U.S. giving the internet to the U.N.

ill give you a bump op here is a source you forgot it
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165#livefyre-comment

>>56332228
Oh sorry I forgot to add that, my bad.

>>56332192
because the u.s is such a guarantee of freedom.

>>56332257
its like ttip all over again, buts its guaranteed this time.

OP you don't know what you're talking about. The UN will never ever take control of the Internet because it would mean continued US control over it.

Point is: the entire reason for the US dropping it's leadership over ICANN (besides the untenablity of US control over it as the Internet expands all over the planet) is so that the US no longer has control over it. The UN is run by the UNSC, of which members can veto anything. The US is a member and through it's veto would be able to stop any changes to the Internet it did not approve of.

This is a problem as ICANN is bring moved out of the US is because other countries (specifically England, France, China and Russia) want the ability to easily censor their own domestic internet (like China already does). To do this, they need an ICANN where the US is not dominant as the US will always oppose censorship as it hinders their intelligence dragnets.

>>56332328
> its going to be handed over by september 30th

>What would it take to create our own open source internet with a deadline by September 30 2016.

It already exists, as Radio Internet:

http://www.arrl.org/ham-radio-license-manual
http://www.arrl.org/internet-ham-radio

That said, creating a new Internet is basically impossible unless you can rent space a satellite. Remember that "the internet" itself is a bunch of hard cables, basically the phone system. Even Tor and so forth are sloppy solutions that avoid the problem rather than addressing it.

>>56332361
thats a radio anon, we want to surf the internet not listen to music

>>56332354

Yes it is. It'll continue to be a nonprofit regardless if it breaks antitrust laws.

Remember that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, not a tax attorney. He honestly has no idea what this is or what it means. If anyone actually bothers suing ICANN in the US for antitrust laws, it'll be Comcast, Time-Warner or AT&T who will want to create their own proprietary Internet (like bob page with the "aquinas protocol" did in the prelude to Deus Ex). The UN doesn't have the ability to take control of the Internet.

>>56332328
>ICANN is bring moved out of the US
You see this as a good thing? The US is has the first amendment and created the internet to be a bastion of free speech. Do you think China is going to care about any anti-censorship proposals we might bring to light? No. of course not. We need the internet to be controlled by the US. Other nations need us too. We can't just hand over the internet to dictators

>>56332418
lol yes they will, they will get trigger happy of banning websites and calling the cops.

>>56332417
obama has screwed this country harder then ever, he will try to screw us the hardest he ever can before he leaves.

>>56332418
Sovereign multinational corporations are ultimately going to gain control over the internet. And they're fans of censorship.

>give up huge bargaining chip for literally no reason

Obama is such a stupid fucking nigger.

>>56332391

And you can do that with a ham radio albeit very, VERY, sloppily. Radios are capable of turning digital input into analog radio signals which can be used to transfer data. It is possible to ping google through a ham radio, though it's slow. Also remember that wifi, 4G etc are all just radios tuned to a different frequency.

The problem is that all that specialized infrastructure for wifi and 4G ties into the landline broadband Internet, which is a drag. Ham radio, assuming a power enough antenna, can avoid it all using satellites.

>>56332192
https://ipfs.io
how about this as a possible solution?

>>56332418

I do not see it as a good thing, but the point is the UN is not taking control. Other countries want to censor their Internet and lock it down. America won't let them, at least until ICANN can be done away with.

>>56332450

there is no difference between large corperations and the state, this is a thing most people don't seem to get because they never read up why corporate charters as a concept were created in the first place

>>56332466
i did not even know that
>inb4 dumbass

>>56332462

It was inevitable. Either the US relinquished control or something else would have superseded ICANN. The Internet is global now, and the US is ultimately a minority. The US is the only country on the planet with full, guaranteed freedom-of-speech. So clearly they have to be marginalized when it comes to things like control over Internet standards.

Ultimately Americans won't see much of a change, but the rest of the world will.

>>56332499
To an extent. However, the state is still subject to laws (in theory). 'Sovereign' corporations are solely subject to profit margins.

>>56332530
>Ultimately Americans won't see much of a change, but the rest of the world will
I call bullshit. America will be heavily censored if this shit gets past congress

File: Access_satellite.gif (17KB, 600x309px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 600x309px

>>56332509

The one good thing about the future is that Satellite radio costs are falling. I'm not talking about servers, I'm talking about 2-3 foot wide comsats that are just radio transceivers (ie, things that pick up analog signals and spit them out to a base station where the landline connection is made). Right now it's about on par with higher-end cable packages (compared to thousands of dollars like it used to be). As more satellites get launched, supply increases and cost falls.

Also in a decade or so it'll probably be possible for hobbyists to buy enough satellite "space" (or specifically, the ability to use a certain antenna on a certain satellite at a certain wavelength) where an fully amateur Internet could form. Only issue is that it would be incredibly low-bandwidth (ie, DSL speeds) and be susceptible to accidental DDOSing (such as multiple people attempting to use the same antenna at the same wavelength at the same time, causing signals to jam).

>>56332466
It would have to be disconnected from the service providers, which will be undoubtedly affected by this.

>i don't trust the government

>oh no, don't give away the internet to GEORGE SOROS

Get your shit straight, /pol/

>>56332659
I don't trust a government run by Democrats, nor do I trust (((Soros)))

>>56332659
The goverment is divided as fuck, while Soros is preparing a world government. Also this is the /g/ part of >>>/pol/87055353

>>56332618

How? Foreigners want American business as the US is the #1 economic power. America will continue to be the dominant place to host websites unless individual countries ban the practice themselves. And American companies don't want any external entity telling them what they can and cannot do (just on principle) and they'd sue it so they can make their own abomination.

ICANN only sets standards, this is hugely influential but it does not itself censor. What censors are states being given the tools (from ICANN) to do so. The US won't as the US can't due to it's Constitution. However every other country will quickly do so.

>>56332659

>comes to /g/
>isn't a white supremacist

Why would you even do that?

File: radio.gif (74KB, 940x474px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 940x474px

>>56332656

Yes and that's easy. In theory, all you need are two LANs connected to two radios, each with a powerful enough antenna. The satellites (however many of them) are just relays. It's also possible to use aircraft or ground stations, as the US itself does (pic related from the Snowden leaks).

>>56332619
It's also super easy to DoS a geosynchronous satellite.
Just point a Yagi with a wideband transmitter at it, and blast it with 1500w of garbage.

It's bad because someone with about $600 of equipment could accomplish this.

File: creech-pull.png (155KB, 1200x709px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1200x709px

>>56332736

wrong picture

>>56332697
In that case, would only websites not hosted in the US be subject to censor?

>>56332736
Interesting, how would this work out on a small scale with two radios, could you transmit data like webpages that way?

The US is not giving ICANN to the UN. The US is merely releasing its control over ICANN. People have extrapolated that this would mean that ICANN would seek to be controlled by the UN so it could keep an antitrust exemption, but quite frankly, the US could simply give it an antitrust exemption without requiring government oversight.

>>56332745

As opposed to using the landline internet, which the government has direct access to via your ISP. At least with a satellite, they'd have to (a) figure out if you're actually doing something naughty with it, (b) which satellite you're actually using and (c) when you're actually using it then (d) waste space on their own antennas harassing you. It's a nonstarter especially if you're broadcasting from a boat and claim it's marine communications (which is protected by many more laws than regular communications).

The only issue is with broadcasting pirated music, however the Internet cannot be broadcasted as it is digital. It's inherently a transmission-only service. This makes detecting it significantly more difficult on the part of large companies.

>>56332769
Y'all motherfuckers need to get into ham radio.
The short and sweet is that different wavelengths bounce off the ionosphere at different altitudes (or go straight through it).

This "skip", however, isn't reliable 24/7. Solar conditions influence the path and availability of propagation. That's why we made satellites.
Satellites use frequencies that punch through the atmosphere, and are very predictable in their location, so it's easy to point an antenna at a satellite and get a connection. The other benefit of sats is that the high frequencies also have high capacity for data, so gigabits can be moved. Compare this to HF (ionospheric skip), where data rates reach a blistering 9600 baud.

With two radios, the signal can either go up to a sat, and the sat re transmits it to a listening radio, sort of like a super high radio tower. The other option is to carefully predict the signal path, and attempt to bounce the signal off of the ionopshere and hit your target over the horizon.

>>56332736
This picture actually illustrates it pretty well.

>>56332754

Basically yes. But it depends on how things shake out. However, as a rule of thumb only the US has total protection of free speech due to their own domestic laws (again, the Constitution) forbidding government interference here.

>>56332257
US has free speech. But to be fair Europe does have better IP laws

>>56332192
The internet is all infrastructure which has owners

>>56332849
I though you were talking just about relying on a sat for internet in general.
If one were to get popular enough, the government would (and has) tap the base station, effectively limiting the internet access.

The old AMSATs had store and forward message systems on them, effectively making them a server orbiting the earth.

>>56332769

All you need is a computer connected to each radio's output channel (ie, headphone jack to USB). Computer A can then transmit a data request to Computer B like it would do over any network, except that the connection would be very slow. Again, slower than DSL (DSL itself was made to be the Internet as radio internet was too slow). Your computer is doing this right now if it's using wifi or 4G, but with a higher-frequency radio wavelength.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbMUGQQ2Pn4

It's important to note that the physical-ness of telecommunications becomes present here. Remember that DSL was, as it was the phone network, a twisted pair of copper wires. Ham radio is similar but with radio waves instead of electricity flowing through wires.

File: fun.jpg (487KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1024x768px

>>56332903

Then the user can use a different wavelength, or find another satellite. Or bounce the signal to another base station away from the country in question.

>The old AMSATs had store and forward message systems on them, effectively making them a server orbiting the earth.

Remember that most AMSATs are for SSTV, analog voice or other very low bandwidth things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-scan_television

>>56332982
OSCAR 16 has been around for a hot minute, and it's got an integrated BBS.

I'm still not entirely sure what your goal for the satellite is. Is it simply acting as a repeater, or is it a link to a base station to access the internet?

>>56333114

repeater = link

It doesn't matter what the base station is, the satellite just repeats a signal to it.

>>56333165
Repeater implies that your xmit and receive freqs are going to be offeset or otherwise defined so that another party can establish full-duplex with you.

A base station linked sat acts more like a switch/router, routing all radio traffic down to the base station first, and then retransmitting the uplink of the base station. If house 1 wanted to ping house 2, it would go:

House 1 - Sat - Base station - sat - house 2 - sat - base station - sat - house 1

Repeating sat:

House 1 xmit : House 2 receive
House 2 xmit: House 1 receive

What?
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313
ICANN is not being handed over to the UN.

File: hungary.jpg (1MB, 1024x1331px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x1331px

>>56332192
They finally gave the control of the Internet to Hungary.

Thanks Soros György.

So to get this straight, the reason that this is bad is because it would give tyrannical dictators and certain other people, such as George Soros the ability to censor the internet, right?

That's what I've been getting out of all the articles and comments I've seen

>>56333492

Yes, I'm sure Orban would approve of giving Soros more power.

>>56332192
aww yea, we /meshnet/ soon.

>>56333492
>Hungary
That's a weird way to spell Israel.

>>56333544
He would actually. They will do anything to remain in power with its party.

But I don't think this will help him, he fucked up things very badly in the past years. By 2018 he will be gone.

>>56333585
Soros is respected here, we are proud of everyone who was born in and achieved something great.

Also we keep a healthy and beneficial relationship with Israel. We are even called as the second Israel kek.

>>56333540
Under the control of our gov, it was mostly untouchable, but now it would be fully subject to the will of people that don't like free speech and have lots of money.

>>56333626
>Soros is respected here
>Also we keep a healthy and beneficial relationship with Israel
>We are even called as the second Israel
>Soros hates Israel

>>56332530
>The US is the only country on the planet with full, guaranteed freedom-of-speech.
lol.

>>56332671
gtfo 2 /pol/ you piece of shit.

>>56334159
Fuck you faggot

>>56332530
Is press somehow exempt from that freedom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

File: 753765317657.png (2MB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1366x768px

>>56334159
>literally defending Soros

>>56334159
>he wants a proprietary internet

>>56332671
>I don't trust a government run by Democrats
Your mistake was trusting government at all.

>>56332192
ICANN's CEO already sold out to the PRC, make of that what you will.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160107_icann_hugs_china_multilateral_internet_governance_initiative/

>>56332228
Is there a way to bypass WSJ's paywall?

>>56334502
Here's an infowars article on it that is pretty much the same thing.

>>56334554
http://www.infowars.com/un-to-take-control-of-internet-october-1st/

>>56332328
>because other countries (specifically England, France, China and Russia) want the ability to easily censor their own domestic internet
what's with murricans always twisting logic to make things seem worse (for other people/country) or better (for themselves) than they really are?
the chinese govt already controls their internet. I don't see how this has anything to do with censoring it... they already can, and do.

>>56332192
I've got it!

We run standardised clusters o...

Like anyone can even be fucked, we are going to take in the ass like we usually do.

>>56334566
Thanks.

>>56332192
me and a group of friends are making an open source internet and have been since a year ago, it encrypts everything by default and is an entirely new way to connect, no more ISPs, it's been a dream of mine forever, it's written in C

That's stupid, not going to happen.

>>56334905
believe it sweetheart

>What would it take to create our own open source internet with a deadline by September 30 2016.

being this tech illiterate

>Remember that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, not a tax attorney. He honestly has no idea what this is or what it means.

being this uninformed about the basic workings of government

>infowars article

lol


where were you when /g/ hit rock bottom :(

>>56332192
>Open-Source
The problem isn't the software or the protocol, it's the Infrastructure\Network

Like one could effectively re-build the internet using existing protocols (HTTP\DNS\etc.,) by building a new network not connected to the regular internet.
So like what if Cities were divided in to blocks then Neighborhood\Districts, then these were all wired up together to form a City-wide Intranet. People can run services on it no differently then the WWW. the only thing the WWW has different is that it connects to Everywhere.


Something i've actually always wondered was like the feasibility of this actually. Like what if our towns were connected over Fiber. Above ground fiber nodes on phone poles or something run by the city, and city wide services are available. (i mean sure Satelites are OK but w/e this is a thought) A new internet would be made, but i honestly doubt the actual adoption of this ...

>>56332192
>UN
>HACKED
>AREA 51
>HACKED

>>56332736
Ahh good ol' skip. My dad used to shoot skip to talk to people in Australia and Japan from California. I never read into the physics behind it but it is interesing. The signal quality was VERY unreliable though- would be bunk for all but the lowest bandwidth data transfer.

There are protocols for using HAM to speak via text on a PC. There was some weird module my dad bought a long time ago. All this shit was like 10 years ago.

HAM is one hobby that can go from 1 to 11 very quickly. Ricing PCs is one thing. Going from a small handset tranceiver to a boat anchor base station and Tokyo Hi-Power 1kw amp is where you enter the stupid money zone.

>>56332418
>The US is has the first amendment and created the internet to be a bastion of free speech.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

>>56332192
I've seen this posted over and over again but can somebody PLEASE just tell
me: What part of “the Internet” do you think the DNS root constitutes,
exactly?

1. If countries want to block domains, they already can and do.
2. Even if they block domains, you can still reach the websites via IP, which
people have always done in the case of #1

File: trash yourself.jpg (75KB, 832x584px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 832x584px

>>56332882
>IP

File: downloadfile-5.jpg (215KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 640x480px

>>56332192
George Soros is a DANGEROUS individual who I wish was dead, Soros worked for the Nazis, formed the Open Society Movement (movement for zero borders which is not safe and fucking terrible globalism at it's core) and funded many terrorist groups like BLM and tried to pit us against eachother with BLM and many other things, I pray that one day someone kills him or he dies of heart failure or anything else, the world would be incredible without him, he sees himself as a god and is in favor of censoring people who aren't for the Open Society movement and is going to give them the power, so my own solution to this is to make a libre internet that relies on a completely different way to connect and uses post-quantum encryption by default while being distributed and recreating the protocals like IP and DNS and HTTP with better ones that are similar, I would dedicate my life to making it and use it exclusively because I dont wanna fall to the hands of tyranny by George Soros
my hopes are that he dies and the internet gets recreated

Fuck off back to /pol/

>>56335645
classic /pol/ combination of delusional and uninformed, please go back to your containment board

>>56335185
What's wrong about what he said? Courts have continually held up people's 1st amendment rights with very few exceptions (such as free speech zones).

>>56335845
>>56335851
>>56335861
The thread's been dead for half an hour and you suddenly make 2 posts about /pol/ and one propaganda post. All just over a minute between each other. Take your damage control somewhere else.

>>56335876
((()))

the internet hasn't been relevant for a very long time

why should I start caring now?

>>56335876
classic /pol/ combination of delusional and uninformed, please go back to your containment board

>>56334569
They can control other nations internet you fuck wad by killing the DNS of a website they see as a threat

>>56332192
> U.S. giving the internet to the U.N.
trolling is now punishable
hurting feelings is punishable
fat/trans/xi/xir/xer/ILRBGQVZ shaming is now punishable

>>56332192
>make another internet
>???
>profit

>>56336933
oh wait i didn't read the OP let me fix my post: lol it'll never fly

>>56332418
" The US is has the first amendment and created the internet to be a bastion of free speech"

Yeah except the internet isn't considered a medium of free speech.
It's like tiny islands that form archipelagos that are inside countries.
And everyone wants to rule them all.

>>56332736

The ionosphere conditions as of the last decade or so have been piss poor for skip, especially on higher HF bands of 10-meters and so. Additionally, due to symbol rate restrictions on those bands and limit of available bandwidth, common speeds on HF for packet are generally restricted to 300 baud. And not only is that 300 baud, but if you started shoving TCP/IP data inside those packets the data rate would plummet due to overhead.

Encryption is also effectively illegal. There are ways people have considered skirting around it such as posting encryption keys online, but if your signal is perceptively encrypted to big brother they're not even going to consider the fact you posted the keys. This is also intended to prevent abuse of the amateur radio spectrum so its not jammed up with extended data transmissions.

In a nutshell, to realistically facilitate a WAN with ham radio, it would require working on higher frequencies such as 2.4Ghz (where ham operators are primary), mass adoption of the network by many different operators and a significant amount of meshing with investment in bridge sites for isolated regions where meshing just doesn't cover it.

Our local ARES group has discussed implementing a distributed WAN like this in our region, but as of yet nothing has happened because nobody wants to invest in it.

File: lmao.jpg (47KB, 634x447px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 634x447px

>>56332882
>allows hate speech
>has free speech

Electronic old men. Warning. Warning.

>>56337240
You are referring to the internet how it is coming to be instead of what the original intent was. This just demonstrates that any government control over the internet beyond ensuring that service providers don't fuck with your ability to access the internet uncensored, and unmonitored is poisonous to the internet itself. The more governments have tried to regulate the internet the worse it has gotten.

>>56337320
meant for >>56337015

Newfags don't realize a lot of /g/ fags are also /pol/lacks.

>>56337203
>higher frequencies such as 2.4Ghz (where ham operators are primary)
Where WiFi is king, you mean.
Plus all the other Special Interest Groups (Industrial, Scientific and Medical ).

>>56337373
>this is the kind of retard who browses /g/
No wonder all the tech-illiteracy around here.

Remind me again why we haven't ditched /pol/ yet.

>>56337393

Because it brings ad revenue.

>>56337279
It should be online within six months, it's currently undergoing preparation and will be operational, within six months.

My people will continue to report on it's progress. Within six months.

I'm not sure how this is significant. Countries could always use their own custom naming system if they wanted to.

>>56337388
I don't think you understand what primary means. Primary means ham radio operations take precedence over other emissions on the band by secondary operators. The wifi allocations are only part of the ham allocation, and so realistically interference from that can be avoided.

You're also not legally permitted to transmit up to 1500W PEP with unaltered standard home equipment unless you operate with in the parameters of Part 97 FCC rules (or whatever considerable alternative there is elsewhere).

Now, finding a transmitter that will put down 1.5KW on 2.4 Ghz is a different story. But the point is, ham radio operators, though must make an effort not to cause significant interference to other operations on those bands, are in higher legal standing to have interference removed than muh part 15 linksys router home owner.

>>56334159
>t. Soros

>>56337841
>i_bet_the_jews_did_this.jpg

>>56337491
i bet they outlaw ham radios after they shut the internet down. they don't want plebeians communicating at all.

>>56337420
Unatco?
Savage.
Unatco?
Savage.
Unatco?
Savage.
U-unatco?

Quit screwing around.

File: a067286f1e322f3bded104817003eb84b09781d0848ea8f6e2e7862e83f2b9ff.jpg (862KB, 2640x3327px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 2640x3327px

>>56332228
>>56334502
http://archive.is/tABK9

>>56334147

It's true. The US is the only country where you can tell someone that they are a "fucking kike nigger, go get shot by your boyfriend" in public without being carded by the police.

>>56334213

The "press" is the mainstream media which is wholly corrupt. Of course they see europe as the best, that's where they have the most power and government subsidies.

>>56338805
>le "hate speech is free speech too" meem

File: 0e7.jpg (32KB, 600x619px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x619px

>>56332530

>The US is the only country on the planet with full, guaranteed freedom-of-speech.

>>56338966

Prove it wrong then. Our definition of hate speech is so narrow that only direct calls to violence are able to be taken down. In any other country, even just saying mean things will get you fined. Germany outright bans swasticas and holocaust denial.

File: 1311763499070.jpg (16KB, 300x354px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x354px

>>56339039

>if you can't be a nazi, you don't really have free speech

This is what Americans actually believe!

File: anime.gif (3MB, 444x250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 444x250px

>>56339053

The saddest thing is, I cannot tell if you're being serious or not as Europeans truly are this deluded.

If Soros really is behind this, I'm somewhat confused. ICANN in US hands has been a problem for a long time. The internet is international and the US can too much power over it. I'm not sure if the UN is the right organisation to watch over the internet, I'd rather see it in private hands in a decentralized network spread all over the world.

However if your US baby delusions should turn out to be a real problem. There is always namecoin waiting to rescue us.

>>56339067

Some rich white boy's mum forgot his chocolate milk this morning...

>>56336044
they already can, and have done that, you retard