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.

29 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...

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

    And change their stance on hands off spam.

  4. 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 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
    9. 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!
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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".

  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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!

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.