It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/america-to-hand-off-internet-in-under-two-months/article/2599521

How in the fuck is this legal?
Probably got something to do with Rest Of World having zero trust in US, nor having a reason for them to hold the keys to an international system?
Getting our news from conservative tabloids now? :P
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Probably got something to do with Rest Of World having zero trust in US, nor having a reason for them to hold the keys to an international system?
"In the event any facilities are relocated to China, senators noted, they could go in the same building as the agency responsible for censoring that country's Internet. "We have uncovered that ICANN's Beijing office is actually located within the same building as the Cyberspace Administration of China, which is the central agency within the Chinese government's censorship regime," they wrote, noting that some of the American companies involved with the transition process have already "shown a willingness to acquiesce" to Chinese demands to aid with censorship."

That's scary dude. I don't want my free speech suppressed.
low rated
America should be nuked into the ground.
high rated
avatar
Crosmando: America should be nuked into the ground.
Why?
So it would be similar to Australia?
avatar
Crosmando: America should be nuked into the ground.
He's a sweetheart, isn't he fellas! :P
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Probably got something to do with Rest Of World having zero trust in US, nor having a reason for them to hold the keys to an international system?
avatar
Xenoplant777: "In the event any facilities are relocated to China, senators noted, they could go in the same building as the agency responsible for censoring that country's Internet. "We have uncovered that ICANN's Beijing office is actually located within the same building as the Cyberspace Administration of China, which is the central agency within the Chinese government's censorship regime," they wrote, noting that some of the American companies involved with the transition process have already "shown a willingness to acquiesce" to Chinese demands to aid with censorship."

That's scary dude. I don't want my free speech suppressed.
Yes, that is a possibility, laws and ideals are different in different places. Then again it could end up in Holland and it could really liberalise it (or just every website would suddenly only be in orange). Clinging onto something through fear of the possibilities however is never a good idea, you would end up building a wall or something (/sarcasm). Anyways, I am sure they would only agree to neutral territory.
low rated
This is the kind of thing that happens when you have "starry-eyed" liberals in charge. They tend to think everyone will do the right thing, rather than looking at the reality of the situation.
high rated
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Probably got something to do with Rest Of World having zero trust in US, nor having a reason for them to hold the keys to an international system?
While what you say may be true, that has nothing to do with why this is happening. The political forces pushing for this represent the most repressive governments in the world and they are sick of being unable to control the flow of information on the internet. All of their attempts at censorship and firewalling can easily be bypassed as long as the "keys to the kingdom" are in the hands of a country with laws that prevent their kind of censorship. Now that it goes into international hands, those same political forces can exert control over what is and isn't allowed on the internet. Does anyone really want Russia or Turkey or China or any other country known for suppressing speech and expression having any say over what can go on the internet? The US might not have the best reputation internationally, but the fact is, the government has never interfered with the internet they way some of these other countries have tried to and still plan to.
low rated
avatar
Xenoplant777: "In the event any facilities are relocated to China, senators noted, they could go in the same building as the agency responsible for censoring that country's Internet. "We have uncovered that ICANN's Beijing office is actually located within the same building as the Cyberspace Administration of China, which is the central agency within the Chinese government's censorship regime," they wrote, noting that some of the American companies involved with the transition process have already "shown a willingness to acquiesce" to Chinese demands to aid with censorship."

That's scary dude. I don't want my free speech suppressed.
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: you would end up building a wall or something (/sarcasm).
Sarcasm my ass! One of our Presidential Candidates has promised to do just that! :P
What exactly does this mean? Websites are still private property. Governments can already block those sites issuing legislation / court rulings blaming ''harm caused by the internet'' on ISPs, forcing them to block. What does this change?
high rated
avatar
Shadowstalker16: What exactly does this mean? Websites are still private property. Governments can already block those sites issuing legislation / court rulings blaming ''harm caused by the internet'' on ISPs, forcing them to block. What does this change?
Blocks at the ISP level can be bypassed. This is control of the internet itself, which can't be bypassed. A site that runs up against one country's laws can get removed from the internet entirely, instead of just blocked in the locality where it offended. Additionally, sites can be blocked from ever getting onto the internet in the first place, if they are deemed undesirable in some way. Imagine if the comittee that ends up in control is made up of a majority that shares political positions like that of Turkey's president. Now when political dissention occurs, it might not just be Twitter in Turkey that gets blocked, Twitter worldwide can be blocked. Granted, this could be an extreme scenario, but it is a possible scenario nonetheless. All we can hope for at this point is the political forces coming to some kind of balanced method of control, but when our only example of international control is the unbelievably unbalanced UN, I feel that hope is very small.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: What exactly does this mean? Websites are still private property. Governments can already block those sites issuing legislation / court rulings blaming ''harm caused by the internet'' on ISPs, forcing them to block. What does this change?
avatar
cogadh: Blocks at the ISP level can be bypassed. This is control of the internet itself, which can't be bypassed. A site that runs up against one country's laws can get removed from the internet entirely, instead of just blocked in the locality where it offended. Additionally, sites can be blocked from ever getting onto the internet in the first place, if they are deemed undesirable in some way. Imagine if the comittee that ends up in control is made up of a majority that shares political positions like that of Turkey's president. Now when political dissention occurs, it might not just be Twitter in Turkey that gets blocked, Twitter worldwide can be blocked. Granted, this could be an extreme scenario, but it is a possible scenario nonetheless. All we can hope for at this point is the political forces coming to some kind of balanced method of control, but when our only example of international control is the unbelievably unbalanced UN, I feel that hope is very small.
Twitter, facebook, and such like being blocked wouldn't be a bad thing IMO. But I see what your saying, but it is the world web, not just the US web. I don't think its the right of one country to police it. Maybe something like the UN.
If it shuts up Tauto and Kleetus I say go for it! :D