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.
...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".
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!
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.
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"...
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!
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.
What's sadder than the steady demise of America as a world 'beacon of freedom' is that there are people who even believe that that 'beacon of freedom' never existed --- it most certainly did (even though it was far from perfect, sure), just crack open a few history books. Come live in a communist or failed state for a while (like myself, where amongst the general collapse of the country and takeover by communists and socialists our people are being slaughtered and the government is complicit in allowing it to happen), and you might get some perspective --- the US most certainly even today still looks nowhere near as bad as half the wretched countries on this planet.
I know it's fashionable to be anti-American (even in America) and to claim that America is just as 'evil' as all the rest, but such views are simply not based on any reality at all, they're just fashionable memes.
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.