Domain: accessnow.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to accessnow.org.
Comments · 6
-
Yes, yes, and yes.
-
Re:Full list of senators?
There's more information at Wyden's press release.
In addition to Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., the original cosponsors are Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Jon Tester, D-Mont. I would hope Bernie Sanders would support the bill but I don't personally know how much one can read into him not being an original cosponsor.
The above press release includes a link to a readable (warning, PDF) 1-page summary. The last sentence lists other supporters/commenters of the bill:
For more information, see comments by ACLU, Google, EFF/Access, OTI, CDT, NACDL, the security researchers Bellovin, Blaze, and Landau, and the Agenda Books from the U.S. Courts.
-
Re:Anyone who believes Wikipedia
It's not so easy. With Wikipedia Zero and Facebook Zero, tens of millions of Indians in rural areas do not have access to anything else. They get Wikipedia and Facebook free as part of their mobile phone deal, but would need an expensive data plan to access anything else on the Internet. The situation is the same in many other third-world countries. What you have then a is a large captive audience who can only consume Wikipedia, but cannot check its sources or access alternative sources. Hence the concerns voiced by AccessNow and the Electronic Frontier Foundation about Facebook and Wikipedia becoming gatekeepers: keeping information out as much as bringing information in. The potential for manipulation is stupendous, because only political and business elites will have read-write access to Wikipedia. This case illustrates why people in developing countries need affordable access to the entire internet, not a Wikipedia and Facebook band aid.
-
Re:pretty much expected.
ie, "I want to go live somewhere beautiful and I'm rich, how's Switzerland this time of year?"
Turning into a bad place for those who like privacy.
-
Re:Well
Exactly. They could tell people what they actually want the money for, cause it ain't to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free. If they provided that info, then people could make an informed choice whether to support that effort or not. It would introduce some accountability. Two flagship projects that Wikipedia donations paid for over the past couple of years were considered abject failures by the volunteer community. The third, Wikipedia Zero, is controversial because it violates net neutrality.
-
Re:Definitely
And just in case you still think I'm being too paranoid about Google Glass, read this.