Meet the New Authoritarian Masters of the Internet

President Barack Obama’s drive to hand off control of Internet domains to a foreign multi-national operation will give some very unpleasant regimes equal say over the future of online speech and commerce. In fact, they are likely to have much more influence than America, because they will collectively push hard for a more tightly controlled Internet, and they are known for aggressively using political and economic pressure to get what they want.

Here’s a (condensed) look at some of the regimes that will begin shaping the future of the Internet in just a few days, if President Obama gets his way.

China

China wrote the book on authoritarian control of online speech. The legendary “Great Firewall of China” prevents citizens of the communist state from accessing global content the Politburo disapproves of. Chinese technology companies are required by law to provide the regime with backdoor access to just about everything.

~~~
Russia

Russia and China are already working together for a more heavily-censored Internet. Foreign Policy reported one of Russia’s main goals at an April forum was to “harness Chinese expertise in Internet management to gain further control over Russia’s internet, including foreign sites accessible there.”

~~~
Turkey

Turkey’s crackdown on the Internet was alarming even before the aborted July coup attempt against authoritarian President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

~~~

Saudi Arabia

The Saudis aren’t too far behind China in the Internet rankings by Freedom House. Dissident online activity can bring jail sentences, plus the occasional public flogging.

~~~

North Korea

You can’t make a list of authoritarian nightmares without including the psychotic regime in Pyongyang, the most secretive government in the world.

North Korea is so repressive the BBC justly puts the word “Internet” in scare quotes, to describe the online environment.

Much More At Link:
www.breitbart.com...

A conspiracy to silence Americans through the back door, seeing as it is much tougher to go through the front door?

Want to criticize the government? Nope.

Want to be controlled like a mindless drone through Big Brother news suppression and talking points memos? You got it.

Want to watch adult ANYTHING? Forget it.

Want to bash Kim? Haha. He ain't about to let that happen.

Problem with Putin? I guess you'll just have to drink more Vodka.

And if you were thinking about complaining on human or animal rights abuses, shut it. No can do.

Of all the boneheaded, stupid moves, this takes the cake.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?

I mind as well cancel my internet sub then. So this means no more ATS? Drudge? Porn Hub? I suppose after WW3 starts it won't matter much after that anyways!!!!

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?

What matters is who will control the domain names in return has control of the content. Lets say you give me a list of all the websites you visit. Then I can filter out the ones I don't want you to see. Like an internet filter at a school.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?

Nothing at all, it is just some sheeple believing nonsense they saw on the internet.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

I don't understand how control over domain names allows for control over any other aspect of the web. Control over domain names is not a filter.

I can see a potential privacy issue with whois, which unless it's been addressed is a big deal but that still is not the same thing as having the ability to filter content.

In other words if I control domain names and you request the name gmoneystunt.com and I just arbitrarily say no, how does that affect your ability to register a different name but publish the same content as you would have under the name you originally wanted?

Further how does it give anyone control over existing websites and access to those sites?

a reply to: hellobruce

Well I guess I'm just looking for at least an ELI5 for the basis of the theory. I've seen lots of fretting but not one logical explanation for it.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: gmoneystunt

I don't understand how control over domain names allows for control over any other aspect of the web. Control over domain names is not a filter.

I can see a potential privacy issue with whois, which unless it's been addressed is a big deal but that still is not the same thing as having the ability to filter content.

In other words if I control domain names and you request the name gmoneystunt.com and I just arbitrarily say no, how does that affect your ability to register a different name but publish the same content as you would have under the name you originally wanted?

Further how does it give anyone control over existing websites and access to those sites?

A domain name is not a filter its self, but you can block domain names. Domain Name System Blocking was first introduced in 1997 as a means to block spam email from known IP addresses. In reference to gmoneystunt.com, My ip address could stop my ability to register a different name.

DNS Blocking is a strategy for making it difficult for users to locate specific domains or web sites on the Internet.

When your leaving DNS control in the hands of a diverse group of international stakeholders anything can happen.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

If ATS goes bye-bye we will need to have a serious, serious blow out party beforehand (I'm thinking Six Flags) It's worth discussing, we need a back-up "What If" plan!!!

a reply to: gmoneystunt

When your leaving DNS control in the hands of a diverse group of international stakeholders anything can happen.

Isn't it under control of a diverse group of national stakeholders now?

Does ICANN even control DNS? Isn't it just the registry? And let's say it does... does it actually even matter if ICANN is national or international. The ability exists up for abuse from inception, what's different now? These are the risks we run when we come to think of something as public commons but don't insist on public ownership. Don't you think?

a reply to: TrueAmerican

This will not effect content or censor anything.

originally posted by: Kali74

Isn't it under control of a diverse group of national stakeholders now?

Does ICANN even control DNS? Isn't it just the registry? And let's say it does... does it actually even matter if ICANN is national or international. The ability exists up for abuse from inception, what's different now? These are the risks we run when we come to think of something as public commons but don't insist on public ownership. Don't you think?

It will be a diverse group of international stakeholders not national. ICANN is currently a private Californian not-for-profit company.

Yes ICANN contols DNS, your online life is influenced by its decisions. Icann coordinates domain names and internet protocol (IP) addresses, the internet’s essential protocols.

Does it matter if it national or international. That goes with anything. Do you want your next president to be controlled by foreign stockholders with foreign interests?

Whats the difference now. You’d expect that there would be a government in the background, just in case the power and money went to everyone’s heads – and you’d be right. The US government has been ICANN’s final backstop of authority since the organization was created in 1999 and the US government announced that it intended to step back from its role.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

It's the push for globalism.

Sovereign identity is now racist.

Let others determine how you are to "freely" express yourself on the internet.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Well, that is just pretty much a hit piece on the countries mentioned, and irrelevant to the subject at hand.

It all depends on your point of view I guess, but it doesn't really mean what that article expresses.

Here is a story from March this year, when the deal to end ICANN's authority over domain naming was thrashed out.

But why did we even need a carefully brokered deal to make managing the internet the world’s business, and not America’s prerogative?

Good question right?

When Icann was founded in 1998, the plan was to keep its anchoring contract with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for a year or two, and for Icann to become independent in 2000. But in the meantime, the internet became just too important for the US to let go of the reins.
Shielded by the US, Icann resisted attempts by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union to take over its job. Iana (the Internet Assigned Names Authority, the part of Icann that deals with country codes, internet numbers and protocols) went on being part of Icann, even as other countries felt sure the US must be abusing its power behind the scenes.

Like I said at the beginning, it depends on your point of view.

But as the millions of dollars of business transacted over the internet became trillions, and the first, second and then third billion people came online, it started to look a bit odd that one government had de jure control of a chunk of the internet. And that this oversight was done via a procurement contract.

I guess it didn't really seem fair to the rest of the world...

And then Snowden happened.

Oops, remember that guy? Something, something, NSA monitoring everything...

In September 2013, just months after the first Snowden revelations confirmed long-suspected global internet surveillance by the US, the internet’s elders rebelled.

And so we find ourselves where we are today.

Will the internet work any differently? All being well: no.

No reason why it should.

And can a multi-stakeholder system of lobbyists, geeks and idealists (but mostly lobbyists) really run a complex technical ecosystem the world relies on?

I hope the geeks step up their game though...

The Guardian Internet domain change

If this is not a "big deal", then why is this new U.N. thing being fought for?

If it means nothing, why is Obama spending big money to push the agenda?

Think hard about that.

a reply to: xuenchen

He is probably sending the control to the seat he will take.

Obamanet 101

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?

Not content. (although that is possible) A block on DNS . No outgoing or incoming from that internet site.

This thread on ATS
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Block the thread______ part on the reverse lookup DNS and what happens? Access ATS . Just not this thread.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

When it comes to private business, I don't see a difference between national and international because there isn't one.

Ultimately it seems unfortunate that people aren't willing to fight for public domain over the internet cuz gubbmint bad. Well its bad because we let private business control it.

Think I'll cut my rant off there.

What happens to the 9 of 11 (?) DNS backbone servers actually physically located on US soil ? So we give away US property on US soil ?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sovereign identity is now racist.

Keep acting like that's what people say and cry when no one lets you sit at the big kids table.