Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday September 30 2016, @12:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the too-little-too-late? dept.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/state-ags-sue-to-stop-internet-transition-228893

Four Republican state attorneys general are suing to stop the Obama administration from transferring oversight of the internet to an international body, arguing the transition would violate the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit — filed Wednesday in a Texas federal court — threatens to throw up a new roadblock to one of the White House's top tech priorities, just days before the scheduled Oct. 1 transfer of the internet's address system is set to take place.

In their lawsuit, the attorneys general for Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas contend that the transition, lacking congressional approval, amounts to an illegal giveaway of U.S. government property. They also express fear that the proposed new steward of the system, a nonprofit known as ICANN, would be so unchecked that it could "effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet."

The four states further contend that ICANN could revoke the U.S. government's exclusive use of .gov and .mil, the domains used by states, federal agencies and the U.S. military for their websites. And the four attorneys general argue that ICANN's "current practices often foster a lack of transparency that, in turn, allows illegal activity to occur."


Original Submission

Related Stories

US Hands Internet Control To ICANN 17 comments

Ted Cruz has said that the US-ICANN internet deal, which went through Saturday morning, threatens free speech online. Capping a highly politicized debate, the US government on Saturday let go of its remaining grip on the internet, handing control of the net's address book to a non-profit.

Saying free speech in the virtual realm was at stake, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and others had tried to block the transfer. But a federal judge denied on Friday their request for an injunction and the scheduled handoff took place at midnight.

The transfer involved the internet's domain name system, or DNS, which translates the Web addresses you type into your browser, like "cnet.com," into the numerical language that net-connected computers use to communicate. Under a plan that's been in the works for years, the US Department of Commerce shuttled control of the DNS to a nonprofit called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), whose multiple stakeholders include technical experts, as well as representatives of governments and businesses.

Cruz and other critics had argued the transfer could lead to authoritarian countries taking control of the internet and eventually censoring content throughout the world.

[...]

On Wednesday, the attorneys general of Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas filed a lawsuit (PDF) to block the turnover. But a federal judge in the Southern District of Texas denied that request for a temporary restraining order.

ICANN said Saturday that the handoff would ensure an open internet.

See our previous story from a few days ago.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday September 30 2016, @01:18PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday September 30 2016, @01:18PM (#408358)

    As far as I can tell, nobody has been able to sufficiently explain exactly what law or constitutional provision the Obama administration is violating with their plans for ICANN. If the plan doesn't break existing law, then it is a matter for Congress and the President to work out, not the courts.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday September 30 2016, @01:47PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday September 30 2016, @01:47PM (#408368) Homepage

      It's violating America being in charge of something of global importance!

      We're number 1! (at administering domain names and IP addresses)

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by pe1rxq on Friday September 30 2016, @02:51PM

        by pe1rxq (844) on Friday September 30 2016, @02:51PM (#408395) Homepage

        Since it is a list of one the US is currently also the worst at administering domain names and IP addresses.....

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by slinches on Friday September 30 2016, @01:53PM

      by slinches (5049) on Friday September 30 2016, @01:53PM (#408375)

      They would have been breaking the law this whole time if there's no direct constitutional authority or congress approved law that allows the federal government to administer ICANN.

      The Constitution only grants specific, limited, powers to the federal government and reserves everything else for the states.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @02:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @02:14PM (#408383)

        direct constitutional authority or congress approved law

        What's with the "or"? Without direct constitutional authority, any congress approved law would be unconstitutional.

        • (Score: 2) by slinches on Friday September 30 2016, @03:17PM

          by slinches (5049) on Friday September 30 2016, @03:17PM (#408405)

          That's true, but it would take a ruling by the courts to overturn the law. Until that happened it would be legal.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @10:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @10:01PM (#408555)

            it would take a ruling by the courts to overturn the law. Until that happened it would be legal

            Completely and absolutely wrong: a law that does not have supporting Constitutional authority, even if it was passed by a legislative body including Congress, is in exactly the same state of legality as if that law had never been passed in the first place.

            Don't just take logic and my word for it - consult the judges on the US' Supreme Court:

            Does this mean that individuals living in the USA are effectively required to use their own minds and in effect become judges of the law? Yes. Does this also mean that "law enforcers" who mindlessly use or threaten to use lethal force against others using such a non-law as justification are literal criminals on the same plane as muggers and home invaders? Yes. I'd rather not see it come to this, but it is also a long-established principle that using lethal force against a police who are acting as criminals is legal and justifiable [constitution.org], even when the cops were acting under orders which happened to be illegal [cornell.edu],

            • (Score: 1) by Francis on Friday September 30 2016, @10:42PM

              by Francis (5544) on Friday September 30 2016, @10:42PM (#408572)

              That's not even remotely true. That stance requires completely ignoring hundreds of years of governance and legal precedence.

              The way we know that a law is unconstitutional is through a ruling by the Supreme Court. If they don't rule it to be unconstitutional, then it effectively is constitutional whether or not it makes any sense.

              Also, it's funny what things are in the constitution when it's convenient to strict constructionists despite the lack of any text supporting the view as well as a lack of historical documentation suggesting that the people writing that section of the constitution took that view. I doubt very much that the founding fathers intended for money to be speech, but somehow that's now the interpretation.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @10:58PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @10:58PM (#408576)

                That's not even remotely true

                By all means then, back up your claim. I did [soylentnews.org] - making use of very early and later period USSC decisions to back up my claims that unConstitutional laws have the same legal effect as if those same laws had never been passed in the first place.

                Can't you offer a rebuttal better than "nuh uh!"?

                • (Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:43PM

                  by Francis (5544) on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:43PM (#408783)

                  Take a look around you. It was never constitutional to ban sodomy, and yet that remained on the books and enforced for years. Or, how about the draft? That was never constitutional either as women were excluded from it despite the 14th amendment.

                  Being able to find a couple links that in no way reflect the way that the legal system has functioned, is not an argument that I'm going to find very persuasive. Those and those are hardly the only instances, it happens regularly.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @04:16PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @04:16PM (#408813)

                    Take a look around you. It was never constitutional to ban sodomy, and yet that remained on the books and enforced for years. Or, how about the draft?

                    The fact that crimes have been committed by US government agents acting under color of law by no means nullifies the fact that such crimes have been committed. By your same logic, it's perfectly legal to legal to beat my girlfriend to a pulp as long as I can escape punishment; obviously this is a ludicrous statement and the reality is that such an act would merely make me a criminal-at-large.

                    Rather than covering one's eyes to reality and trying to block out the ugliness of it, the only solution that seems to have a chance to stem the tide of rampant criminality by government agents is to embrace reality via awareness of the limitations of government authority and the acknowledgement that acting outside said authority is literally illegal. This may well lead to situations where uniformed criminals need to be dissuaded from their criminal behavior with lethal force, and an example of such a case was already referenced in my first post here [soylentnews.org] in regards to John Bad Elk vs United States. Preferably, though, the knowledge that potential victims recognize criminal acts by gov agents to be the crimes they are and warnings to desist will be sufficient to curb such criminal behavior much like how "normal" home burglars state they greatly fear a confrontation with an armed homeowner.

                    So, what is the limit to government authority in the USA? It is limited to that of its source, which via the Constitution and the process of delegation of authority is no greater than that of a single human being's. The only exceptions are those with full and voluntary consent, consent which can be withdrawn at any time for any or no reason.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:14AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:14AM (#408608)

                The way we know that a law is unconstitutional is through a ruling by the Supreme Court. If they don't rule it to be unconstitutional, then it effectively is constitutional whether or not it makes any sense.

                "we"? Speak for yourself. That's how our system works in practice, but that's certainly not how reality works. We need authority figures to decide matters at the end of the day, but they can certainly be wrong. It's like you're conflating how the legal system works in practice with how reality itself works, without distinguishing between the two. You even acknowledge the fact that judges can be incorrect when you say "whether or not it makes any sense."

                I'm tired of people mindlessly talking about how our legal system works when others simply wanted to talk about what is actually in the Constitution.

                • (Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:49PM

                  by Francis (5544) on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:49PM (#408786)

                  Well, no, that's how it works. The constitution is rather short and they don't detail at any point exactly what you'd have to do in order to violate the constitution in many cases.

                  A good example would be abortion. Is it constitutional to ban abortion because the ban if you ban men from it as well? Or would that be a violation of the 14th amendment because it really only applies to women? Or, how about the 2nd amendment? That one only specifies arms, and that they be held collectively by the well-regulated militias of the country, none of those terms are defined in the constitution and as such, somebody needs to define them.

                  Just because you choose to not understand how the constitution works or how it was intended to work, doesn't make what I said any less true. Unless you happen to be doing something that is extremely clear cut, you do need a referee to tell you what it means. Because if we have 300 million different people taking views on what the constitution actually means, then we might as well not have one because it's going to be so watered down that only in extreme instances are we going to have consensus on the intent and meaning.

      • (Score: 1) by tisI on Friday September 30 2016, @02:15PM

        by tisI (5866) on Friday September 30 2016, @02:15PM (#408384)

        Oh, but it sounds important if they drag the constitution into this. Kind of like sabre rattling before a war.
        The unwashed masses don't know that these assholes have NO authority here.

        --
        "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Friday September 30 2016, @02:27PM

        by butthurt (6141) on Friday September 30 2016, @02:27PM (#408387) Journal

        from the current U.S. constitution (emphasis mine):

        The Congress shall have power
                        To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
                        To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
                        To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
                        To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
                        To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
                        To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
                        To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
                        To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
                        To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
                        To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
                        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
                        To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
                        To provide and maintain a Navy;
                        To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
                        To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
                        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
                        To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
                        To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

        -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 2) by slinches on Friday September 30 2016, @03:20PM

          by slinches (5049) on Friday September 30 2016, @03:20PM (#408408)

          That first sentence applies to everything below. Congress has powers to make laws. They didn't make a law to authorize this action.

          • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:11AM

            by butthurt (6141) on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:11AM (#408606) Journal

            I was responding to your previous post in which you wrote

            The Constitution only grants specific, limited, powers to the federal government and reserves everything else for the states.

            and you seemed to be saying that, for that reason, the U.S. federal government might not have had the power to administer ICANN in the first place.

            There was a U.S. Supreme Court case called
            McCulloch v. Maryland
            in which the "necessary and proper" clause I bolded was interpreted as:

            Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.

            -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland [wikipedia.org]

            Now you're raising a different point: that the U.S. Congress hasn't given permission for this latest action. In the Wikipedia article about ICANN, someone has written

            [...] the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated a process to establish a new organization to perform the IANA functions. On January 30, 1998, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, issued for comment, "A Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses." The proposed rule making, or "Green Paper", was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1998, providing opportunity for public comment.

            -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN [wikipedia.org]

            The article about IANA says:

            Prior to the establishment of ICANN primarily for this purpose in 1998, IANA was administered principally by Jon Postel at the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the University of Southern California (USC) situated at Marina Del Rey (Los Angeles), under a contract USC/ISI had with the United States Department of Defense, until ICANN was created to assume the responsibility under a United States Department of Commerce contract.
            [...]
            The Department of Commerce also provides an ongoing oversight function, whereby it verifies additions and changes made in the DNS root zone to ensure IANA complies with its policies.
            [...]
            On August 16, 2016, the Department of Commerce confirmed that its criteria for transitioning IANA Stewardship transition to the Internet multistakeholder community had been met, and that it intended to allow its contract with ICANN to expire on September 30 2016, allowing the transition to take effect.

            -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority [wikipedia.org]

            Assuming those things are true, it looks as though the executive branch of the U.S. government has brought about the current situation, and its power to do so has (unless I'm missing something) gone uncontested for a long time. The U.S. Congress may have granted that power in a general way. and the Congress could withdraw it. A Breitbart News article urges it to do so:

            http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/28/obamas-internet-surrender-must-stopped-icann/ [breitbart.com]

            The plan to take the impending action was announced in March of 2014:

            http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452 [wsj.com] (full article paywalled)

            If, as the Arizona attorney-general says, the Congress hasn't acted, it looks to me as though they've tacitly given assent.

            I'm sure these four attorneys-general have studied the topic carefully and wouldn't have filed the case unless they had a good chance of winning. They wouldn't want to make a spectacle.

            Wikipedia cites a pair of essays that explain the transfer:

            http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-what-happening-part-i [diplomacy.edu]
            http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-what-happening-part-ii [diplomacy.edu]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:20AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:20AM (#408610)

              McCulloch v. Maryland in which the "necessary and proper" clause I bolded was interpreted as:

              That has been applied so broadly that it has effectively made useless the idea that the federal government can only legitimately perform the functions spelled out in the Constitution. It might be convenient when you want the government to do X and taking that insane interpretation would allow it to do so, but it is highly dishonest and those judges were authoritarians.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday September 30 2016, @03:36PM

          by bradley13 (3053) on Friday September 30 2016, @03:36PM (#408412) Homepage Journal

          Ah, the great debate: what does "general welfare" mean? Some of the founders claimed that this term was implicitly defined by the list of everything else that follows this introductory paragraph. That is to say: the general welfare includes borrowing money, regulating commerce, establishing rules for naturalization - and nothing more. Others claimed that it included anything the government decided to spend money on. The latter interpretation frankly makes no sense, because then there would have been no reason for the enumerated list. However, such a list would limit the power of politicians, so the expansive interpretation won out. Would things have been different, with more careful editing?

          Note also the distinction between armies and militia. A militia is a part-time, non-professional organization, whereas an army is full-time and professional. The US government, by it's own Constitution, can only have an army for limited amounts of time, or at least is only allowed to finance an army for two years at a time. This might come as a surprise to the military-industrial complex. There is also no explicit tie between the extraordinary financing of an army, and a declaration of war (the US hasn't been at war since World War II, surprise, surprise). Likely another case of something the founders thought was obvious, that should have been made explicit.

          --
          Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 4, Funny) by bradley13 on Friday September 30 2016, @02:36PM

        by bradley13 (3053) on Friday September 30 2016, @02:36PM (#408389) Homepage Journal

        "The Constitution only grants specific, limited, powers to the federal government and reserves everything else for the states."

        You have got to be kidding [tellwut.com]. The Wikipedia article listing of all the federal agencies [wikipedia.org] (4741 words) is literally longer than the text of the Constitution [archives.gov] (4505 words).

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by slinches on Friday September 30 2016, @03:24PM

          by slinches (5049) on Friday September 30 2016, @03:24PM (#408410)

          Yeah, blatant disregard for the Constitution is blatant.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @04:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @04:06PM (#408420)

          You have got to be kidding. The Wikipedia article listing of all the federal agencies (4741 words) is literally longer than the text of the Constitution (4505 words).

          Which is what you'd expect if you understand the purpose of the Constitution. It is meant to be the guiding principles and the rules by which actors operate. The actual details will of course be far more comprehensive.

          For example, consider the principles of basketball (two teams of 5 compete to throw a ball into a hoop more in a timelimit) compared to the rulebook (what happens if one person touches another player, when is it "charging" vs a "foul", what are the penalties for it, etc).

          Likewise consider the principle "thou shalt not kill" versus the actual rules (what about self-defense, what about defense of others, what about protection of property, what if the community supports this specific action).

          The Constitution is closer to Roberts Rules of Order [wikipedia.org] and to a company's Vision Statement [wikipedia.org]. That doesn't make it any less significant, but don't expect to see under what conditions a neighbor can cut the branches of a tree rooted in your property within it.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tisI on Friday September 30 2016, @02:08PM

      by tisI (5866) on Friday September 30 2016, @02:08PM (#408379)

      Yeah, I was choking on that point too. The US doesn't "own" the internet.
      What part of the constitution is being threatened, and since when has any republican ever respected the American constitution? CRAB surely didn't as well as any other republican sodomite before or since.

      It's election season. Time to grandstand and make the masses think they are doing something good for the dolts that vote for them. It'll pass once the election's over, then they'll resume sucking off the corporations that own them.

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Friday September 30 2016, @10:39PM

      by Francis (5544) on Friday September 30 2016, @10:39PM (#408569)

      The reason this is happening is that the government abused the position of trust involved with controlling ICANN and did things like steal domain names for services that were illegal in the US, but not illegal in foreign countries.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @11:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @11:36PM (#408586)

      ICANN'T

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Friday September 30 2016, @01:31PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday September 30 2016, @01:31PM (#408363) Homepage

    it could "effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet."

    That makes it sound like they find both possibilities equally undesirable.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday September 30 2016, @02:32PM

      by butthurt (6141) on Friday September 30 2016, @02:32PM (#408388) Journal

      Heh. Maybe it's the notion of ICANN having that much power that they find distasteful.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by Fnord666 on Friday September 30 2016, @02:55PM

        by Fnord666 (652) on Friday September 30 2016, @02:55PM (#408399) Homepage

        Heh. Maybe it's the notion of ICANN having that much power that they find distasteful.

        More like they don't like the notion of anyone other than themselves having this power.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @03:39PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @03:39PM (#408414)

          I can't believe you fools are falling for wanker_monkey's bullshit.
          His entire shtick is to nit-pick some phrase from the summary and make like it is a big deal when it doesn't mean shit.

          Here's the full sentence from the actual complaint: [discourse.net]

          37. In this case, NTIA intends to delegate its approval authority over changes to the root zone file to ICANN and Verisign, and give these companies unbridled discretion to make changes to that file, with no substantive constraints on their decisions to grant or deny requests to alter the file that effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.

          Their claim is that there will be no oversight of a system that can be used to censor. Everybody here knows how google's control of search can also be used to censor, we hear it all the time in trumped up stories about google hiding criticism of clinton. If google's ability to censor without oversight is bad, then if you are consistent, so too is ICANN's ability to censor. And they don't even have market pressures on them to keep them semi-honest.

          • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday September 30 2016, @04:36PM

            by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday September 30 2016, @04:36PM (#408431) Homepage

            I never said it was a big deal. Not every comment is required to be insightful or informative, and this one was not meant to be either.

            --
            systemd is Roko's Basilisk
            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @06:45PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @06:45PM (#408491)

              > I never said it was a big deal. Not every comment is required to be insightful or informative, and this one was not meant to be either.

              Wow. You willingly admit the intent of your post was to be inane and useless. I'm impressed. At least you own the fact that you add absolutely nothing to the conversation. That counts for something. Not much, but something.

              • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday September 30 2016, @08:20PM

                by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday September 30 2016, @08:20PM (#408525) Homepage

                I didn't say the intent was to be inane and useless; I said that it was not intended to be insightful or informative. But there's no "mildly facetious" mod.

                --
                systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @02:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @02:45PM (#408393)

      Selectively enabling speech is censorship. That's the entire argument for net neutrality.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @02:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @02:39PM (#408390)

    current practices often foster a lack of transparency that, in turn, allows illegal activity to occur.

    so are they saying that they want more data mining and control over registrants? cuz that's what it sounds like. These are the same group of politicians who just love working for the RIAA and the MPAA after all.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @03:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @03:19PM (#408407)

    If it came to a split in the internet between america and the world, I think I'll go with the world.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday September 30 2016, @03:54PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday September 30 2016, @03:54PM (#408417)

      Which version of "The World"? There already are attempts at splitting off the Internet by national borders, e.g. the Great Firewall of China. Those aren't completely working, but they are certainly trying.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @06:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @06:49PM (#408495)

    In order to route around "censorship damage" via abuse of the Domain Naming System, it seems easy enough to use different root servers (and DNS providers making use of the same) in response.

    For damage caused by abuse of IP control and ownership, how would that possibly be worked around? By convincing companies controlling backbone routers to use a different set of routing table data? (I've just realized that I don't know the technical details of actual IP address ownership and control.)

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by jummama on Friday September 30 2016, @08:13PM

      by jummama (3969) on Friday September 30 2016, @08:13PM (#408523)

      I've just realized that I don't know the technical details of actual IP address ownership and control.

      A brief one sentence primer: BGP is used to advertise that a given Autonomous System (AS) contains or has a route for a list of CIDR prefixes, so that other AS's can route packets towards the network they need to go to.

      BGP is the technology to learn more about if you want that technical understanding.