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.
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...
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.
---
Privacy vs Sureillance Feed @ Feed Distiller
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.
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.
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?
...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.
"...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).
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.
Any time this has happened the past, geeks blaze a trail to another communication medium. While most people were using phones to make phone calls, geeks used it to create a BBS system. Later came the internet, which was a great place until AOL came along. Just seems like when one medium starts becoming crowded and excessively regulated, geeks will find another place.
Maybe self-discovering mesh networks, something over satellite, not sure what's next. But the more crowded and regulated the internet gets, the more the inner geek will start looking around for a less crowded place.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
"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.
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!
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.
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.
I tried to approach this scientifically, so took a poll of those currently in residence, but only one would say "Be like the twenty-second elephant with heated value in space—bark!" even though they appear to be feline. I'm concerned and keeping my towel at the ready.
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
This smells a lot like the copyright lobby is behind this. I think Obama made a big mistake choosing Joe Biden as Vice President. Biden is a staunch copyright goon. And I wonder if it was him that influenced Obama to put all those copyright lawyers in the justice department. I would be surprised. Biden stinks.
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 really sick of this "I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils" crap. If you actually believe there is a lesser of two evils, I'd say it's your duty as an American to vote for it. Abstination from voting is an expression of cynicism...nothing more.
I used to be one of those guys that told friends and family "Don't waste your right to vote... people died so that you could keep it". But after years of watching politics, I've come to the conclusion that if you don't give a damn, if you can't even be bothered to know who the candidates are and what the basic outline of the issues of the day are, then no, by all means, don't vote. Do your country a favor and stay home on election day, and leave the voting to people that actually give a damn.
I'd be delighted and encouraged if more people got involved with the issues and thus more voted because of that. But under no circumstances do I want unmotivated, uncaring people wandering into a booth and choosing the first name on the list just because they were told they should vote. In a free country, the decision not to give a crap is a valid one, like it or not.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Sorry but I need to throw in my two cents: as a college student I started to miscarry my baby, so I showed up at the local hospital in Berkeley. I wasn't even allowed in to see a doctor to be stabilized or sent by ambulance to the county hospital in Oakland. They literally couldn't hurry me off their property fast enough. I had to have someone drive me the half hour to Highland. It was shocking and awful.