Obama's Plan to Internationalize the internet May be Unconstitutional

[crossnote]

But I am sure that won't stop Congress from approving it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MipmxHPbZF8

"President Obama's plan to "internationalize" the Internet may be unconstitutional, key members of Congress are claiming.

The group of lawmakers sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office last week, saying the plan to relinquish oversight of Internet domain name functions to a global, multi-stakeholder body raised questions about the administration's "authority to transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internet's infrastructure to a third party."

 

[Omni]

But I am sure that won't stop Congress from approving it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MipmxHPbZF8

"President Obama's plan to "internationalize" the Internet may be unconstitutional, key members of Congress are claiming.

The group of lawmakers sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office last week, saying the plan to relinquish oversight of Internet domain name functions to a global, multi-stakeholder body raised questions about the administration's "authority to transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internet's infrastructure to a third party."

The Internet is internationalized, by its very nature. It has no central governance other than the international laws that protect it and its users. The internet's most basic, fundamental functions were first designed in the UK at the National Physics Laboratory, by Donald Davies, and he's globally regarded as the man who, by virtue of creation of the intellectual material, holds the intellectual property rights to packet switching, which is what the whole internet is based upon.

He deliberately chose to allow his idea to be used all over the world. He didn't patent and monetize it, and under International law, nobody can patent his idea, and by that mechanism (or lack thereof) it's fundamentally illegal for any country or its government or any of its citizens to assume any international authority over the internet.

The very fact that the NSA, to name one such agency, spy on data communications that include one or more parties from overseas is a fundamental breach of the rights of internet users all over the world. And this is the issue. I do not consent to having the NSA or any other government agency other than the agencies that operate within the legal codes of the country I live in, having any power to spy on me and my activities in a decentralized, un-patented, free-for-use communication medium. This is why we have CS law, and why companies have to allocate and use local servers for different nations. I don't consent to my internet traffic being routed and analyzed through a US based server, because I'm not a US citizen under US law.

Obama's trying to stop the power of a centralized agency like the NSA to spy willy-nilly on people all over the world. And it's what people all over the world ​want.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

The Internet is internationalized, by its very nature.

True, but many international powers are not so interested in the free and open exchange of information, as the U.S. (supposedly) is, the parenthetical statement referencing my doubt Obama has that interest.

It has no central governance other than the international laws that protect it and its users.

Laws that don't work for Chinese Christians cowering in their homes, fearful of the state discovering their worshp. Laws that don't work for Iranians desiring to throw off the yoke of tyranny at the hands of the radical fundamentalist Islamic leadership. Laws that don't work for freedom fightedfrs and activists in "Myanmar" otherwise and properly known as Burma.

The internet's most basic, fundamental functions were first designed in the UK at the National Physics Laboratory, by Donald Davies, and he's globally regarded as the man who, by virtue of creation of the intellectual material, holds the intellectual property rights to packet switching, which is what the whole internet is based upon.

I beg to differ.

The Evolution of Packet Switching

[SIZE=-1]The first published description of what we now call packet switching was an 11-volume analysis, On Distributed Communications, prepared by Paul Baran of the Rand Corporation in August 1964 [1]. This study was conducted for the Air Force, and it proposed a fully distributed packet switching system to provide for all military communications, data, and voice. ... [SIZE=-1]Donald Davies conceived of the details of a store-and-forward packet switching system, and in a June 1966 description of his proposal coined the term "packet" to describe the 128-byte blocks being moved around inside the network. Davies circulated his proposed network design throughout the U.K. in late 1965 and 1966. It was only after this distribution that he discovered Paul Baran's 1964 report.

[/SIZE]

The author of that paper, Dr. Lawrence Roberts, was a simultaneous creator of the first packet switching system in the U.S., at the same time as Davies' work. No offense, but the Internet was developed for strategical purposes by the United States military.

I don't consent to my internet traffic being routed and analyzed through a US based server, because I'm not a US citizen under US law.

If you have any contact with U.S. citizens or businesses that may have some connection to terrorism, even though you don't know it, they don't need your consent. For that matter, any search you make ona Google or other search engine could go anywhere in the world before returning to your computer, so you're complaining about something that happens thousands of times per second, whether it is an NSA monitored server or not.

Obama's trying to stop the power of a centralized agency like the NSA to spy willy-nilly on people all over the world. And it's what people all over the world ​want.

Obama's trying to destroy the U.S. as he found it. Nothing less.[/SIZE]

 

[Omni]

True, but many international powers are not so interested in the free and open exchange of information, as the U.S. (supposedly) is, the parenthetical statement referencing my doubt Obama has that interest.

Laws that don't work for Chinese Christians cowering in their homes, fearful of the state discovering their worshp. Laws that don't work for Iranians desiring to throw off the yoke of tyranny at the hands of the radical fundamentalist Islamic leadership. Laws that don't work for freedom fightedfrs and activists in "Myanmar" otherwise and properly known as Burma.

Yea, you're right, they don't work in those instances, at least insofar as the principles of freedom of information are concerned -- obviously the Chinese people don't have total access to free, public, global digital information like we do -- but it's not up to the international court to enforce the freedom of electronic informational exchange on sovereign states, it's up to the international court to protect the sovereign legal principles of each state regarding communications, without infringing the right of other states to enforce their own principles on their own people, regarding communications. For instance, the UK is a sovereign state, and under our laws, the US intelligence agencies aren't allowed to spy on the civilians within the UK, through the internet. Part of the UK's CS law (like all nations') allows the UK to govern the internet in its own country under its own principles, while China's internet laws allow China to govern itself under it's own principles. The Internationalization of the internet is partly a protection from interference from other nation's in influencing a country's laws surrounding digital communication, and partly a protection from interference from other nations in accessing the digital communications of civilians.

I beg to differ.

The author of that paper, Dr. Lawrence Roberts, was a simultaneous creator of the first packet switching system in the U.S., at the same time as Davies' work. No offense, but the Internet was developed for strategical purposes by the United States military.

Well, the point still stands, really. There's no patent on packet switching, which is why the internet, hitherto, has no centralized authority.

If you have any contact with U.S. citizens or businesses that may have some connection to terrorism, even though you don't know it, they don't need your consent. For that matter, any search you make ona Google or other search engine could go anywhere in the world before returning to your computer, so you're complaining about something that happens thousands of times per second, whether it is an NSA monitored server or not.

Well, I can understand, to a degree, why this principle is part of US law, but from what I also understand, Obama's propositions for governance of the internet in the US would stop this from happening. The UK government already demand that ISP's in the UK run secure localized servers within the UK to somewhat thwart attempts at foreign nations accessing UK civilian's data at internet exchange points. So if the US is accessing UK citizen's information (whether or not that information is being shared with a suspected terrorist organization) it's still technically the US government agencies putting their fingers into pies that are out of their jurisdiction. That's why we have MI5 and the GCHQ.

Obama's trying to destroy the U.S. as he found it. Nothing less.

I don't know if I see it that way, in this instance at least. He's trying to align American policy with the sovereign rights of other states, in my eyes. I mean, it's the US government's right to intercept and investigate suspicious traffic in its own country, but accessing the servers of ISP's and companies in the UK for the same purpose isn't the US government's right.

 

[maxwel]

The Internet is internationalized, by its very nature. It has no central governance other than the international laws that protect it and its users. The internet's most basic, fundamental functions were first designed in the UK at the National Physics Laboratory, by Donald Davies, and he's globally regarded as the man who, by virtue of creation of the intellectual material, holds the intellectual property rights to packet switching, which is what the whole internet is based upon.

He deliberately chose to allow his idea to be used all over the world. He didn't patent and monetize it, and under International law, nobody can patent his idea, and by that mechanism (or lack thereof) it's fundamentally illegal for any country or its government or any of its citizens to assume any international authority over the internet.

The very fact that the NSA, to name one such agency, spy on data communications that include one or more parties from overseas is a fundamental breach of the rights of internet users all over the world. And this is the issue. I do not consent to having the NSA or any other government agency other than the agencies that operate within the legal codes of the country I live in, having any power to spy on me and my activities in a decentralized, un-patented, free-for-use communication medium. This is why we have CS law, and why companies have to allocate and use local servers for different nations. I don't consent to my internet traffic being routed and analyzed through a US based server, because I'm not a US citizen under US law.

Obama's trying to stop the power of a centralized agency like the NSA to spy willy-nilly on people all over the world. And it's what people all over the world ​want.

People all over the world are spying on people all over the world.
All governments are doing this, 24/7, by all means available, including the internet.

I'm not trying to justify the NSA, but you might do well to dial back all the affected surprise and moral indignation.

All nations are using the internet to spy on EVERYONE.
You know this.

This isn't ONE SIDED.
You need to stop pretending like it is.
You aren't uneducated or unaware... so stop pretending like you are, in your effort to push your political agendas.

 

[Omni]

People all over the world are spying on people all over the world.
All governments are doing this, 24/7, by all means available, including the internet.

I'm not trying to justify the NSA, but you might do well to dial back all the affected surprise and moral indignation.

All nations are using the internet to spy on EVERYONE.
You know this.

This isn't ONE SIDED.
You need to stop pretending like it is.
You aren't uneducated or unaware... so stop pretending like you are, in your effort to push your political agendas.

As far as relations go, I imagine the US holds a much bigger stick than the UK. I don't really see Mi5 and GCHQ tapping into American's facebook communications, to be honest, but if that is the case, then I'd be just as indignant about it. Principle is principle.

In any case, if Obama gets these bills through Congress there won't (or at least, ought not to) be any more reason for me to take issue with the matter.

 

[Oncefallen]

I don't consent to my internet traffic being routed and analyzed through a US based server, because I'm not a US citizen under US law.

If this is the case then you need to stop logging into Christian Chat since (at least last time I knew) our servers are US based since (by far) that is where most of our traffic originates.

 

[Omni]

If this is the case then you need to stop logging into Christian Chat since (at least last time I knew) our servers are US based since (by far) that is where most of our traffic originates.

My ISP holds a centralized data server that firewalls my traffic, nomatter what websites I access. For the NSA to access that server is against my consent, and as far as I know against UK laws. That said, the funny thing about the internet is that because it is an international network, the NSA could for instance view my posts on this website without breaking any laws whatsoever.

 

[notuptome]

NSA if you are listening and I know you are Jesus Saves. Except you be born again, Born from above you will not see the kingdom of God which means you will perish in everlasting condemnation also known as the lake of fire.

This is a universal message brought to you from the creator of the universe.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[maxwel]

My ISP holds a centralized data server that firewalls my traffic, nomatter what websites I access. For the NSA to access that server is against my consent, and as far as I know against UK laws. That said, the funny thing about the internet is that because it is an international network, the NSA could for instance view my posts on this website without breaking any laws whatsoever.

If you think someone needs to get into your ISP to know what you're doing, you're living in the stone age.

Nobody needs to get into your ISP to see every single thing you do.

Blaming the U.S. for all the evils of internet surveillance is ludicrous.
Everyone does it.
They don't need your consent, and they don't need access to your ISP.

This entire line of reasoning is just nonsense.
If you just have the political belief that certain privileges should be taken from the U.S. and given to someone else, fine.
Pursue that as a line of debate.
But if you think any of that is going to change privacy, or internet surveillance... you're being ridiculous.

This particular line of reasoning is nonsensical.

Try something else.

 

[Omni]

If you think someone needs to get into your ISP to know what you're doing, you're living in the stone age.

Nobody needs to get into your ISP to see every single thing you do.

Blaming the U.S. for all the evils of internet surveillance is ludicrous.
Everyone does it.
They don't need your consent, and they don't need access to your ISP.

This entire line of reasoning is just nonsense.
If you just have the political belief that certain privileges should be taken from the U.S. and given to someone else, fine.
Pursue that as a line of debate.
But if you think any of that is going to change privacy, or internet surveillance... you're being ridiculous.

This particular line of reasoning is nonsensical.

Try something else.

Need isn't the same thing as "do". And I'm not "blaming the US for all the evils of surveillance", I'm pointing out the illegality of bypassing digital restrictions in foreign nations. You, for instance, can connect to the internet through your ISP and access sites whose own servers are based in a foreign nation, as can I. And as long as we've both accessed publicly available information (for instance, posts on this website) through legal means, we're okay. I could go on your facebook (if I knew you) and have a snoop at you profile, and vice versa. What I can't (legally) do is access privileged code from another foreign sovereign territory through the internet.

User>localized ISP server and firewall>publicly accessible www information stored on any server

is not the same as

User>localized ISP server and firewall>confidential and privileged information stored in any server

It's legal for the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Mossad, SAVAK, QODS, to access any publically available communications information in foreign territories, and to access privileged or confidential communications information in their sovereign jurisdictions. What it's not legal to do is for any of those organizations to access the privileged or confidential communications information in another nation's sovereign jurisdictions.

 

[maxwel]

Need isn't the same thing as "do". And I'm not "blaming the US for all the evils of surveillance", I'm pointing out the illegality of bypassing digital restrictions in foreign nations. You, for instance, can connect to the internet through your ISP and access sites whose own servers are based in a foreign nation, as can I. And as long as we've both accessed publicly available information (for instance, posts on this website) through legal means, we're okay. I could go on your facebook (if I knew you) and have a snoop at you profile, and vice versa. What I can't (legally) do is access privileged code from another foreign sovereign territory through the internet.

User>localized ISP server and firewall>publicly accessible www information stored on any server

is not the same as

User>localized ISP server and firewall>confidential and privileged information stored in any server

It's legal for the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Mossad, SAVAK, QODS, to access any publically available communications information in foreign territories, and to access privileged or confidential communications information in their sovereign jurisdictions. What it's not legal to do is for any of those organizations to access the privileged or confidential communications information in another nation's sovereign jurisdictions.

"I'm pointing out the illegality of bypassing digital restrictions in foreign nations."

1. The Governments of the world all complain about OTHER governments doing this, while they themselves ALL do the same thing.This is pretty well documented.


2. Almost all nations have both offensive and defensive "cyber" capabilities (attack, spying, espionage, hacking, destroying, etc.) within their militaries.

ALL GOVERNMENTS are in the "internet spy" game... and almost all of it is illegal.


3. When allied nations use the internet to collect data on their enemies, their allies, and their own citizens, they FREQUENTLY share this "confidential" information with their allies. This is proven and documented, and nobody cares whether it's legal or not. And YOUR country is involved.


4. "Legality" has never stopped anyone from doing anything... least of all anyone's government.

When it comes to the international "spy game", no government has EVER given two hoots about legality.

Get real.


5. When a government DOES want to make some of this look legal, there are all kinds of little "loopholes" in the ways the governments collect and share data with each other.


6. The NSA doesn't need access to your ISP to read EVERY SINGLE PACKET OF DATA YOU SEND ANYWHERE ON THE GLOBE.


7. YOUR COUNTY is a U.S. ally... meaning that whether or not they admit it publicly... YOUR GOVERNMENT is ALSO using data from the NSA... sharing data back and forth with them, and cooperating with them completely.


If you think that more globalization of ICAAN is going to curtail internet surveillance...
YOU ARE LIVING IN A FANTASY.

If you just PREFER more global authority for ICAAN, then fine.
Pursue that line of debate.
But pretending it affects surveillance, in any serious way, is NONSENSE.
It is nonsensical.

This line of reasoning is FANTASY.

(The U.S. doesn't need any control of ICAAN for surveillance purposes. Any control of ICAAN is for commercial purposes... and that's the same reason other nations want more control of it. The surveillance issue is a red herring.)

 

[Omni]

"I'm pointing out the illegality of bypassing digital restrictions in foreign nations."

1. The Governments of the world all complain about OTHER governments doing this, while they themselves ALL do the same thing.This is pretty well documented.


2. Almost all nations have both offensive and defensive "cyber" capabilities (attack, spying, espionage, hacking, destroying, etc.) within their militaries.

ALL GOVERNMENTS are in the "internet spy" game... and almost all of it is illegal.


3. When allied nations use the internet to collect data on their enemies, their allies, and their own citizens, they FREQUENTLY share this "confidential" information with their allies. This is proven and documented, and nobody cares whether it's legal or not. And YOUR country is involved.


4. "Legality" has never stopped anyone from doing anything... least of all anyone's government.

When it comes to the international "spy game", no government has EVER given two hoots about legality.

Get real.


5. When a government DOES want to make some of this look legal, there are all kinds of little "loopholes" in the ways the governments collect and share data with each other.


6. The NSA doesn't need access to your ISP to read EVERY SINGLE PACKET OF DATA YOU SEND ANYWHERE ON THE GLOBE.


7. YOUR COUNTY is a U.S. ally... meaning that whether or not they admit it publicly... YOUR GOVERNMENT is ALSO using data from the NSA... sharing data back and forth with them, and cooperating with them completely.


If you think that more globalization of ICAAN is going to curtail internet surveillance...
YOU ARE LIVING IN A FANTASY.

If you just PREFER more global authority for ICAAN, then fine.
Pursue that line of debate.
But pretending it affects surveillance, in any serious way, is NONSENSE.
It is nonsensical.

This line of reasoning is FANTASY.

(The U.S. doesn't need any control of ICAAN for surveillance purposes. Any control of ICAAN is for commercial purposes... and that's the same reason other nations want more control of it. The surveillance issue is a red herring.)

What people do and what's illegal are two different things, Maxwel. But I'd much prefer it be illegal to spy on the civilians of other countries, than not. And this legislation creates a very precise framework that achieves the illegality of it. Even if the NSA and the CIA and the FBI and the MI5 and MI6 and Mossad still do it, I much prefer it have to be done covertly, shamefully, and secretively. And if it turns out that they get caught, I much prefer there is recourse to sue.

I'm not an idiot. I've already conceded most of the points you make, because I know they're true. I know, just like you, that this legislation won't actually stop spy-games, but it puts a dent in their legal right to spy, and gives more robust legal recourse to the civilians who don't want them to do it.

 

[maxwel]

What people do and what's illegal are two different things, Maxwel. But I'd much prefer it be illegal to spy on the civilians of other countries, than not. And this legislation creates a very precise framework that achieves the illegality of it. Even if the NSA and the CIA and the FBI and the MI5 and MI6 and Mossad still do it, I much prefer it have to be done covertly, shamefully, and secretively. And if it turns out that they get caught, I much prefer there is recourse to sue.

I'm not an idiot. I've already conceded most of the points you make, because I know they're true. I know, just like you, that this legislation won't actually stop spy-games, but it puts a dent in their legal right to spy, and gives more robust legal recourse to the civilians who don't want them to do it.

Excellent.

Well I'm glad we cleared that up without resorting to public floggings.


: )

 

[LieDetector]

Pope met with Kim Davis secretly...

Pope Francis 'met gay marriage row clerk' Kim Davis on US trip - BBC News

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Pope met with Kim Davis secretly...

Pope Francis 'met gay marriage row clerk' Kim Davis on US trip - BBC News

Why is this post here?

 

[dcontroversal]

Has he done anything constitutional yet....

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Has he done anything constitutional yet....

Do you really have to ask?

 

[dcontroversal]

Do you really have to ask?

Notice....no question mark

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Notice....no question mark

xxxxx