What you need to know about the FCC's new net neutrality proposal
Dusting off old regulations won't protect free, open Internet
The Internet is and will continue to be an indispensable part of the lives of Floridians and all Americans. As we grow more dependent on it for everyday tasks, ensuring fair and open Internet access will continue to be a priority.
In the early days of the Internet, Congress and regulators intentionally left the Internet free from burdensome regulation. This bipartisan decision to keep government’s hands off the Internet has been responsible for leaps in innovation and investment – making America a global leader in broadband development. Revolutionary ways to connect with other people around the world online; billion dollar smart phone applications; near-instantaneous Internet speeds; the list of truly life-altering innovations goes on and on.
No one disagrees that the Internet should be free and open. The president’s plan just does not accomplish that goal.
We have all benefitted from a system that incentivizes broadband providers to be the fastest and most reliable consumer access to the Internet.
Over the last six years, however, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has tried to assert more control over this valuable American resource. The courts have already overturned two sets of FCC rules, but this so-called “independent agency” is poised to vote this week on its most aggressive rules yet.
At the urging of President Obama, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler submitted a proposal that included more drastic changes and regulations than ever before. This government takeover of the Internet follows the President’s position that reclassification of broadband services to Title II common carrier status – which were originally designed and implemented to protect against 1930s monopolies– is the only option.
Dusting off regulations from the Roosevelt-era will not protect a free and open Internet. They will not benefit consumers. They will not spur innovation. They will not encourage a young entrepreneur to develop a new innovative app, or a company to develop new “smart” appliances.
Consumers – yes, you, reader – will be most hurt by this proposal. A whole host of new regulations and years of uncertainty will come. Even worse, this plan opens the door to billions of dollars in new fees on your Internet service, while putting nearly $45 Billion of new investments at risk over the next five years.
Do you like streaming live sports or network TV on your computer or mobile device? The agreements that allow you to do that quickly and reliably will now be subject to new, untested regulations. This unknown regulatory landscape is likely to reduce future investments in services that many consumers rely upon.
Small businesses across the country are also put in jeopardy from these rules. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-debate-dusting-off-old-regulations-wont-protect-free-open/
Location: 12160mods
Members: 164
Latest Activity: Feb 2, 2019
MySpace Tweet Facebook Facebook
Earlier this week, we wrote about how the White House was working on an executive order to act as a "stand in" for cybersecurity legislation that has so far failed to pass Congress (CISPA passed in the House, but a different effort, the Cybersecurity Act, failed in the Senate, and it would have been difficult to get the two houses aligned anyway). Last weekend Jason Miller from Federal News Radio wrote about a draft he saw... but failed to share the actual draft. We got our hands on a draft (and confirmed what it was with multiple sources) and wanted to share it, as these kinds of things deserve public scrutiny and discussion. It's embedded below. As expected, it does have elements of the Lieberman/Collins bill (to the extent that the White House actually can do things without legislation). It's also incredibly vague. The specific requirements for government agencies are left wide open to interpretation. For example, the State Dept. should engage other governments about protecting infrastructure. Well, duh. As expected, most stuff focuses on Homeland Security and its responsibilities to investigate a variety of different cybersecurity issues -- but, again, it's left pretty vague.
There is, as expected, plans concerning information sharing -- but again, they're left pretty empty on specifics. It talks about an "information exchange framework." Unfortunately, it does not appear to highlight privacy or civil liberties concerns in discussing the information sharing stuff. That seems like a pretty big problem. Homeland Security is tasked with coming up with a way to share information, pulling on some existing efforts, but nowhere do they call out how to make sure these information exchange programs don't lead to massive privacy violations, despite the President's earlier promises that any cybersecurity efforts would take into account privacy and civil liberties.
Mike Masnick
Started by Central Scrutinizer May 2, 2017. 0 Replies 2 Favorites
Started by Central Scrutinizer Apr 14, 2017. 0 Replies 1 Favorite
Started by Central Scrutinizer Jun 28, 2015. 0 Replies 0 Favorites
Started by Central Scrutinizer Jun 28, 2015. 0 Replies 0 Favorites
Started by Central Scrutinizer Jan 6, 2014. 0 Replies 2 Favorites
Started by truth. Last reply by Misteri Nov 19, 2013. 1 Reply 0 Favorites
Started by truth Sep 12, 2013. 0 Replies 0 Favorites
Started by truth. Last reply by Misteri Sep 12, 2013. 1 Reply 0 Favorites
Started by truth. Last reply by truth Jun 13, 2013. 1 Reply 0 Favorites
Started by Central Scrutinizer Apr 30, 2013. 0 Replies 0 Favorites
Started by Central Scrutinizer. Last reply by Central Scrutinizer Jan 24, 2013. 2 Replies 1 Favorite
Started by truth Jan 14, 2013. 0 Replies 0 Favorites
Started by Central Scrutinizer. Last reply by DTOM Dec 21, 2012. 1 Reply 0 Favorites
Started by Central Scrutinizer. Last reply by Lawrence Edward Calcutt Nov 9, 2012. 1 Reply 0 Favorites
Started by Nathan. Last reply by Lawrence Edward Calcutt Nov 4, 2012. 1 Reply 1 Favorite
Comment
New browser out, designed right this time (personal opinion) called
Lunascape6, luvvin the hell out of this one ;)
Watch Net Neutrality Voting live
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324473-1/fcc-meeting-net-neutrality
Live Now
Fabulous must see video! James Corbett again brilliantly nails the ongoing internet "war of attrition" by our would-be controllers. More than that, he introduces our ultimate solution to their clampdown - a decentralized pirate internet via "mesh networks"!
Get ready, folks, it's about to come to that, same story as in all fascist clampdowns. They can't stamp us out as hard as these bastards try. Listen and learn and start getting hooked up. Keep on!
anyone who invokes god needs to learn.
The document outlines the stages law enforcement agencies should go through when conducting electronic surveillance of suspects: first, by obtaining data and “cookies” stored by websites like Facebook, Google, eBay and Paypal; second, by obtaining location data from servers used by VoIP Internet phone services (like Skype); then, by conducting a “smart analysis” of these data before moving on to the most serious and controversial step: intercepting communications, exploiting security vulnerabilities in communications technologies for “intelligence-gathering purposes,” and even infecting a target computer with Trojan-horse spyware to mine data.
Alex Jones Connected To Stratfor/Israel CIA Front
Orin Kerr was on the Kojo Nnamdi show (on DC’s NPR station, 88.5 WAMU) this morning ... with Julian Sanchez and Julia Angwin. It’s a one-hour program that was inspired by the Petraeus investigation but turned to many of the broader issues of online investigations and privacy.
You can listen here:
Last week, we posted a list of open questions about how voters’ personal information was used in the 2012 presidential election (and how it’ll be used now that the election’s over). We posted the questions on our blog and on the social news site Reddit, and lo and behold, someone from the Obama campaign’s data mining team answered!
Although he wasn’t in charge of the data mining operations, his answers still give some insight into how personal information drove the campaign. We found it especially unsettling to see how much detailed Facebook data is up for sale for marketing, regardless of whether you’ve set your Facebook account to be more private (see his answer to question 4).
We’re posting our questions and his answers below (note that we haven’t edited his answers at all, except to format their numbering):
1. Abine: How detailed did the profiles that the campaign built up about people get? Like, was it “category of single guys in OH who like microbrews,” or “John Smith in OH who hasn’t had a girlfriend in 3 years and always drinks Dogfishhead?” Bonus: can we see a (redacted) real profile?
Campaign Employee: “I wasn’t high enough to get end results, but I saw some of the print outs upstairs… They know everything Google and FB know about you, pretty much. They know what music you like, which Harry Potter book is your favorite, your voting habits, etc. It’s all in databases, you’re just a number in a DB with a name attached.”
2. Abine: It sounds like databases have become a valuable asset in a growing number of campaigns. Is there anything stopping, say, the losing party who’s in campaign debt and has to answer to creditors from selling the data to marketers and other third parties to help fulfill that debt?
Campaign Employee: “Again, I’m not the person to talk to about that, didn’t even think to ask that. I AM in advertising with a focus on DB marketing though and it depends on the conditions on which they got your data and what they agreed to in the process.”
3. Abine: Let’s talk about online tracking. Advertisers always argue that the data they collect doesn’t pose any privacy problems because it’s aggregated and “de-personalized,” while researchers say there’s no such thing as truly anonymous tracking. Given your experience, who’s closer to the truth?
Campaign Employee: “I’ve worked on advertising campaigns before. I can tell you that as long as the databases aren’t leaked, you’re fairly safe. They will have your name, CCN, SSN etc. but most of that is only used to match personally identifiable information to you (matching your Amazon spending habits to your FB “likes” for example). In other words, the latter, but it’s happened since the first targeted print ads. Magazines and newspapers have collected similar data without you knowing for decades.”
https://www.abine.com/blog/2012/update-answers-from-an-obama-campai...
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
© 2026 Created by truth.
Powered by
You need to be a member of "Save the Internet" News, Censorship and Solutions to add comments!