So with Obeezy announcing with an extremely short term notice that the IANA is transferring ICANN responsibilities and powers to to globalist entities associated with the World Economics Forum, I am slightly concerned about the future integrity of the internet.
My main question would be what are the alternative DNS roots that I should have prepared, and has anyone made a tool for easily switching between them? (and if not, why in the fuck not?)
Buuuump
seriously though I think if Sup Forums put their heads together on this then we could build some type of alternative to the internet like a mesh net. There are so many cell phones around I bet there's a way to do it.
But if you haven't noticed the internet is like 75% shills now. They know we use adblockers so they just post ads disguised as comments. Microsoft does it all the time here.
Hard to get anything done with all the shills distracting us.
Shills or no, there are still a considerable number of brilliant people here. There's gotta a guide, pdf, etc, for aggregating a collection of alternative DNS connections.
I have a couple locked down, but assuming the status quo deteriorates into something unusable, it would not be unlikely that alternative routes to the internet could be targeted, and depending on where they are based, and where the operators live, some of those could also go down.
It would be nice to at least have the knowledge, if not a tool for ease of connectivity between multiple different NICs, in case the NetMundial initiative isn't blocked (it currently looks unlikely).
Alternatives will be needed, and they will need to be easily disseminated.
If nothing else, it would be nice to get a somewhat comprehensive list of networking means available, and some more programming savvy of my friends could probably get paid a minimal amount to tie them into a user agent switcher.
The preservation of anonymity is imperative to maintain the level of freedom of speech that we have grown accustomed. Now that that box has been opened, taking the internet as we know it away from us should certainly be considered an abuse of human rights.
P2P DNS can't work, read this
nohats.ca
There is somewhat of a solution, storing DNS as a blockchain
bit.namecoin.info
That argument seems flawed. I want to take a personal car to the liquor store because the city bus has decided that it's in my best interest no to stop there anymore. That article seems to be saying that I couldn't get there because my car and other private non governmental vehicles don't by default all agree on where the liquor store is.
Wouldn't the address be decided by the protocol, the physical mapping of the network, and the IP? Of course there would be ways to cheat this and drive off-road, but there are already.
I pay my bill monthly for access to the roads, not as bus fare, and I refuse to accept that the roads don't work without a city bus.
I'm probably dumbing this down for myself to a point that it hurts my reasoning, but I've never been much of a networking guy, I only understand the basic principles when it comes to internet connectivity.
If my understanding of this is way off point, please help me out
that's a bad analogy.
IP addresses can change over time, and are difficult to remember. DNS was created to solve these problems by creating simple keywords which are mapped to the IP address of a particular server.
DNS however, requires that there be one centralized recording authority, which everyone trusts (believes the address entries are true and correct)
(by nature of the top-level-domain system they must also be hierarchical, but we can ignore that for now)
the reasoning for this is, if you have competing authorities, (or a P2P system) then different people could have conflicting records for which IP maps to a particular site.
This could be innocuous, simply the result of latency in the network causing updates not to reach all peers in a timely manner, or it could be malicious, with a hacker or LEO trying to redirect people to a site they own.
(possible innaccuracies ahead cause i'm not all that sure about exactly how blockchains work)
namecoin addresses these problems but creates some of its own
namecoin is based on bitcoin, and essentially, each individual namecoin has a serial number, and is associated with a particular hostname. The namecoin is used to authenticate the you as the owner of that hostname. it allows you to transfer ownership and to update the IP mapping which points to your hostname.
There's a number of issues with this I can think of:
First, all the DNS info is stored in the blockchain. this is both a positive and a negative. the blockchain is highly secure and difficult to tamper with, however this also requires you to run multiple programs on your computer, and to sync with the whole blockchain, something which takes a very long time (and this time will only continue to increase as the blockchain grows larger)
Second, there is no recourse if you lose your namecoin. Maintaining control of it is the sole responsibility of you, the owner. if you lose it or someone steals it, you're SOL.
Like.. there are physical addresses for all websites and all internet connected things... If I had to search for and/or memorize a bunch of IPV6 addresses, so be it, but if I'm supposed to believe that I can't find where I'm going if it's not through the pre-approved DNS, that just sounds ridiculous to me.
From what I've seen, there are more than a few unofficial namespace servers that work just fine, so long as you trust whoever runs those more than the soon-to-be EU owners of ICANN, and there are certainly examples (granted, mostly small scale from what I've seen) of fully decentralized 'RNS' which I'm guessing is just a semi-routinely updated name server locally stored in the software used to access whatever protocol is being used, instead of asking a remote server for directions every time.
Again, I could be insanely wrong on all this, but if I'm wrong, help me learn.
no you're right, that's just insanely inconvenient.
you have to be setup to access the unofficial nameservers, you have to trust whoever runs that server, or you have to memorize IPs and hope they don't change and have ways outside the DNS system of sharing IPs with people.
for the vast majority of internet users, no DNS = no site
I get that it's all an inconvenience, but I would love to figure out a system that would be easy to use, and hopefully, easy to package and distribute if it came down to it. It's almost a certainty that established DNS is being damaged by this transfer, but chances are that it will be more chronic than immediate damage. It is still incredibly important for people to figure out alternatives, though. Next time a big storm rolls through your town and knocks out the internet, try to go to the grocery store. They don't know how to use the credit card carbon copier. Every aspect of our daily lives is controlled in some form or another by the internet, and to pass the stewardship of that on to a private company with possible moral turpitude and a real lack of accountability and legal guidelines scares me to death.
It definitely won't happen, and in such a large scale, would probably be deemed illegal for no legitimate reason, but our saving grace would be if a large tech company were to create and distribute a nearly identical system, probably not to be implemented until needed.
The 3 most important objectives, in my opinion, would be
+alternative DNS system available to limit down time (and, let's be honest, probably prevent the apocalypse) in case of crash or removal of services, entirely or targeted.
+lay out clear legal framework for seizure of DNS either by the US government, or by powers appointed by citizens, to be used in the case or extortion, corruption, denial of free speech, denial of right to reasonable anonymity, or loss of (especially fiscal) net neutrality.
+Stipulations added in legal documents pertaining to transfer stating that the US Government, Department of Commerce, and IANA has the right to reclaim management of DNS registries in the scenario that, within a certain time frame, either the Supreme Court rules the transfer unconstitutional (which it patently is), or the legislative branch votes the trade out ex post facto.
>with an extremely short term notice
This has been 'a happening' for 8 fucking years now, son, pay attention and lay off the smack.
FUCK
OFF
What's wrong with the ICANN exactly?
Frankly I'm much happier the ICANN having the DNS roots than the U.S.A.
p.s. DNS is insecure anyway, to have any sort of semblance of security in the DNS system you want DNSSEC which is currently trust anchored by IETF
Im still waiting for Icann to replace the whois. That dated privacy invading piece of shit.
who cares lol?
ICANN has been pushing to prevent the use of whoisguard for years. Why would you want them to take over whois?
>inb4 no more chinese cartoon torrenting because Japanese government can take over any website.
THANKS OBAMA!
A big part of my point. While not total, the current WHOIS system offers a decent amount of anonymity (it's only a crime to use false information in WHOIS registry if you are already using the related domain to commit crimes) and ICANN has been very public about wanting to change the system to prohibit public access to the database and require that truthful information be provided (in some drafts to the point of being required to provide government ID to register a domain if requested) This could be a 1st amendment violation if you consider your free speech inhibited by the government due to loss of anonymity, and it is without a doubt a violation of 4th amendment rights, from which right to privacy in correspondence is derived.
You've got that one backwards, WEF and ICANN have very lax ground rules and are not legally subject to protecting our rights, and have prominently expressed their intentions not to do so once out of the control of the US government.
Ditto to you. Also, DNSSEC isn't the end-all of security, and would be outclassed by multiple different proposed protocols, in addition to IETF having no legal or practical power. Despite that, sustained functionality, not necessarily (it's a nice bonus, but not the matter at hand) privacy or security, is the current main concern. Privacy and security are both very important aspects, but they both take lower priority to the potential for unregulated fundamental alteration of the WHOIS and DNS registration systems in place currently, which could be disastrous for the economy.
8 years? God damn, what news source are you reading? The current administration only announced it as a consideration in 2014 as far as I'm aware, at which point congress effectively blocked the transfer. After around 2 years of silence, NTIA briefly and quietly mentioned the guidelines of a possible future transition. Another couple of quiet months, then August 16th, publicly announced through the Department of Commerce that the dissolvement of the IANA was in motion and all power and responsibility would be released by October 1st. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but a 45 day course of action would likely be put in place for the sole purpose of prevention court action, congressional action, and public education on the matter. If you've known of any aspect of this for 8 years, it would be ICANN's public intentions to change the inner workings of the internet and their striving for governmental independence. While the US DoC and NTIA have hinted at the possibility in the fairly recent past, (I can't recall a single time they mentioned it as early as 2008) other than 2014, when they were blocked (and a minimum action timeline of 30 days was established) no portion of the US government has publicly taken steps forward towards this transfer until this month.
>My main question would be what are the alternative DNS roots that I should have prepared
things like tor and i2p are unnaffected by DNS if you have some doomsday fear about DNS being used maliciously.
>and has anyone made a tool for easily switching between them?
You change your DNS provider in your computers/routers settings.
>What's wrong with the ICANN exactly?
They receive government money but engage in massive conflicts of interest to start. Plus their CEO seems happy to drag any trust for it through the mud as per below.
circleid.com
I would like to see them try.
If you try to block "WHOIS guard" people will just make it more expensive. What it fundamentally is is someone putting information that is theirs instead of yours. Requiring an ID won't fix that. It'll just create a tax haven-like situation where you just pay someone else to use theirs instead.
They will lose and they must be smart enough to know it.
whoisguard is a service provided specifically by registrars, which must be ICANN accredited. If they offer a service that ICANN does not allow them to, regardless of the price, they will lose the ability to sell domain names
Ipfs
I see. Didn't think of that. However, people could still offer their information for these services, they'd just be another party. It would be hard for registrars (or anyone) to police sufficiently if done correctly.