"The Protecting Internet Freedom Act would also ensure that the United States maintains sole ownership of the .gov and .mil top-level domains, which are vital to national security." I almost did a spit take...
I agree with this. I like being able to know that a site is trustworthy based on it having a .gov domain name.
Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
21–30 of 101 posts
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#22Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#23"The Protecting Internet Freedom Act would also ensure that the United States maintains sole ownership of the .gov and .mil top-level domains, which are vital to national security." I almost did a spit take...
I agree with this. I like being able to know that a site is trustworthy based on it having a .gov domain name.
Or, potentially more deceptively to consumers, "healthcare.gov", etc.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#24Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#25As an international user, it is in my opinion fantastic that the White House is attempting to cede control of key internet infrastructure. Why should a single country act as the custodians of a global service?
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.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#26As an international user, it is in my opinion fantastic that the White House is attempting to cede control of key internet infrastructure. Why should a single country act as the custodians of a global service?
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#27As an international user, it is in my opinion fantastic that the White House is attempting to cede control of key internet infrastructure. Why should a single country act as the custodians of a global service?
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.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#28As an international user, it is in my opinion fantastic that the White House is attempting to cede control of key internet infrastructure. Why should a single country act as the custodians of a global service?
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.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#29Earlier 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.
I see that more of a historical artifact. It's not like all the servers in the world are in the US and everyone else gets their internet through big pipes from your shores.