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

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#91

Post by BlakePetersen »

xg15 wrote: post #81
bpodgursky wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... do you really want to have to guess whether congress.gov is run by the government, or some random country which decided to sell of .gov TLDs for extra cash? Or, potentially more deceptively to consumers, "healthcare.gov", etc.

I agree this is a problem worth solving. But shouldn't it be solved for every country, not just the US? As a non-US citizen, I find it strange that matters of global internet governance are discussed with apparently mostly arguments about US-specific issues.

As a US citizen, I find it strange as well. But our Republican Party seems to believe we're special and should be treated differently. We aren't and we shouldn't be.

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#92

Post by [deleted] »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #89
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.

> Well, it's ours. No (t really). > We created it. Yes (mostly, originally). > We've allowed other countries to use it because it benefits us to do so. It is a distributed network. It is composed of pieces owned by different principals, content created by different people and code and technology contributed by the entire world. If the U.S. were to close its internet today, and block any connection to the outside worl…

[deleted]

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#93

Post by Apocryphon »

wildmusings wrote: post #75
Apocryphon wrote: post #63

This seems to be less a free speech vs. government censorship issue, and more of an international control vs. one-nation control issue. Whether managed by the ICANN or the NTIA, some government is going to be regulating these standards and domains.

So let's keep it in the hands of the government with the strongest free speech protections in the world.

Finland it is!

https://rsf.org/en/ranking https://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-wo...

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#94

Post by wildmusings »

Apocryphon wrote: post #93
wildmusings wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let's keep it in the hands of the government with the strongest free speech protections in the world.

Finland it is! https://rsf.org/en/ranking https://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-wo...

Those rankings are unscientific and, especially when it comes to Western countries, very political. Placing Hungary above the US for press freedom, for example, should be a red flag. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com//2012/01/26/usa-usa-were... . (I strongly disagree even with the criticism of Occupy arrests. The right to protest is not a license to permanently make camp on private property or public property that's supposed to be available for other use.)

Finland has laws that ban "publishing data, an opinion or other statement that threatens or insults a group on basis of race, nationality, ethnicity, religion or conviction, sexual orientation, disability, or any comparable basis. Ethnic agitation is punishable with a fine or up to 2 years in prison, or 4 months to 4 years if aggravated (such as incitement to genocide)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Finland . And as a member of the EU, Finland has to follow the right-to-be-forgotten ruling.

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#95

Post by hueving »

noir_lord wrote: post #62
hueving wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The UK does own it's telecom systems. I know I used to work in telecomms, my point was that having the first system doesn't mean we should control the ITU in perpetum. In fact the ITU model is a good example of a model that would work here, the UN runs that and I can ring a phone in America or Azerbaijan.

That model doesn't work when we all share the same root name servers. I don't want a majority vote of a bunch of oppressive countries to be able to strip a website of its domain because it has an offensive joke on it.

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#96

Post by 2bitencryption »

andywood wrote: post #84
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.

I recently did a lot of research into this as part of a project. As far as actual laws on the books (and not whatever one's political opinion of how they tend to be applied), the U.S. isn't just "one of" - it is literally the only country in the world matching descriptions like "first-world", "liberal", and "democratic", that does not have some variety of broad, nation-level laws against insulting people or groups of…

this is sort of an aside, but even though I wish other countries practiced the same degree of freedom of speech as the US, I think the Germans ban on Naziism might be a valid exception in my book. I only bring it up because I think of it quite a lot.

When that is part of your national history and identity, I think there's a good reason for banning that practice and behavior. Even if it violates free speech. To practice those ideals in the same country where those crimes were committed can do no service to anyone; there is no good outcome, no valid reasoning. It can only harm everyone. That's just about the only "exception" to free speech I can think of that holds up, though I still do question where you CAN have exceptions. Kind of like with encryption, you can't say "it's secure BUT..." you can't say "we have free speech BUT..."

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#97

Post by 2bitencryption »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #72
2bitencryption wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you whistleblow in the US, you end up in front of a judge (after a probably very unpleasant stay in a cell for a bit). You end up in prison forever. Really bad time. As for the journalists who published what you leaked? Free speech yo! Whisleblow in China. You don't end up in front of a judge, you end up at the bottom of the ocean. And the journalists who published what you whistleblew? Likewise. And the peop…

Actually the government here pretty regularly tries to dick over journalists too. In any case, your false dichotomy is neither accurate, nor compelling.

example?

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#98

Post by ionised »

gnoway wrote: post #25
hurricaneSlider wrote: post #24

As 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.

I'd like to see you try to stop anyone else using it.

Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

#99

Post by ionised »

deadtofu wrote: post #26
hurricaneSlider wrote: post #24

As 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?

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

People will use it whatever the US wants. It has no choice in the matter.
Post reply on HN