for eternity, to tag every piece of your data the government keeps on you. Eventually, the only computer you will be allowed to own will be a smartphone. When you buy it your IPv6 address will be burned into it and the unit sealed for life. That device won't have much memory because all your data will be stored on the UN cloud. Just like Windows apps, which embed a user identifiable GUID in every document sent from your Windows computer, your IPv6 address will be on everything emanating from your cellphone.

Do you have any proof of this at all?

[TWPonKubuntu]

GreyGeek and ianp5a

GG, well said, even if thoroughly scary...

ianp5a; I can imagine what the press outside the US is being told to say, I can even read and see some of it, via the 'net, but I'm not inundated with it from all media sources (yes, we live a "sheltered" life here in the US.) If you are buying in to the media hype, well, all I can say is; wait and see what happens. Reality is somewhat different from what the media is told to present. The current buzz words are appropriate: "snowflakes and Social Justice Warriors", because they capture the image of uninformed people AND they carry the stigma of being driven by the people behind the media hype.

To all of you reading this, who would you rather have "in charge" of the world wide web? The UN certainly does not have our best interests at heart... The PTB are not going to allow an independent group to manage the 'net. So make your plans accordingly.

I truly hope this is not a "game changing" moment, but I fear is will become such. Here endeth this lesson.

[ianp5a]

ianp5a; I can imagine what the press outside the US is being told to say, .

Don't confuse the choice of news we get with what you get. We get to see unedited film of Donald Trumps appearances. It tells us a lot about him, his followers and the state of problems he's addressing. To us it's scary. We don't have 32.000 people killed by guns each year. We don't have police with such poor social relations as in the US. We live in a very different social climate. We don't want those problems or that culture. And don't want those who propagate that, to have a say in our networks.

[vinnywright]

People don't trust the US government. And it it not necessary or even helpful to have a single foreign government with veto power. Especially one where big corporations have a huge lobbying power. And might possibly get Trump as president. Who is seen as dangerous and extreme in the rest of the world.

LOL ,,,,the rest of the world ,,,,,,,,, He (Trump)is seen as dangerous and extreme to a lot of us hear in the US as well ,,,,, I cant believe he has made it this far ,,,,,and when he first decided to run I truly thought it was some kind of joke or way for the republican party to ,,,craft numbers for the candidate they rely wanted to get nominated ,,,,,,,, yes scary very scary

VINNY

[vinnywright]

To us it's scary. We don't have 32.000 people killed by guns each year. We don't have police with such poor social relations as in the US. We live in a very different social climate. We don't want those problems or that culture. And don't want those who propagate that, to have a say in our networks.

hear hear fellow human .

I still want my rite to have my guns however .

VINNY

[TWPonKubuntu]

Don't confuse the choice of news we get with what you get. We get to see unedited film of Donald Trumps appearances. It tells us a lot about him, his followers and the state of problems he's addressing. To us it's scary. We don't have 32.000 people killed by guns each year. We don't have police with such poor social relations as in the US. We live in a very different social climate. We don't want those problems or that culture. And don't want those who propagate that, to have a say in our networks.

The problem, not unique to any country, is that what the media reports is assumed to be "un-edited"...

I don't think any of it is what really happened, so I take it all with the proverbial grain of salt.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but I also don't accept that what you are told as happening here, is really the truth.

If you trust your news reporting, then you must accept the consequences of that trust.

Finally, please note that I am NOT speaking for anyone else in this country, I cannot say "we" feel this way or that. I speak for myself, as a human being.

This thread is actually about the change in governance of the Internet naming system, as it appears in ICANN. No one country controls this, even before this change-over. But the balance has shifted and now I am waiting to see what that does to my life.

[ianp5a]

It would be nice if what Trump actually says, on video as well as reported in the US as well as in multiple, sensible countries with no special agenda, isn't really true.

Either way, it is doing the damage on the global stage. The credibility is falling. Please don't vote him in. I don't know about your home politics or care about your political parties. And hope that Trump will change mode, if he is elected. But currently, he really seems more mental, than a world leader.

[TWPonKubuntu]

This is an overview of the change and both optimistic and pessimistic viewpoints.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-cord-in...oversight.html

For better or worse, it has changed.

[ianp5a]

Well yes. A sober, grown up view of what has happened.

However they didn't cover the feeling of loss. When someone has lost control of something that they had before, it is sure to have an emotional response. But that's all. Nothing has be lost.

[Snowhog]

Quoted from the article:

That leaves ICANN as a self-regulating organization that will be operated by the internet's "stakeholders"—engineers, academics, businesses, non-government and government groups.

I think it significant to note here, that "the public at large" aren't included in the list of "stakeholders". That should worry everyone.

[ianp5a]

Quoted from the article:

I think it significant to note here, that "the public at large" aren't included in the list of "stakeholders". That should worry everyone.

Nothing has changed with "the public at large". So full on scaremongering again.