|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 17,166 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 17,166 Likes: 6 |
Zero the lefts hero is planning on handing over the internet? I read that on various sites.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 14,963 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 14,963 Likes: 1 |
I would like it explained also. Sounds bad, but
some internet biggies seem to be for it. obama
pushing for it makes it highly suspect.IMO
--- CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE --- A Magic Time To Be An Illegal In America---
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,777 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,777 Likes: 1 |
Handing over control of the naming system is what it really means. On the one hand, it probably means no real difference.
But on the other hand, the internet is useless without the ability to resolve web site names to IP addresses. With us relinquishing control to an international group, that gives the group the power in the future to remove specific entries or entire blocks from the name resolution - which would essentially take those sites offline.
Think about the EU telling Google it has to pay Ireland billions of dollars in taxes that Ireland never charged. If Google refused, the international body could remove Google's names from the name services, making it impossible to connect to them. I'm not saying this is the kind of thing they will be doing, but they would have the power to do it.
So.. it's really a bad, bad idea unless you are a globalist or somebody who thinks America is more likely to abuse the power than other groups are.
PS: If things every got real bad, there's no reason the US couldn't resume control of things inside the US - but it wouldn't be trivial.
Last edited by Calhoun; 09/30/16.
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786 |
What do you mean "handing it over", does it come with its own masterkey or something, or does it mean your government will no longer be keeping tabs on everyone's internet use.
If the latter then I have a bridge to sell you.
These are my opinions, feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 19,495
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 19,495 |
Retired cat herder.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,283 Likes: 9
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,283 Likes: 9 |
Here's my take on it...
The internet is now the only place where we can get real, uncontrolled, unmanaged news. The far left would like nothing more than to muzzle the few objective media outlets left, and then control the internet, leaving them with a firm monopoly on "news". Meaning we'd here nothing but leftist propaganda.
Obama has his sights on being the next General Secretary of the UN. So, he turns control of the internet over to "international managers" - in other words, the UN. Obama will then essentially own the internet. And that in turn sets him up to be world dictator. Which is what he's wanted all along. Global Dictator, World Tyrant.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 19,819 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 19,819 Likes: 1 |
If the Obamination wants to do it, it's bad for America. There is no rush. It could be put off for a while as some protocals are not yet nailed down, but NOOOOO, he needs to do it on his watch.
"Be sure you're right. Then go ahead." Fess Parker as Davy Crockett
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786 |
If the Obamination wants to do it, it's bad for America. There is no rush. It could be put off for a while as some protocals are not yet nailed down, but NOOOOO, he needs to do it on his watch. Which means he is getting something out of it for himself.
These are my opinions, feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 155
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 155 |
Here's my take on it...
The internet is now the only place where we can get real, uncontrolled, unmanaged news. The far left would like nothing more than to muzzle the few objective media outlets left, and then control the internet, leaving them with a firm monopoly on "news". Meaning we'd here nothing but leftist propaganda.
Obama has his sights on being the next General Secretary of the UN. So, he turns control of the internet over to "international managers" - in other words, the UN. Obama will then essentially own the internet. And that in turn sets him up to be world dictator. Which is what he's wanted all along. Global Dictator, World Tyrant. ^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ another backdoor to taking the US down
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
I would like it explained also. Sounds bad, but
some internet biggies seem to be for it. obama
pushing for it makes it highly suspect.IMO So does the internet biggies.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 135
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 135 |
Handing over ICANN is bad juju. This would allow world governments the ability to propose rules and impose requirements on the internet. It would give them access to the internet's RDNS (Root Domain Name Server) servers, TLNS (Top Level Name Server) and control of the IPv4 and IPv6 numbering system.
The RDNS is what ultimately controls and maintains the list of all of the URL's available to world wide web. Handing it over would allow places like China or Iran to force ICANN to remove any website they deem offensive or subversive. Remove a domain entry from the RDNS and you effectively remove a website from the world wide web.
They get control of the TLNS, and Iran, for example, could decide that pictures of nekkid wimmins is an affront to allah, so we are going to have ICANN remove the .xxx Top Level Name to reduce the exploitation of women on the world wide web.
Giving up control of the IPv4 and IPv6 addressing scheme, worst idea ever, piss of the Chinese, and maybe they decide to revoke the Class A IP addresses assigned to the internet backbones in the US or Russia, and bam, no more internets for you. Infrastructure gone, no hacking, no DoD, point to point communications only via satellite link only. All without having to fire a shot or set off an atmospheric dirty bomb for an EMP.
Yep, this sounds like a wonderful idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786 |
Handing over ICANN is bad juju. This would allow world governments the ability to propose rules and impose requirements on the internet. It would give them access to the internet's RDNS (Root Domain Name Server) servers, TLNS (Top Level Name Server) and control of the IPv4 and IPv6 numbering system.
The RDNS is what ultimately controls and maintains the list of all of the URL's available to world wide web. Handing it over would allow places like China or Iran to force ICANN to remove any website they deem offensive or subversive. Remove a domain entry from the RDNS and you effectively remove a website from the world wide web.
They get control of the TLNS, and Iran, for example, could decide that pictures of nekkid wimmins is an affront to allah, so we are going to have ICANN remove the .xxx Top Level Name to reduce the exploitation of women on the world wide web.
Giving up control of the IPv4 and IPv6 addressing scheme, worst idea ever, piss of the Chinese, and maybe they decide to revoke the Class A IP addresses assigned to the internet backbones in the US or Russia, and bam, no more internets for you. Infrastructure gone, no hacking, no DoD, point to point communications only via satellite link only. All without having to fire a shot or set off an atmospheric dirty bomb for an EMP.
Yep, this sounds like a wonderful idea.
Well yes...that certainly explains why your obama would think it is a good idea, wonder how much he is getting for the service. Your democrats seem to be really good at stripping assets from you lot...and turning a personal profit.
These are my opinions, feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 155
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 155 |
an example would be if they wanted to outlaw something/anything, they will just make it unavailable from the Internet.
Think conservative news sites, think sites like the Fire that have gun and hunting discussions or anything the UN decides they don't like. They will now have the authority to essentially eliminate it from the WEB by not resolving it's name or IP address.
We already know they want to outlaw guns... this is just another tool in their chest to make that happen. Too many people don't understand the potential of this ability to control Internet naming conventions in the wrong hands as demonstrated by this thread.
Bend over and grab your ankles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 14,963 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 14,963 Likes: 1 |
One of the articles said this "handover" by obama is to happen in 3 days. I haven't heard of any legislation to
stop it.
--- CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE --- A Magic Time To Be An Illegal In America---
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279 |
This means regulation and interference for the Internet. No longer will it be a "world wide web." Governments will now find ways to use the Internet in ways to leverage their influence, and steer the world away from a free marketplace of ideas. Bolton is right. In ten years we will no longer have the Internet as we know it today. It will become costly to have a website, and any website owner will have to jump through hoops just to have a simple web presence. Most website owners will be taxed out of business. 0bama has sewn the seeds of the demise of the free exchange of digital information. Steve.
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000)
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 155
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 155 |
Think Geo blocking on steroids because it would be worldwide rather than some limited geographical location. That's why it's called the WORLD WIDE WEB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-blocking
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786 |
Would have to think it is being handed over as the US government is limited as to how it can censor/restrict the existing net.
Lay ten to one obama has a particular dislike for the limits your constitution places on his ilk.
These are my opinions, feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,864
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,864 |
There's some AGs that files suit about this trying to block it. hopefully it delays it until after zero is removed from office and Trump peps the place up.
Can't find the link to THAT article on FOXNews.com any more!!! aaarrggghhhh
It's about like this:
"Do you puff peters?"
"Hell no!"
"NAZI!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,136 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,136 Likes: 4 |
an example would be if they wanted to outlaw something/anything, they will just make it unavailable from the Internet.
Think conservative news sites, think sites like the Fire that have gun and hunting discussions or anything the UN decides they don't like. They will now have the authority to essentially eliminate it from the WEB by not resolving it's name or IP address.
We already know they want to outlaw guns... this is just another tool in their chest to make that happen. Too many people don't understand the potential of this ability to control Internet naming conventions in the wrong hands as demonstrated by this thread.
Bend over and grab your ankles. I'm about finished posting here for a variety of reasons but here, in the first sentence, is the crux of what could be the future and maybe much more than the OP anticipated wth his post. Everything is on the 'net now, and if it is not for you presently, it soon will be, including all of your personal info, bank accounts, invesment portfolios, etc. Assuming some "central authority" deems you "peripheral" to or a "danger" to a globalist ideology, you could be economically cut off and isolated with less than no recourse--you could be eliminated, figuratively and literally.
|
|
|
|
|
554 members (12344mag, 219 Wasp, 1234, 1minute, 1Longbow, 10Glocks, 56 invisible),
1,920
guests, and
1,090
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,901
Posts18,498,091
Members73,980
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
