Twitter will have to disclose information, including location-revealing IP addresses, on three account holders currently under investigation for their possible involvement with WikiLeaks, a federal judge ruled this week.
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: 165
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 mystery Nov 19, 2013. 1 Reply 0 Favorites
Started by guest_blog Sep 13, 2013. 0 Replies 0 Favorites
Started by truth Sep 12, 2013. 0 Replies 0 Favorites
Started by truth. Last reply by mystery 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
Comment
By Michael Geist Internet Law Columnist
The U.S. Congress is currently embroiled in a heated debated over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), proposed legislation that supporters argue is needed to combat online infringement, but critics fear would create the “great firewall of the United States.”
SOPA’s potential impact on the Internet and development of online services is enormous as it cuts across the lifeblood of the Internet and e-commerce in the effort to target websites that are characterized as being “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property.” This represents a new standard that many experts believe could capture hundreds of legitimate websites and services.
For those caught by the definition, the law envisions requiring Internet providers to block access to the sites, search engines to remove links from search results, payment intermediaries such as credit-card companies and PayPal to cut off financial support, and Internet advertising companies to cease placing advertisements.
While these measures have unsurprisingly raised concern among Internet companies and civil society groups, the jurisdictional implications demand far more attention. The U.S. approach is breathtakingly broad, effectively treating millions of websites and IP addresses as “domestic” for U.S. law purposes.
http://www.thestar.com/article/1085837--geist-u-s-could-claim-milli...
You might as well start by looking in the data of your machine. Did you fill in your real name and address anywhere? Remove it. And don’t keep any of your passwords on your machine. A piece of paper will do.
KeePassX is very useful if you make more identities, keeping the database on a USB stick that you take out of your machine when you walk away from it, and keep that stick in a location only known to you.
News Link • Police State
11-11-2011 • slatest.slate.com
Photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images.
Twitter will have to disclose information, including location-revealing IP addresses, on three account holders currently under investigation for their possible involvement with WikiLeaks, a federal judge ruled this week.
@calgarycmmc.com TYVM!
I am using it here: http://folly-roger.blogspot.com/
I use this for an anonymous search...and I give away the code for free...use it or not...although it defaults to my topic of choice...you can click on the All web button for security search
webmasters can copy and paste this code below...hope it helps
<center><FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi">
Matthew Kalman in Jerusalem
In a YouTube video posted last Friday, Anonymous threatened to "strike back" at Israel if it continued to block vessels attempting to reach Gaza by sea. The video was released shortly after Israeli naval commandos boarded a Canadian and Irish vessel sailing to Gaza and arrested the passengers and crew.
TV at All-Time Low, Says Pew
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
© 2024 Created by truth. Powered by
You need to be a member of "Save the Internet" News, Censorship and Solutions to add comments!