Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

duffy.house.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 101 posts

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#51

Post by dfsegoat »

random28345 wrote: post #14

I don't really know if the IANA should be managed by an international body, but the fact that Ted Cruz and the President of National Religious Broadcasters are in favor of this bill automatically make me think this bill is trying to prohibit speech or invade privacy. And the fact that "President, Americans for Limited Government" is supporting maintaining government control of the Internet makes it sound like standar…

Cruz (no matter what you think of him) is from a family that fled an oppressive dictatorship, and he also specialized in constitutional law at Harvard (and argued Heller vs. DC for the 2A), why would he want to "prohibit speech"?

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#52

Post by dsr_ »

walid wrote: post #44

Cruz fighting for internet freedom, Obama expanding social welfare after cutting it, Clinton fighting for healthcare and minimum wage. I'm not trying to make this political but thank you Bernie Sanders. After the success of Bernie's grassroots movement traditional politicians are trying to appeal to the more progressive portion of the population since Trump controls the angry.

Remember that the name of a given legislative act is generally unrelated, or sometimes diametrically opposed, to the actual intent.

This is called Internet Freedom but is not about that. It is about the incredible mess called ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and trying to make sure that the US government can dominate it permanently.

ICANN is the group which made lots of money authorizing the recent innovations in DNS like .xyz and .movie.

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#53

Post by serge2k »

noir_lord wrote: post #45
deadtofu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's ours. We were just were kind enough to let you use it.

Tenuously was yours (since the original inter net (in the sense of a global network) was a connection of multiple networks and not all of them where in the US, far from it) it certainly isn't anymore. The UK had JANET in the late-70's/early 80's other countries had similar, the US was important and influential but the internet would have existed anyway, the concept of connecting a bunch of disparate networks together…

uh no, it just means the rest of the world can either submit to the US ruling the internet or tell them to get fucked and go do it themselves.

Which honestly, I'm fine with given the MURICA! style arrogance of "we invented it you just get to use it"

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#54

Post by r00fus »

2bitencryption wrote: post #27
gnoway wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's ours. We created it. We've allowed other countries to use it because it benefits us to do so. I realize this is probably not the popular opinion, but I'm not sure it makes any sense really to give up control over it.

Also, they have a point about the free speech. For a system in which free speech is indispensable (the internet), there is actually only a handful of countries that seem to get the whole "free speech" thing correct, the US among them.

We're so much into free speech, we even have these nifty free speech zones[1] where you can practice it without being subject to immediate detainment!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#55

Post by hueving »

noir_lord wrote: post #45
deadtofu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's ours. We were just were kind enough to let you use it.

Tenuously was yours (since the original inter net (in the sense of a global network) was a connection of multiple networks and not all of them where in the US, far from it) it certainly isn't anymore. The UK had JANET in the late-70's/early 80's other countries had similar, the US was important and influential but the internet would have existed anyway, the concept of connecting a bunch of disparate networks together…

The UK does own it's telecom systems. If I want a phone number that works in the UK, it's going to be via a UK telecom.

Nobody is saying you can't setup a router or networks on your own. But if you want addressing from ICANN, a US company, you have to play by US rules.

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#56

Post by [deleted] »

nickff wrote: post #33
folz wrote: post #30

Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's the context for "President Obama wants to hand over the keys to the Internet to countries like China and Russia"? I can't seem to find the right phrases to google.

This is a response to the potential internationalization of ICANN, and most importantly, its IANA department.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Auth...

[deleted]

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#57

Post by noir_lord »

serge2k wrote: post #53
noir_lord wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tenuously was yours (since the original inter net (in the sense of a global network) was a connection of multiple networks and not all of them where in the US, far from it) it certainly isn't anymore. The UK had JANET in the late-70's/early 80's other countries had similar, the US was important and influential but the internet would have existed anyway, the concept of connecting a bunch of disparate networks together…

uh no, it just means the rest of the world can either submit to the US ruling the internet or tell them to get fucked and go do it themselves. Which honestly, I'm fine with given the MURICA! style arrogance of "we invented it you just get to use it"

The US have been good stewards so there has never been a reason to seriously contemplate moving en masse and without that critical mass you'd end up isolating your national network and having to bridge out anyway.

That said there is essentially zero technical reason why we couldn't just route (pun intended) straight around the US 'control' of the internet if we wanted so yeah it's a case of "we'll let you run it as long as you behave" rather than "you are the only ones who can".

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#58

Post by pilsetnieks »

walid wrote: post #44

Cruz fighting for internet freedom, Obama expanding social welfare after cutting it, Clinton fighting for healthcare and minimum wage. I'm not trying to make this political but thank you Bernie Sanders. After the success of Bernie's grassroots movement traditional politicians are trying to appeal to the more progressive portion of the population since Trump controls the angry.

Eh, the very first paragraph dispels that notion. It's not fighting for Internet freedom, it's fighting for freedom of the Internet to be controlled by Americans.

While I agree that up to now ICANN and IANA have done their work reasonably well, I wouldn't want them to be under influence of a single geopolitical entity. Then again, I certainly don't want them to be under the influence of all geopolitical entities, and be dragged down to the average of the whole world (like the UN Human Rights Council headed by Saudi Arabia) — we shouldn't aspire to mediocrity if we can set an example by aspiring to greatness.

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#59

Post by 2bitencryption »

int_19h wrote: post #50
2bitencryption wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, they have a point about the free speech. For a system in which free speech is indispensable (the internet), there is actually only a handful of countries that seem to get the whole "free speech" thing correct, the US among them.

We're not talking about some kind of Aquinas Protocol here, but rather who controls the DNS root zone. How much censorship potential is there, really? Especially when it's likely to end up being managed by committee, which basically means nothing gets done unless everyone agrees?

yeah, it looks like this is just a pointless piece of legislation so that in the next big election they can say "well WE created the Internet Freedom Whatchamacallit! Did Opponent support that? NO! They don't care about the cyber .gov DNS IP security what does all that mean."

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#60

Post by [deleted] »

__jal wrote: post #42
mmastrac wrote: post #5

While this seems rational, is this a play for them to gain some 'net credibility to start pushing harder to kill Net Neutrality? Aren't the players coming out in favour of this bill the same ones who have been arguing against NN? [1] I'd be wary of letting any of these folks have a say on the future of the internet. [1] ie: Heritage Action: http://heritageaction.com/agenda/strong-economy/internet-fre... TechFreedom:…

Agreed. There are very few people about whom I feel this way, but if Cruz supports something that sounds good to me, I'm hanging on to my wallet until I figure out the scam. (Not that this law necessarily sounds good to me.)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN