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.

48 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Nervous reactions by N3tRunner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:Nervous reactions by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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"...

  2. Well, this seems subpar. by jeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Well, this seems subpar. by jeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I will admit, DARPA seems to be an exception to the rule. It's an exception to a lot of rules.. like their hiring process completely ignores civil service regulatons... in fact, without actually looking into it, I'd guess the reason DARPA is so useful is because they don't have to play by the normal bureaucracy bulldada.

      --
      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.
    2. Re:Well, this seems subpar. by skine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would argue that it's not due to the government being involved that the quality lowers, but rather that the government decides to become involved without raising taxes to fully fund the projects. The reason is that raising taxes kiss of death that is hindering new and current government industries alike.

      One example is Social Security, which has not increased the number of workers since their budget was cut in the Reagan-era. Note that the baby-boomers are now at/approaching retirement age, the prominence of "ambulance chasers" (ever see a lawyer commercial saying they'll get you the cash you deserve? That's them) are both strains on the system.

      Also, NASA.

    3. Re:Well, this seems subpar. by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Then you either haven't been looking very hard or have no fucking clue of what life was like 100 years ago.

      The government "gets involved" with the quality of your food (FDA), worker safety (OSHA), air travel (NTSB), highway safety (NHTSA), building codes (varies by State), law enforcement and an endless number of other sectors of society.

      Guess what: the end result has been a net positive for society. Thanks to the government, we no longer have the food quality, building standards, security situation, or worker protections (just to list a few examples) of countries like Haiti and Somalia.

      Whenever I hear "the government ruins everything" I know that I'm hearing ideology, not reality.
      The people saying such things take so many of the regulations, which make this country run smoothly, for granted.

      If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public, I'd love to hear why.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Well, this seems subpar. by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Take the health care debate, for example. It would cost exactly $0 to pass laws that says "Insurance companies cannot deny you for a preexisting condition". But that doesn't give the government control over the industry, instead they want to spend $800 billion to be an insurance company. Regulation is fine. Involvement is not.

      So, what you're saying is that it takes $0 to put insurance companies out of business and lead us directly to government-provided healthcare?

      Passing that law basically says no one healthy has to buy insurance until they have a reason to use it. Then they can promptly drop it once they get healthy again. Why not? Why keep insurance when you can get it anytime you want?

      While I hate the idea of denying coverage to people, there are only two ways to do the insurance market. Either have the current system of denying coverage, or require / force everyone to be part of the system.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  3. Internet to Powerful, for governments by physburn · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The internet is too powerful, for governments, to leave alone. This is especially true of governments which would like to control the thoughts of there populus, but even for the most Lazze Faire governments, the chance to control the internet industy must be highly tempting.

    ---

    Privacy vs Sureillance Feed @ Feed Distiller

    1. Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments by BeanThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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".

    2. Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments by BeanThere · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mexicans who's land was invaded and taken

      That's hilariously ironic --- you do realise, don't you, that the Spanish conquered and colonised Latin America in much the same way as other Western Europeans did North America? You think Spanish Mexicans were always 'just there'? They did their share of killing the indigenous populations too - why do you single out the US? You seem to have an agenda.

      Africans (kidnapping and slavery)

      And yet America fought a civil war partly over slavery, emancipating the African Americans, fought to end the Jim Crow era, and ultimately African Americans now enjoy more liberty than the majority of their 'counterparts' living under despotic murderous dictators in various African countries.

      Women and their rights, and the list goes on?

      What!? The Western world has been BY FAR the world's leaders in the women's rights movements --- most other cultures are only now slowly starting to "catch up". You think the Middle East leads in women's rights? You think China leads in women's rights? You think Africa leads in women's rights? They are all FAR behind the US, my friend!

  4. Maybe they need to set their priorities by 3seas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And change their stance on hands off spam.

    1. Re:Maybe they need to set their priorities by jamesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I like the spam problem as a measuring stick. First go and solve the spam problem without reducing the usefulness of the internet to anyone (except the spammers of course). If you can do that, then we'll talk about some other policing that might be a good idea...

      If they could stop all the child porn and stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it, but only if they can stop _only_ child porn, and _only_ illegal downloads, without any 'collatoral damage' of legal material. And they can't - all recent attempts to do so are proof of that. So in the mean time, keep a better eye on your kids and make it easier for people to buy your stuff than download it.

    2. Re:Maybe they need to set their priorities by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they could stop all the child porn and stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it, but only if they can stop _only_ child porn, and _only_ illegal downloads, without any 'collatoral damage' of legal material.

      You do realize that the ability to stop "illegal downloads" would basically mean the ability to censor anything, right? The only difference between "illegal" and "legal" download is that someone in authority says one is allowed and one isn't. So I for one will continue doing everything in my power to undermine the ability of any authority to stop free speech.

      As for child porn, that's a subset of "illegal downloads", so the same applies. However, it's worth noting that I haven't seen it, and in fact it has been absent to the point where I'm convinced it's just another idiotic hysteria for mentally unstable parents to angst about. But assuming for the sake of argument that there is a significant amount of the stuff to be found on the Internet... So what? Isn't it better that perverts spend their evenings jacking off to pornography than going out to hunt?

      I am, of course, assuming we're talking about actual child porn here, rather than 17-year olds flashing their tits on a webcam.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  5. You got the cause and effect reversed by BhaKi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by 1stpreacher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I voted... And I agree with the guy who didn't vote. So just use me as a proxy for what he said and all will be happy.

      "Change" heh.

    2. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then your opinion is irrelevant.

      Are you a politician?

    3. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because choosing not to vote between two evils discards your right to an opinion?
      I can fully understand the trend where people simply don't care to vote anymore.
      Abstination from voting can be an expression of opinion in itself. Hell, it is not uncommon for politicians to abstinate from voting on matters (although for various other reasons also).

    4. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't vote for Obama, hell I didn't even vote. Crap like this is why.

      You figured Obama would pull some "crap", so you didn't oppose him, despite having a consequence- and cost-free way of doing that? I fail to follow your logic here.

      "Yes we can!" - take over your Internets?

      Well, since it seems that his opponents can't even be bothered to haul their arse a few blocks over to the closest voting place... yeah, I guess he can.

      Let me clarify that. You didn't have to stand against the Persian army with your 299 comrades. You didn't have to engage in sabotage against the Nazi army in occupied France. You didn't have to express a political opinion that could get you fired. All you had to do was haul your ass a few blocks away to cast a vote that could not be traced back to you. But you failed to do even that. And now you complain that the guy you imply to have known to be up to no good but couldn't be bothered to oppose is doing what you feared he would? Sorry, but you aren't getting any sympathy from me.

      A coward I might pity, a greedy miser I might despise, but for you, all I can say is: "WTF?"

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because choosing not to vote between two evils discards your right to an opinion? I can fully understand the trend where people simply don't care to vote anymore. Abstination from voting can be an expression of opinion in itself. Hell, it is not uncommon for politicians to abstinate from voting on matters (although for various other reasons also).

      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.

    6. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by Exception+Duck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Abstaining from voting is not an expression of anything but lazyness.

      Showing up and handing in unfilled ballot is an expression of opinion - and sends out a message.

      The message is to people thinking about running that there is room for new people and to the people in charge that they are not doing a good enough job.

    7. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Vote for a third-party or independent.

    8. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by jabithew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      None of the above is still a valid choice in a democratic society. You just can't express it in the US or the UK other than by staying at home*.

      His opinion is not irrelevant, except insofar as our crap-arse voting systems have made it irrelevant. Which is no excuse for you to get all high-and-mighty on him.

      *In addition, to take the example of the UK, in the last major swing in parliament (1997), 180 seats changed hands out of 659. That means that, assuming people are evenly distributed in constituencies**, 72% of votes made no difference at all to the outcome of the election. So voting in the UK at least is largely a waste of time.

      **A bad assumption, especially back in '97 before Scottish devolution.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    9. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by selven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is voting a prerequisite for having an opinion? If someone is against the current US democratic system in principle, should he still have to vote in order to have an opinion? Saying "I don't care" is itself a perfectly valid political statement.

    10. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>Is this the change that everyone was hoping for? "Yes we can!" - take over your Internets?

      Well... I hat to bring up Alex Jones because I consider him a nutter, but I did hear him interview Cryptome.com on Friday. The owner of that site said the new government (i.e. Obama's underlings) are basically turning-over the internet to control of the corporations, so they can police it and remove anything they don't like using Copyright claims (DMCA).

      As example he cited Microsoft's takedown of cryptome.com when it published a MS Customer Privacy Policy. Today MS can't get away with that, but in the future Internet 2.0 they will have nothing to stop them because they will BE the police.

      Corporations acting as government. Sounds like something out of science fiction.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by Giometrix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You agree w/ the Obama-rant? So this is wrong but the wire taps from the Bush era are okay?

      I don't see why being anti-Obama means that you are pro-Bush.

      --
      Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
    12. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by Velex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      hell I didn't even vote

      Good thing you didn't throw your vote away by voting for a 3rd party that actually stands for smaller government and wins (local) elections already, like the Libertarian party. I'm sure there's someone up there in the government going, "Gosh, look at how many people didn't vote. I feel bad about myself now. We'd better change how we're doing things."

      Keep in mind that the Republicans started out as a 3rd party.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    13. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by moeinvt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Well... I hat[e] to bring up Alex Jones because I consider him a nutter . . ."

      Well, I hate to bring up the mainstream media, but I consider them perfectly sane ... and perfectly willing to engage in the deliberate spreading of false information and misinformation. I consider Alex Jones's animated rantings every bit as credible as the calmly articulate bull$#!t that Wolf Blitzer(e.g.) espouses on a daily basis.

    14. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I'm anti-Obama, anti-Bush, and anti-Ron Paul. They are an RIAA shill, a military contractor shill, and a general-purpose corporate shill, respectively.

      I won't be truly "pro" anyone until we get someone in office who isn't just a shill for big business.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:You got the cause and effect reversed by eiMichael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with with the gov't bashing; however

      Or, abstaining from voting can also be expressions of apathy or being completely discouraged due to the corruption that goes on, and on, and on, and on in political circles no matter which party is in power.

      The point still remains that you could have done something as simple as write in your own name when you vote official positions. By doing nothing you are effectively telling the system, "do as you please, I no longer care."

      If everyone who didn't vote (some 70+% of registered voters) actually voted for someone they believed in, even if it was just a self vote, that would be more likely to change the system than abstaining. You can't just bitch about corruption and expect everyone else to take up arms.

      "We must become the change we want to see in the world".

      ---Mohandas Gandhi.

  6. Comment blocked by durrr · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  7. Hopenchange! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Hopenchange! by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Hopenchange! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  8. Well, government "oversight"... by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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.
    1. Re:Well, government "oversight"... by AlamedaStone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...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.

      Wow. Yeah. You know, not having lead in my food and not having my 10 year old nephew working in a factory - man, those over-regulating bastards. It is exactly the same thing as abridging access and privacy on the internet.

      Exactly the same.

      Awesome show. Great job.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  9. Moratorium by jofny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Moratorium by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      I'm sorry, but the gap between Congress and damn near any kind of technology has been as wide as the Grand Canyon for decades, and it has little to do with generation, but more to do with influence. As long as you allow lobbyists to invade the eyes, ears(and pockets) of those making law, this level if ignorance will continue.

  10. Geeks will blaze a new trail by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  11. Let me translate... by kenh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance

    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
  12. Actually read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. You forgot taxes . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    . . . 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!
  14. Re:Money and Power. And their Corporate Masters by gink1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  15. Stop banging on about healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Stop banging on about healthcare by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.

      This is utter tripe. It is *not* true.

      I've *been a part* of that 20% for a good while, so I know. You always get care. You are never refused care. You get care on a par with most everyone else. I've always had medications and treatments provided. I've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray, CT, MRI, blood-work, biopsies, etc.

      Yes, they'll send you a bill in the mail. If you're unable to pay, they continue to send bills for a while, then they stop. You are not charged with any crime even if your care has amassed hundreds of thousands in charges. There is Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other programs...some federal, some state, some NGO, some faith-based, some even provided by those *evil* pharma companies that stand ready to act as safety nets.

      It is pure unadulterated political FUD so obviously untrue that even MS would be too ashamed to spread it.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Stop banging on about healthcare by starblazer · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.

      This is utter tripe. It is *not* true.

      I've *been a part* of that 20% for a good while, so I know. You always get care. You are never refused care. You get care on a par with most everyone else. I've always had medications and treatments provided. I've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray, CT, MRI, blood-work, biopsies, etc.

      You get a lower standard of care. I also, was part of that lower 20%. Most of the time, they will find the first "easy" diagnosis and claim that is what it is.

  16. Re:That "beacon of freedom" never existed by BeanThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. When have they EVER had their hands off?! by ciggieposeur · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Let's see:
    • Amateur Action BBS trial
    • Phrack E-911 case
    • Phil Zimmerman's trial
    • Clipper Chip
    • DMCA
    • COPA, CRA, and every other attempt to outlaw porn
    • Wiretapping closets in the backbones
    • Sales taxes being collected in all states
    • Software patents
    • Child porn convictions for cartoons

    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.

  18. some really do get zero care by vesuvana · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.