Oh that's fine then. They only lived there for what 100 years, totally fine to do these things to those 1000 some people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
---
first tactics were implemented to decrease the population of Diego Garcia. Those who left the island - either for vacation or medical purposes - were not allowed to return, and those who stayed could obtain only restricted food and medical supplies. This tactic was in hope that those that stayed would leave "willingly".[26] One of the tactics used was that of the killings of Chagossian pets. Dogs were carried into sheds where they were gassed in front of their owners.[26]
---
I mean, that doesn't justify the act, but I question the logic of claiming moral superiority or questioning authenticity over this.
That it is a distinction is important to me. Having difficult discussions is made more difficult if we obscure facts or conflate terms.
> more acceptable
I applied no normative judgement.
Why ?
"Sir Bruce Greatbatch, KCVO, CMG, MBE, governor of the Seychelles, ordered all the dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed. More than 1000 pets were gassed with exhaust fumes. "They put the dogs in a furnace where the people worked", Lisette Talatte, in her 60s, told me, "and when their dogs were taken away in front of them our children screamed and cried". Sir Bruce had been given responsibility for what the US called "cleansing" and "sanitising" the islands; and the killing of the pets was taken by the islanders as a warning."
I'm also unclear on why you quoted what the British did in your post - how does it relate to whether or not calling those people 'original inhabitants' is misleading? Do you believe that, if the British did something sufficiently wrong to them, that calling them 'original inhabitants' will be less misleading?
The reason "ethnic Europeans" aren't "the original inhabitants of North America" is that European settlers violently displaced (or killed) the previous inhabitants.
Heck, the "original" inhabitants of North America (as far as we know) actually originated in what is now mostly Russia if you go back a few dozen millenia. And if you go back further than that (according to mainstream scientific consensus) we all likely originated in Africa. Defining the term "original inhabitants" as an absolute is blatantly begging the question (specifically it only works if you're a creationist).
People were subjected to physical and psychological violence to be forcibly removed from their home and birthplace. That's bad enough, no matter how many generations lived in the same place before. This isn't about who's had it worse.
I'm not opposing clarifications. I'm opposing quibbling over the semantics of "original" as if the distinction adds anything to the conversation.
Their parents lived there, they were born there, they were violently expelled and suffered emotional abuse. The number of dead ancestors (or lack thereof) in the ground does not invalidate the suffering these people were forced to endure.
Immigrant? No. Settler? Not really after so many years.
As an immigrant, I view them as natives Quebecers.
What would you call them?
I'd hope the more important distinction is how people are removed, not how many generations of dead people there were before them.
Cases like this just make a mockery of the Lockean natural rights theory of property.
You says its important but don't explain why, and empathise that you place no "normative judgement" on it.
Normative judgment doesn't make sense btw, judgement adhering to the norm - eh wat ? I think you meant moral/ethical.
Displacing settlers is a different question.
The thing to bear in mind is this standard is used for a number of different purposes historically that has informed territories and other "non"-countries being added.
For example, it is used by postal services for routing physical mail. A lot of far flung island dependencies are coded individually because their mail wouldn't route through their mother country but through other ports.
The addition of "EU", while not a country, reflected the needs of the "EUR" currency code when the Euro was introduced (the first two letters of ISO 4217 currency codes are derived from the ISO 3166-1 standard).
The standard provides codes for such places since different law often applies in territories and on islands.
(See also: UM, TW, EH, AQ, SH, SJ, and many others.)
Might as well demand they get paid for any inventions the military makes while testing stuff out there.
And if the British hadn't done this and gave control over to the people living there 50 years ago, they wouldn't get .io either, because they wouldn't call themselves British Indian Ocean Territories. They'd have used something reflecting the name in their language.
So again, this is a "resource" purely created by the British government being there.
Maybe it's terribly unfair and bad what they've done to those peoples, but .io doesn't figure into that at all.
Edit: I suppose if they had their own nation state, they could make some money that they couldn't otherwise. But why stop at domain names (which, again, wouldn't be .io, it'd be .cx or something for Chagossians)? They can't issue passports, a potentially valuable resource, not being a sovereign nation. They can't run "tax haven" schemes, etc. Seems like getting upset over .io itself is pointless compared to all the other stuff they could do with an internationally recognized government.
The .IO domain would eventually be deleted, and that territory represented under the existing .MU (Mauritius) domain.
Judging by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.mu I don't think the Mauritian people have much benefit from the arrangements for .MU.
I want my £10!
The only two nations that have laid claim to the territory are France and the United Kingdom. (France lost it in the Napoleonic Wars.)
Of course, the difference between the Indian Ocean Territory and India, is that people lived in India before. When the French showed up, the atolls were uninhabited.
I will, however, say that gTLDs are generally more secure and well-run than smaller ccTLDs, and are worth preferring for that reason. It's a weird historical quirk that .io randomly became popular in the developer community, but there are better options. And, as you point out, it's morally suspect, which is why we don't use it for new domain names.
1. you need to have a person (juridicial or natural) with an address in Germany to register and list that person as ADMIN-C
2. if you run a website that provide contents which COULD generate revenue, you have to have an Impressum [1] which includes the address, names, etc. of the website owner.
This is pretty annoying if you are sensitive about privacy and do not want your details out in the open.
This is a major criticism I have with many other domains, I don’t know where to send a C&D, or whom to sue if they violate my rights.
And requiring only commercial entities to have these things also makes sense.
1. you want to do something like wiki leaks
2. you want to publish your thoughts anonymously, let's say you are from the LGTB spectrum and want to engage with people by building a forum or blog to communicate with them -> this could lead to potential problems with family, friends and work
3. you have political views and publish them. Now say someone disagrees with your views and is potentially aggressive. Do you want them to know where your family lives?
4. you do not wan't annoying calls by people who crawl the DENIC records (happens to me regularly)
I agree with you that a person should be liable for the stuff they do, but should also be able to engage in open discussion while protecting their privacy. FWIW If someone does bad stuff on a .de domain there are several options:
a) take down the domain via DENIC, or b) take down the domain via ISP or c) take down the domain via Hosting provider
If you really did illegal stuff, I am with you and someone (DENIC, ISP or Host) probably should have the knowledge of the domain owner which could be subpoenaed to lawfully prosecute someone.
https://www.google.com/search?q=china+lgbt+web&ie=utf-8&oe=u...
I actually just met a bunch of the denic guys at a conference they hosted a month ago in Frankfurt. They're on point with their Internet stuff.
More so for .me, ran by the owners of .org
Unlike the rarely used .us for the USA, it is used for the vast majority of canadian domestic corporations' web identities.
gTLDs & ccTLDs have to be some of the worst ideas in Internet history.
Not if you're an investor in Donuts, LLC, they're not...
The gTLDs have a pretty strict ICANN contract they have to follow; ccTLDs are looser.
It's like time traveling to 1987.
> We will email you a password after which you need to login and pay the $100, unless you are resident in Anguilla.
> After this we will send you a letter, fax and short text message (SMS) with codes on them. Please, be sure your information is correct so you can receive verifiaction codes. When you get these you need to login and enter them.
> We will also wait 3 months to make sure there is no problem with your credit card. But each successfully verification will decrease this period by one month, so if you pass all of them you do not need to wait 3 month.
Shame it's so arcane/expensive ($100 for account, then $100/2 years per domain) - there's a couple of joke domains I might have picked up if they were cheap enough (gomennas.ai / ebihara.ai [character from Persona4]).
I do appreciate that the TLD alone resolves though: http://ai./
God knows how widely a "ben@google" email address would work though. I'm going to guess not very.
That and apparently ICANN would frown upon such an implementation [1]
At least somebody grabbed the delightfully multilayered dope.af domain already...
The reason for me is totally clear: Github Pages gives me a free subdomain for http://pingtype.github.io but not .com.
I registered http://peterburk.github.com before that policy changed.
I really hope that one never becomes available..
ICANN does not have 'control' in any substantive way over the ccTld's.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds-21-2012-02-25-e...
That all said, the forced expulsion thing (which I just caught up on) is news to me now. I guess bullies will always exist. It reminds me of forcibly relocating people in the US via eminent domain to build a highway. It's possible that an ethical argument can be made that if the security of the USA actually did depend on total control of that island, the cost in dollars and emotion of "strongly encouraging" people to move elsewhere might be justifiable (and I do believe they were compensated... the gassing of pets thing is shocking, though).
Responsible disclosure cat is responsible!
That said, coordinated disclosure is the neighborly thing to do, but it's by no means a moral obligation. It would be perfectly fine for the author to tweet about it, for example.
If you are actively poking around at someone's home and you find an unlocked window, you don't think there is a moral obligation to inform the owner of the security issue? No moral issues if you then find a group of hoodlums down the street and announce that house 123 has an unlocked window?
I can see if you were just driving by and saw the window open, you don't really have any obligation (unless you plan to announce it publicly) but if you are actively seeking out security flaws in someone else's property, not disclosing it to the owner and then announcing it or worse, selling it to potentially bad actors seems morally reprehensible.
The situation is more analogous to discovering that a certain type of door offers no protection, even though it seems to lock. It's perfectly fine to tweet about that, regardless of how many people have that door. The blame lies on the company, not the messenger.
If you're a black hat and you don't give a shit about potential legal ramifications or any injury to anyone (partly because you fear no consequence), there's probably nothing unethical to you about fucking over a bunch of innocent people just so you can "spank" some douchebag management company into following best practices.
If you're a professional, or even a non-douchebag adult, who finds value in the ideal of protecting the innocent customers of a dangerously irresponsible corporation, you would want to work first toward protecting those individuals, and then focus on disciplining the corporation.
If someone goes around the town telling everyone that you leave your door unlocked, while they can't be legally held responsible, they're still morally responsible if someone goes in and steals your stuff armed with that knowledge.
Companies fixing their stuff before that happens is in everyone's best interests at the end of the day - hence responsible disclosure.
Jimmy Throwawaysite shouldn't have to take the time to understand how DNS works above knowing how to set DNS records, the oversight should come from above. If ICANN wants to let anyone with a couple hundred thou run a TLD they should be making sure that entity can technically manage the TLD.
Strategy is important.
Is a pretty misleading phrase: they were 1000 or so slaves brought by the French to otherwise unoccupied islands. They should have been compensated like any other group of people whose government wants to build a military base, or a dam, or a highway on their land - but it's not like it was some kind of genocide. Much worse things have happened in pretty much every country on the globe.
The fact is that there is nothing that can be derived by an end user from most top level TLDs. EDU is one of the few, but then anybody can have a subdomain in an edu environment for any purpose.
Maybe the time isn't now, but somebody should be thinking about how to replace the current domain management system and with what.
They have great network engineers (I personally know one), maybe the best in the world.
Responsible disclosure to the company that runs the TLD seems like the right first step. This should probably posted on ICANN, ARIN, etc mailing lists even now, but I think the writer's original response is the right one.
Considering they control the .io TLD these should have been registered and locked as reserved. That this wasn't the policy is but one of the many failings that lead to this outcome.
If I were ICANN I'd slap them with a huge fine to send a message.
save your politics for politics, not for a technology discussion. We get it, you're moral.
If you're interested, the Ukraine TLD is .ua.
To say they stole it from Ukraine in the same way they stole the .io TLD would mean that they would have to take over the entire country of Ukraine. Maybe the Russian government will have control of the .ua TLD someday.
In my opinion almost all of the 'weird' TLDs which are country codes that are actually operated by a third party commercial service are 95% spam and junk registrations. .TV is a good example.
Technical screwups aside, the existence of .IO and the fact that it "belongs" to the UK government is morally questionable, since the entire country code only exists because the British and American militaries forcibly removed the original inhabitants of islands such as Diego Garcia so that they could use the area as naval and air force bases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
If I had been able to successfully register these names and get live traffic going to a BIND9 instance, my first instinct would not be to alert the company through its first tier customer support levels, but to immediately post a summary of the problem to ARIN, RIPE, APNIC and ICANN mailing lists. This would get the issue in front of people who immediately understand how serious the problem is, and hopefully one of them would be able to contact the principals of .IO directly.