Slashdot Mirror
US Gov't. Ending Its Hands-Off-the-Internet Stance
Taco Cowboy writes in with a report from The Register about a US policy shift away from keeping hands off the Internet. "According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over. Instead, an 'Internet Policy 3.0' approach will see policy discussions between government agencies, foreign governments, and key Internet constituencies, with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance." Here is the presentation in which Strickling enunciated these changes.
As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being. This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.
If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
And change their stance on hands off spam.
I think the "simulation" was just a part of a massive drama intended to justify this and future acts.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
You hit it exactly. They're interested because of its ability to affect political power. Everything other reason is just an excuse.
...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones. You wouldn't want people to go on doing things without permission, would you? The State knows what's best.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
There should be a moratorium on government internet legislation of any kind until the first crop of kids who grew up with it and understand it are in power. The current group doesnt and will do long lasting damage - even if their intentions were/are good.
Not to mention money. So, will the people just roll over as usual and accept this? Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world. Now the article even talks about "aligning" itself with "global trends" towards fascism, even mentioning Italy's latest display of blatant fascism as something to "align" itself with. When communism was a "global trend" the old-style US had the balls to stand out against it. Now they want to hide behind "global trends" to gain more power and money in clamping down on liberty. You can justify anything these days by just saying it's a "global trend".
"...covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance."
In other words, and in summarization, it's all about money and power/control. It's pretty much the only reason the Government gets involved in ANYTHING like this these days.
We see how well Government-sponsored control programs have worked out for other countries, so expect more of the same here. Billions (or trillions) spent, with little or not real effect(other than sending the country further into bankruptcy).
"If you’re a user, you want to know that you can make a transaction online without your credit card information falling into the wrong hands..." Yes, because all "internet users" are supposed to use the internet for is to consume. Feed the beast. If you are a consumer, you can be controlled, and we don't have to worry about you actually doing anything about the predicament this world is in.
The internet is not "powerful" because in order to connect to it you need ISPs, which being private enterprises can be bullied by government and bigger business easily enough.
They'll soon be taking complete control of the root, and after that it will be a done deal: they will own the internet. Game over.
Now, we tried the soap box, and they ignored us. We tried the mail box, and they didn't answer or reminded us of the need to protect "teh children" and especially IP ownership. We tried the ballot box, and each and every major party is either pro-control or too pro-business to care, and the Pirate Parties are too small to make any difference. We tried the jury box, and the judges are either pro-corporate or the new laws comples them to be.
All that's left is the ammo box, but loserboys do not want to fight.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Privacy - You are allowed to feel like you have privacy, but if we can trump-up a good sounding reason, forget it.
Child Protection - Now we can go after offending websites, forgetting First Amendment protections, but don't worry, it's all for the sake of protecting the children.
Cyber-security - We can't out-smart our opponents, so we'll employ brute force and squash anything that even looks dangerous.
Copyright Protection - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns. (You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?
Internet Governance - Hey, why should we cede control of something we in America invented?
There, I hope that helps you understand what is going on.
Ken
These points (crucial to the argument) strike me as massive FUD:
"* If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won’t use it.
* If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.
* If large enterprises don’t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.
* If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet."
- How many users are afraid to use Amazon, eBay, or any other service because of credit card fraud? I would suggest that only terminally ignorant users are afraid of this.
- Content providers are capable of handling their own protection just fine. See: Steam, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc. What he really means is "old and incompetent" providers.
- Large enterprises will NOT just disconnect their network for fear of being breached: they will develop better security. Fuck, this is an incredibly stupid argument.
- WHY would foreign governments ever trust Internet governance unless the internet is completely censored of all objectionable (read: valuable) speech?
Terrible, terrible, terrible arguments. This needs to be fought vigorously.
. . . the government is always searching for new sources of income. Call me cynical, but I believe that an Internet tax is also on their agenda.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty (championed by Obama) are showing up in various countries.
Now here comes Obama with a new initiative for the US to regulate the internet and two of it's goals are "copyright protection, and Internet governance".
Seems a fair guess that one of the first things that will occur is an ACTA style 3 strikes rule that must be enforced by all ISP's.
Will BitTorrent be banned by those ISP's? It seems likely, since in spite of the legal applications, that would make life so much easier for the ISPs.
Our Internet freedoms are slowly disappearing as governments regulate them away on behalf of the Corporations! Internet users are allowed no voice.
Soon the Internet will be the CorporateNe" and we will have to enter Credit Card info just to log on!
Along with a renewed Patriot Act!
Funny, I seem to have missed the Slashdot story of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passing that bill, or the Democrat-controlled Senate passing that bill. Nevermind the Slasdot story about the Democrat President actually signing that Patriot Act extension....
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!
Actually, that's not true. The old bosses at least said they were going to keep Gitmo open, extend that Patriot Act, and leave troops in Iraq. So at least they did what they said. These new bosses are MUCH worse - they LIE and do and say anything to get elected, then keep on with the policies of the past that they LIED about changing.
And now, these LYING new bosses want us to turn the largest sector of the US economy - health care - over to THEIR control. Because that'll be better for all of us.
What kind of person could possibly believe that THIS group of egomaniacs getting control of another couple of trillion dollars a year would help anyone?
Welcome to the new hopeandchange. You can practically smell the "yeah, what the fuck are you gonna do about it?!" air of ignorance wafting over the entire lot of them, as they pretty much do whatever they want. It smells far worse than ANY other group before them.
And "what kind of person" you ask? Dunno, there's got to be at least a few million out there that voted FOR this, although you might be hard-pressed these days to find any of them who would admit that NOW.
Your biometric identification with the Intergovermental Panel of Internet Acess Enforcement have failed. Make sure that your webcam is BigBrother-certified and that its view of your face is not obstructed. If the problem persists, please verify that your general acess level is adequate for class 3 content and that you have no active thoughtcrime sanctions.
Will we tag this as "Funny" 10 years from now? I certainly hope so, but my doubt grows...
This is all because of their recent failed security simulation where they couldn't repel a cyber attack. Now that they feel vulnerable they have what they think is adequate motivation to screw the rest of us. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out...
Yeah, because God forbid the Government create any sort of secure classified network out there for use in times of national emergency, complete with hardware encryption to ensure privac....Er, oh wait, I forgot. They already have that.
And as far as "we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out", how has that worked out so far sitting back watching the current Administration? Yeah, I've had just about enough of "wait and see", because that usually turns into "wish we would have done something"...
LEAVE INTERNET ALONE!!
The only reason the Government gets involved in anything is when they are paid to do so by their Corporate Masters.
And it is a well known fact that Corporations want to eliminate those pesky Internet freedoms and force us to pay for every click or download.
Luckily for them, Obama's just the man for that job!
Hell, they've already culled off a good portion of the fighting force, now just cull off the free thinkers and the economy will snap right back!
In the UK we have the NHS. Lots of people moan about it. It's not perfect. But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.
In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.
The US is the home of free speech and a bastion of many personal freedoms, but it is also a place where survival of the fittest takes priority. If you're doing well for youself, then great. Not everyone is.
Take a step back and start thinking about what other people need for a change. Having a government mandated healthcare system to cater for the bottom fifth of society (which private healthcare would otherwise ignore) ain't so bad an idea.
When communism was a "global trend" the old-style US had the balls to stand out against it.
Yes, I recall. Thank God for McCarthy and the HUAC, or Communism would have destroyed the Republic.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Enter the 20th century, it was a figment of imagination. There were always inherent limit to freedoms in the US imposed by local politics, and outside the US imposed by US foreign policy. The diffeernce, is that for a time the US looked LESS worst than the other bad guy. But now this is turning around, and the US looks as bad as everybody else, with politics wishing to grab as much power as possible , and keep it, and a certain aprt of the society , the new "aristocracy", enriching itself on the back of the serf. Sure we are better off than the 15th century (or even 19th) but let not you be blind : your chance to ever enter that group is nil.
In light of the facts behind how the Government has ran the public option it HAS had (Medicare) which is a source of many of the ills they're trying to fix...you might not want them doing what you think you do.
If I thought that they'd handle it right, I'd be all for the public option. As it stands, they've shown us for years that they CAN'T really handle it in a manner that would help the problems.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act, don't you? They gave up the fight when the Republicans, as usual, promised to filibuster. Apparently the Republicans don't want any new privacy protections. You should ask them why the "small government" party wants to continue giving the bosses free rein to continue intruding into our private lives.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/
"Waah, waah, waah!!!! We'd do it if not for the EVIL RETHUGLICANS!!!"
BULLSHIT
George W. Bush's tax cuts passed 51-50 because they required a VP tie-breaker. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts passed a Democrat-controlled House.
The Dems have clear majorities in the House, the Senate, and own the Presidency. They control the budget process - and have since 2006, which coincidentally is when US budget deficts stopped shrinking and started exploding.
There's no way in hell Republicans would try to filibuster real privacy protections and not the normal claptrap and asinine "progressive" efforts to treat as simple civil criminals those who are in reality illegal combatants under the Geneva Conventions.
Care to specify what nebulous those "privacy protections" really were? Were they requirements for soldiers in a firefight on a battlefield to read terrorists their rights before returning sniper fire?
Given the vitriol with which Dems campaigned against the Patriot Act in the past and their current clear control of the reins of the US government, why the hell were they afraid of a filibuster? They're either base hypocrits or spineless pussies. Or both. Take your pick. And them being either or both of those makes you a fool for defending them.
Since the days of Bill Clinton the federal government's "hand-off" policy has meant Americans had to download encryption code and audio/video codecs from abroad; couldn't use 128-bit encryption to secure financial transactions for several years; could be expedited to the most conservative jurisdiction and jailed for receiving illegal material; could be put on trial for re-publishing publicly-available information; and can now be jailed for drawings.
Maybe this new policy of "we'll finally start regulating the Internet" means they'll finally stop.
I'm almost positive that we once had this vague notion about government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed. There was also this idea about government using the money that they steal from us in ways that are directly or indirectly beneficial to the society. For quite a while now, we've had a gangster government running the taxation system like a protection racket where the confiscated wealth is concentrated in the hands of a well connected few.
The private sector gangsters would take the money, but then they would at least leave the person being "taxed" to their own activities, and even provide some valuable services in return.
With the public sector gangsters, they stll take the money, but then they also want to tell us what to do and how to do it and provide few, if any services in return.
They certainly don't govern with MY consent, and it's gotten so bad that I'd be willing to pay the protection money if they would just take it, and leave me the F*&% alone.
Err, how are we "leaving the internet alone" now? DMCA, ISP regulations, wiretap laws, computer crime laws, pedophile laws, copyright laws, etc etc etc. The only proof of a "big change" is an NTIA advisory article? What legislation has passed? Looks to me like the regulations are already here in the form of the laws I mentioned earlier and this is a just typical Register-style trolling to get ad impressions.
So, then let the Republicans filibusterer. If the Patriot Act is so bad, which I think it is, that it needs to have privacy protections added to it, THEN LET IT EXPIRE! Don't cave like a bunch of weak willed wimps. I've never heard such a bunch of cry babies. We only control the White House, The House and the Senate, how are we supposed to get anything done? BOO HOO HOO, grow a pair.
They can try to control it all they want. They will especially try to lock down the Web (HTTP part) so that they can control what gets publicized there. It can be done, and probably will be done. But the core ability of the Internet is not in displaying blog pages. It is in allowing any two computers to establish a real-time, peer-to-peer connection. Remove that and you destroy the Internet. IMHO, the chances of anyone tampering with that are zero. We have some difficulty in promptly transitioning to IPv6: a largely compatible, more scalable, and more secure protocol. Now imagine someone tries to replace TCP/IP with a protocol that does not allow networked hosts to connect. It's a non-starter. In fact, we have such a protocol: IPv4 with its NAT goodness is exactly the kind of faulty design that creates extra friction when you try to talk peer-to-peer. The content providers are very happy about this boon because it makes a critical mass of consumer devices into receivers, to which they can beam ads and sponsored opinions. But even with all that opposition, the forces that are responsible for communication infrastructure (looking at you, Comcast) are preparing to ditch IPv4 in favor of a better protocol.
As long as we have peer-to-peer connectivity, we have all but eliminated friction for disseminating information (compared to the pre-Internet situation). A good idea, no matter how much despised by powerful corporations, the government, or even Internet Service Providers, will find its way around the globe before they even know it's out there. At an attempt of suppression, there is always a fair chance that a good idea will Streissand itself back into life.
We do need to worry about certain things though. We need to make sure that we continue having an option of using free hardware and free software on the Internet. If we loose that, only then can the censorship really begin. We won't be worse off if some consumers or businesses keep using Microsoft or Apple - it's their own funeral - but we must insist that the government switch to free software. The non-free software will always waste our computing cycles or do things outright wrong just to further the publisher's agenda, and we do not need that, unless we, the people, are the publisher. This is even more true for the software used in scientific research. We should not accept scientific results from any source, no matter how credible, unless the software they used is free, and anyone in academia can review the software, the data, and the process, and, given enough resources, carry out the same computation and get the same result.
We should also develop a peer-to-peer communication protocol that does not suck. We need a kind of XMPP, but with mandated peer-to-peer encryption. Off-the-record messaging seems like a step in the right direction.
Two things:
1) You can probably sue their socks off for this, since it is quite illegal in the USA.
2) Isn't Berkeley the Mecca of the Loony Left? If they really believed in equal medical care for all, doing what they did would seem to be contrary to their own stated goals.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"