Slashdot Mirror
Senator Diane Feinstein Trying to Kill Net Neutrality
An anonymous reader writes "According to the Register, Senator Diane Feinstein is attempting to put language into the stimulus bill that would kill net neutrality. The amendment that her provision was attached to was withdrawn, but lobbyists tell Public Knowledge that Feinstein hopes to put it back into the bill during the closed-door conference committee that reconciles the House and Senate versions." Bad Senator! No Cookie!
I mean, I thought it was the Republicans who were destroying America and the Democrats were going to save us? You mean to tell me that they are all beholden to business interests? Say it it isn't so!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Democrats NEVER hide unnecessary spending or unrelated projects in omnibus spending bills. They're for responsible government, remember?
Change! Transparency!
I for one welcomed our new Democratic overlords, but now I'm not so sure...
She needs to be investigated for her conflict of interest between her position as chair on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee and her husband's firms receiving billions of dollars of defense construction contracts. Oops. She's the chair of the Senate Rules Committee. I guess there won't be any investigations.
When all else fails, run.
The Democrats have always been in the pocket of RIAA/MPAA/Hollywood types. Look up Hillary Rosen if you have any doubts. Republicans have scr*w*d up the country but on this issue, they have always been a better alternative. Not because they are more moral or anything, but because they are not as beholden to the Hollywood set.
when you look at the long-term contribution trends http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02
Cheers, Mike
This, amongst the other chicanery of congress, is yet another example of why we need to impose single purpose limitations on the bills congress tries to pass.
They can take their riders and try to get them passed as stand alone bills.
The problem with having no network neutrality as the broadband industry currently stands is that there isn't any regulation. Most Americans have one (maybe two, if they're lucky) choices of ISPs and that is it. If your area or apartment building only has Comcast and you don't like the way Comcast is prioritizing traffic, too bad. You're stuck paying the monthly fee for a service that you're not satisfied with, and there's nothing you can do about it.
"It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
I do not live in California and am unlikely to be given any consideration from a politician elected in that state. For those that do live in California please contact Mrs Feinstein and let her know that you will definitely not vote for her again if this rider gets added to the stimulus bill. Her contact info (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.WashingtonDCOffice):
Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501
Cheers,
the_crowbar
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
She does. She supports the "Fairness Doctrine" even though it will actually be a restriction on Free Speech. I sent a message to her via her website about it but of course I never got a reply.
Since this is so naked and obvious I'd say she doesn't care. Why might that be? Oh, right, by appeasing one of the largest lobbies in California it might make her trip to Sacramento a little smoother.
Your sources are diverse and correct! Everyone knows Open standards for medical documents is a one way road to Socialism. Just ask anyone on slashdot what open standards does to a buisiness! It's evil, don't touch it! You don't have to read deep into Torvaldis' Das Penguinal to see that communism follows.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
Sarcasm isn't really a rebuttal. But then you knew that, right?
You could try reading Betsy McCaughey's op-ed about the piece, or better yet, go read the actual bill in question yourself. And note that that web site is GPO (Government Printing Office), not GOP - I'm sure some dyslexic will misread it and accuse me of being a shill for the Republicans.
Point of fact: nowhere in the bill is an "open" standard for medical records referenced or called for.
Point of fact: In this bill, the government is appointing itself as the entity to ensure that everybody (yes, everybody - there don't appear to be any provisions for people who wish to opt out) has electronic medical records by 2014. The government has also tasked this bureaucracy with developing infrastructure to facilitate the exchange of those medical records.
When any agency (government or private) nominates itself as the caretaker of extensive private information about you, it's wise to have privacy concerns. I don't mean tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, I mean, there should be full & accurate disclosure as to what privacy controls are in place, so that the public can understand & offer feedback on the proposal.
The GP's last 2 sentences are actually spot-on. An economic stimulus bill is NOT the place for a tacked-on afterthought which creates a sweeping change to the country's medical landscape. There are legitimate privacy questions & concerns in the creation of electronic medical records, and to just stuff them into this bill stifles open & constructive debate on exactly what safeguards should be put in place.
Slashdot readers fumed over the PATRIOT act's potential for violating their privacy; this provision could have equally far-reaching impact on your private, personal medical records. So bottom line, I'm asking you to answer this one question:
WHY is the fact that the government wants to take full or partial control of your medical records NOT a cause for concern for you?
Please answer in a complete sentence that doesn't begin with either of these two phrases:
1) "Because President Obama says..."
2) "Well it's not like it's President Bush..."
I'm at work and a bit lazy..just went for the first hits I could get when googling the topics, which I heard on various tv news stations last night and this morning.
But indeed....a mandated electronic medical record system, that is accessible and controlled by the feds? Well, I think anyone can see the possibilities for abuse. Heck, I'm not thrilled with their other databases they have on people, like the no fly lists, and the soon to come RealID databases. Add that all in with total medical history, and govt. healthcare and voila....
Look into the writings of the guy they wanted to BE in charge of health care, Tom Daschle. He's made statements "In my book, Critical: What We Can Do About the American Health-Care Crisis, I have proposed a Federal Health Board that would be a foundation from which we could address all three problems. In many ways, the Federal Health Board would resemble our current Federal Reserve Board for the banking industry."
Yeah, I think we've ALL see the great work the Fed has done with banking and all today, eh?
Again, from the guy that was to design the new healthcare system said "The decisions made by the Federal Health Board would be tough." but would be better than what we have. What are these TOUGH decisions they're gonna have to make? Rationing? Well according to this blurb "Perhaps most importantly, the Board would assess the effectiveness and costs of various treatments. He stops short of saying the U.S. should have a U.K.-style, hard-and-fast rule on cost-effectiveness. But he does say the U.S. "won't be able to make a significant dent in health-care spending without getting into the nitty-gritty of which treatments are the most clinically valuable and cost effective." his plan certainly sounds like the decisions of this board can overrule a local Dr's treatment decisions. We humans,despite looking a great deal alike, are VERY different, and a one size fits all tx regiment kinda scares me.
I"m also not thrilled with a committee deciding if I'm too old to get a particular treatment.
Sure, the medical record and collections thing looks pretty innocent as is stated in the bill, but, if you look at him wanting Tom in there to reform medical care, his beliefs, and all...no, I don't think it is much of a stretch to see what this might be laying the groundwork for...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Republicans always get blaimed for everything bad that happens in this country. The sad thing is most Americans don't even know which party is in control in Washington. While the Republican hating masses were giving Congress a single digit approval rating, most of them didn't even realize it was the Democrats who were in charge of Congress
Republicans: in charge of the House from 1994-2006, in charge of the Whitehouse from 2001 until three weeks ago, majority of the Senate from 1995-2006 except for a brief period in 2002 when Jeffords' defection gave the Democrats a 1 member lead (and I guess three weeks when Al Gore was still VP and it was briefly split). Supreme Court essentially narrowly split, although you can credibly argue that the Roberts appointment made the court on balance Republican to some approximation. This is essentially Republican control from 2001 until early 2007.
Democrats: majority in the house from 2006, essentially split Senate from 2006, bare majority for Democrats given Sanders and Lieberman's caucus choice. But given the narrow split, the veto stick held by a Republican presidency, and the composition of the Democratic majority (esp. blue dogs in conservative districts), "control" is a pretty tenuous term for even the two houses of congress. Meanwhile, Republicans still hold the presidency and with Alito's appointment the court becomes arguably more Republican.
Who doesn't understand which party has been in control in Washington?
In 2-4 years, the Democrats won't have that excuse anymore, and accountability is important. I have no problem with people calling them out on specific policy positions and voting them out next election if that's what it takes.
But it's ludicrous to assert that Democrats are primarily responsible for the current state of things. And it's a little extra stupid to accuse others who apparently have a better grasp of recent history than you do of not understanding what's going on. U.S. policy for the last decade has been dominated by the Republicans, there's no other reasonable conclusion. Whether the Democrats can do any better is an open question, but it's really only been askable for about three weeks.
Tweet, tweet.
I don't know, I'm finding myself more and more drawn to the ideas of David Brin in regards to privacy. I think the ultimate answer in a world with the kind of computer technology we have (and will soon have) is to not try and fight the inevitable forms of electronic surveilance, but to make it so that the eye is omni directional. I think perhaps our focus should be on finding a way to make sure that politicians can not exempt themselves from tansparency, and in fact that they are subject to increasing levels of scrutiny compared to the scrutiny they level at us.
I think a good first step would be to hire an "archivist" who is tasked with following every congressperson and top level government official around and recording in video and audio (and making copies of all electronic and analog communications they make) everything that they do, every meeting they have, etc.
If they haven't done anything wrong, they have no reason to object, right?
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.