Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Calls For "Ground Rules" Protecting Internet
dbune writes "Hillary Clinton has called for ground rules to protect the World Wide Web against wrongdoing and harm after the world watched as Egyptian authorities cut Internet access during its recent political crisis. She said 'For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness.'"
Hillary,
Talk to your boss and let him know that a "kill switch" is a bad idea.
Thanks,
The Internet
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
'For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness,'
Good. Now tell the RIAA and MPAA to leave us the hell alone.
> "For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness"
Oh that's good - I'll let Julian Assange know.
we place ourselves on the side of openness
Horsepuckey. They're just jealous that the same shutdown ability doesn't exist here in the Untied States.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
The internet must be open and fair to all American companies which have the money to fund our election campaigns, to spread the word of those companies wonderful products and good deeds, to keep the world safe from people we don't like, and to prevent all of those with ideas that differ from ours from speaking out. Can't we all just get behind my version of freedom?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness
That's quite rich considering your government just shut down 84,000 websites "by mistake": http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-shuts-down-84000-websites-by-mistake-110216/
...is to allow the private entities which own the servers, networks, technology, and businesses to manage it themselves.
For many organizations, the internet is about profit, growth and accessibility. Those organizations have an obligation to ensure the functional operation and security of their systems, if they'd like to say doing what they do. No connection = no revenue. Having government involvement with the internet will hinder one or all of those facets, even if the intent is for the betterment of society and the world. Just like the economy -- eventually it will right itself without too many dicks stirring the pot.
In short, Secretary Clinton, GTFO of its business.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
....in other news the Patriot Act was renewed by Congress today continuing the erosion of 4 Amendment rights...
Some guy that works for Google was on the news the other day saying that cutting off the Internet accelerated the public protests by letting everyone know that the regime was scared. So, taking steps to ensure that a regime like Mubarak's can't do that in future is counter-productive if you consider the protests in Egypt to have been a good thing.
but I fixed that for ya.
is this the same lady that killed wikileaks.org?
not that i'm supporting what the (then) egyptian government did, but how is that different from what she did?
Yes, nothing to see here...it's "openness" as long as it is in the best interest of the United States. What a load of bs. DNS records all over the world taken over by force, Julian Assange threatened with assassinations, kill switches, patriot acts...just a plantation with a different name.
Will they start endorsing Wikileaks?
yep our Government has always been open and Honest, listening to its people... NOT! not when its easier to cover everything up, and lie to us. I am sure they will tell us one thing and do another.
Good luck with that. I am sure you will be able to get all those Muslim countries to sign up to the ground rules for the Internet right after they sign up for gender equality, freedom of religion, freedoms of speech and the end of forced marriage, "honour" killings, and victimisation of minorities.
I read in the newspaper that the US will help the citicens of Iran to keep the internet running. Obama and Clinton promised that. I find that extremely hypocritic behaviour. Where was the US when Egypt's internet was shut down? Oh yeah, they liked Mubarak so they did nothing. But they don't like Ahmadinejad so now they help the Iranian people. And in the meantime Obama wants a kill switch so he can switch the internet off whenever he wants.
-- Cheers!
Clinton is clearly positioning herself for another Presidential run in 2012. Obama's track record on openness and freedom for the Internet is abysmal, but few if any of his transgressions came out of the State Department. If Clinton can separate herself from her boss on this issue, she can make inroads to the young and energetic netizens who helped Obama so much in '08.
If I'm right, expect her to start making noises about cutting the budget and ending wars in the near future.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
'For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness,', U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
"Hillary Clinton ordered American officials to spy on high ranking UN diplomats, including British representatives" link
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned on Monday the leak of more than 250,000 classified State Department documents, saying the U.S. was taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who "stole" the information" link
Out of the Ruins
Out from the wreckage
Can't make the same mistake this time
We are the children
The last generation
We are the ones they left behind
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change
Living under the fear, till nothing else remains
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond
Thunderdome
Looking for something
We can rely on
There's gotta be something better out there.
Love and compassion
Their day is coming
All else are castles built into the air.
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change
Living under the fear till nothing else remains
All the children say
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond
Thunderdome
So what do we do with our lives
We leave only a mark
Will our story shine like a light
Or end in the dark
Give it all or nothing
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond
Thunderdome
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Hmmm meanwhile at home they are pressing an anti-piracy law spending millions of $$$ for corporate benefit..meanwhile unemployment is a record levels (15-20 %). Is this how we want our tax money spent? Not me. RIAA and MPAA you enforce your IP, not the American public.
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
Many of you here who are Americans like to pretend we live in an Orwellian distopia and many of you who aren't American like to bash on us because it's been fairly fashionable since we became less useful to you following the Cold War. However, let's be real for a minute. The kill switch is a bad idea, but we all should know that the government would only use it in the case of massive attacks from a foreign entity. It's a misguided attempt at having a protective measure, not a tool to control communication and access to information among the citizenry. The US hasn't ever shut off radio, television, or telephone networks en masse, and it isn't going to shut off the Internet. I oppose the kill switch because the government shouldn't have that power, but I also know that the likelihood of it ever being used for nefarious purposes is close to nil.
Are we protecting the internet, or the world-wide web? Or this distincition just not made on slashdot any more?
From Wikipedia:
In baseball, ground rules are special rules particular to each baseball park (grounds) in which the game is played. Unlike the well-defined playing field of most other sports, the playing area of a baseball field extends to an outfield fence in fair territory and the stadium seating in foul territory. The unique design of each ballpark, including fences, dugouts, bullpens, railings, stadium domes, photographer's wells and TV camera booths, requires that rules be defined to handle situations in which these objects may interact or interfere with the ball in play or with the players.
So a "ground rule" that warrants an Internet kill switch in my ballpark, doesn't necessarily mean that you can hit the kill switch in your ballpark.
In other words, the US is allowed to hit the Internet kill switch in their ballpark (ground rule). Egypt isn't (no ground rule).
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
How about federally guaranteeing every citizen has a connection to the internet?
How about treating internet providers like utility providers? Every land lord should have the duty to make heat, electricity, water, and internet available to citizens.
Honestly, I think we should make it a constitutional amendment to grant citizens the right to access an unfettered and open internet.
Damn! The first time I read Clingon instea of Clinton. That would be newsworthy alright! ( I need more coffee )
we place ourselves on the side of openness
Horsepuckey. They're just jealous that the same shutdown ability doesn't exist here in the Untied States.
The Untied States? That is quite a interesting spelling in this context.
Presumably, then, by "openness" Ms. Clinton means "subject only to regulation by big media," because until the Obama administration makes material strides to back the FCC in regulating real net neutrality, that's what we get. Our internet speech may not be impeded by the red-herring "kill switch," but it surely will by the Verizons and Comcasts and AT&Ts that control the packets.
On a related topic, the NYT has an article about how the Mubarak regime exploited Internet's weaknesses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/technology/16internet.html
I firmly believe the revolution in Egypt was aided by closing the internet. People walked away from their keyboards and got outside. If they wanted to see what was happening they had the Al jazeera sattelite at a freinds house. But without communncation their imaginations could soar a bit and they could look awayf from the screen.
Circuses are well known to keep the roman masses happy.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
She's using the terms interchangeably... this does not make me any more comfortable.
I'm pretty sure you just got whooshed.
Florida is drifting away as we speak.
Emotions are mixed on the issue.
Hillary, via her official position as Sect. of State was advocating not just for the security of the internets but was also encouraging dissent and the tolerance of it by all governments. How about Hill you go talk to the Justice dept. about tolerating dissent in this country too? Or is it ok for the US to harrass, track and arrest those who dissent and wish (insert # of elected officials here) removed from power and/or the actual form of government changed? This applies to those on the left/middle/right who at any given time in the past 20 years have advocated peacefully for such ideas.
Frankly, I do not believe the US (federally or at state/local level) would tolerate the kind of events which took place in Egypt or Tunisia.
Even if we make it so the megalomaniacs and powermongers can't touch the Internet, they'll just find a way around it like cutting all power to the grid....
You said "rape" twice...
Just pointing that out...
Ian Ameline
It is not exectly the same, but in USA this switch is called "Senator Joseph Lieberman (CT)" .
839*929
It's the Peter Principle. People rise to their own level of incompetence.
From TFA: "protecting both transparency and confidentiality" Yeah, those are basically mutually exclusive.
They do believe in openness. Why else would they get a copy of everything via AT&T and others? But the openness should just be in one direction, according to them.
You sure such a "kill switch" doesn't exist? I wouldn't be so sure. You have limited commercial DNS (and few people who even know what that does, well, perhaps outside of slashdot) so, all one needs do is kill those boxes I assure you the US DoD can do that; and all you have to do to kill international transmission is have control of the very few egress paths (all processing packets meaning all operating on software, software that can screen data as it passes through or deny certain traffic). Internet can be stopped by DARPA and/or the DoD. It is generally healing and resilient to "hackers" - but at the backbone? I assure you the Internet as most people know it is able to be meaningfully interrupted.
is THE all time most hypocrite politician ever !
It does.
You do know that the NSA has ties into every backbone carrier in the US right?
You do know that they can tap the data at will right?
Only a fool would think that the US couldn't take down not just the US internet but probably a good percentage of all the internet if need be. if the data is already flowing through those devices then only a fool would believe that those devices couldn't shut off that flow.
This kill switch is to allow the isolation of segments of the internet. Laws are already in place that allow the president to shut of connections with the rest of the world and have been since the 1930s.
What boggles my mind is the very idea that if the US government was at the point of rolling out tanks to stop protests in the street that a law would stop them from shutting off the Internet.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Imperialist America here we go again. Stop try to be the police and the "protector of democracy" of the world. How about stop killing innocent people in other countries first, like in Afghanistan and Iraq? How about be accountable for war crimes, ratify the International Criminal Court. How about to follow the Geneva Convention and stop treat captured people as "unlawful combatant" How about to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol which are 187 countries adopted but of course not the USA.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
"Hillary Clinton has called for ground rules to protect the World Wide Web against wrongdoing and harm..."
Politicians STILL fail to get it...
The one thing that protects the Web from harm is that THERE ARE NO ground-rules.
The minute someone gets into a position to enforce rules OF ANY KIND across the Web, then the Web will be potentially under the control of one body. And shortly after that, it will be ACTUALLY under the control of one body...
See how they hate the internets, those politician cats,.. if the 'man' ever invents a time machine, you'd think they'd like go back in time and un-invent it or something. reminds me of a story of a Doctor who invented something once, and it grew big and powerful and tried to destroy him... just a fairy story though huh ..
Peace And Love Man ... :)
And I applaud them. But will you back them with equally bold actions?
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
The US is a hopeless cause, and we Americans I think would be much better off if the country broke up into smaller units. Smaller countries, with less of a concentration of power, are less dangerous, and possibly less corruptible (it takes much more work to corrupt the legislatures of a dozen countries than a single giant one).
"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."
It's worse than that. Democracy actively selects for lying asshats, so even if you are smart and have good ideas you'll be beaten by the charismatic psychopath promising bread and circuses paid for with your neighbour's money (or, these days, money borrowed from the Chinese).
Ah, you're talking about Reagan and both Bushs, only instead of neighbors, it'd be all the poor in the ghettos and the middleclass not living near their exclusive ranches or in their gated communities helping the rich get richer. Or did you think their money comes from trees?
Well then... what about wikileak?
This is all backwards. The internet needs to stay open and free, but not in the light of a political posture, rather in the wide-open Wild-West setting. Any attempt by a government power to institute controls to prevent people from doing things on the internet will be twisted, distorted and not held in honor, especially by an American system that puts someone new with their own agenda in office every four years. Instead of governments taking measures to identify criminals, whatever identifies someone as a criminal in whatever space or time, individuals need to be holding themselves accountable for the actions that tend to make governments necessary. Getting rid of criminals shouldn't be a self-assigned duty of government, but rather self-governence should eliminate the criminal activities. Whatever Hillary Cilnton really means as an 'open and free' internet ...that's not the same 'open and free' that you and I think it should be. .
Neutiquam erro
There is a debate currently underway in some circles about whether the internet is a force for liberation or repression. But I think that debate is largely beside the point. Egypt isn’t inspiring people because they communicated using Twitter. It is inspiring because people came together and persisted in demanding a better future.
Just who the hell in what circles are even debating that the internet isn't a force for liberation, freedom, information, knowledge, equality, and god-damned apple pie?
No really, I want a list of names and groups so I know who to exile when I'm king for a day. And really, what are their arguments, cause I'm having a hard time conceptualizing how anyone would use the internet for repression. I mean, usually the repression is in terms of denying people access to the Internet.
Now, when I told my wife this quote, she immediately said that Clinton must still be butthurt over wikileaks, which was funny. So I want to make one thing explicitly clear. Wikileaks helps, aids, and benefits Americans. I'm not really talking about South Americans, Canadians, or Latin Americans, although they benefit too. No, I'm talking about "We The People" of the United States of America. We function on facts and truths. I'm not yet so cynical that I think that everyone's an idiot and that democracy is a bad thing. WE need to know this stuff so WE can fix it as the ultimate controllers of this whole shindig. And it is broken. In places.
I like the USA, I'm a fan. But I like it because we're the good guys. If there are things that make us look like the bad guys, then that needs to be fixed. And the people in charge of those things need to be given the boot.
Most of the time we don't even know when things are broken until it's way too late. People send information to wikileaks out of a moral obligation.
Ah, you're talking about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, only instead of neighbors, it'd be all the poor in the ghettos and the middleclass not living near their exclusive ranches or in their gated communities helping the rich get richer. Or did you think their money comes from trees?
See, it applies to both sides. heh.
See, it applies to both sides. heh.
That was actually my point and why I have no hope of ever trying to convince anyone of anything discussing politics. It's impossible to compete with self-inflicted brainwashing via tv and radio.
How many more of these ground rules can interrupted business take.
The only thing your ground rules do is jam wrenches in the gears of people trying to survive.
The more you muck with things, the worse it gets.
Your making life hell for people who haven't done anything.
When you finally manage to interfere with my business
With another of your false flag, or misguided goons
I will pull the plug and hit the streets
WHAT'S THE POINT ANYMORE?
Disrupted to the point where everyone is coming to a stand still.
Even the US Mail is threatened
Crime is up everywhere now.
Who has time to fuck with more steaming piles of your patriot act disruption bullshit?
Your a foreign and corporate owned jackal!
Your terrorizing your own citizens!
Go After the banks, and restore our monetary system before it's too ufcking late!
In other words, we hold the rest of the world to a different standard than our own country.
Yea, that seems fair.
It's no big deal, all of Florida's seniors are just going on a cruise.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
we place ourselves on the side of openness
Until the DHS hijacks your domains.
The US is a hopeless cause, and we Americans I think would be much better off if the country broke up into smaller units. Smaller countries, with less of a concentration of power, are less dangerous, and possibly less corruptible (it takes much more work to corrupt the legislatures of a dozen countries than a single giant one).
Definitely wouldn't hurt... even if there was still some very minor oversight at a "federal" level, but allow the states to have a lot more independence (as it appears the original idea was intended to be). Something somewhat like situation with the EU and its member states.
Exactly. The way things are now, no one can agree on anything, and nothing gets done.
If the country were broken up into smaller units (larger than states, more like regional districts), there'd be more progress. For instance, suppose there were 6 main new countries created out of the USA: one comprising the New England states, one comprising the "rust belt" states, one comprising the southeast states, one comprising the heartland states, one comprising the pacific northwest states and northern California, and one comprising the southwest states and southern California. Now let's think about some divisive issues; let's start with universal healthcare. the New England and Northwest countries would probably institute Canadian-style universal healthcare pretty quickly, because there wouldn't be that much opposition to it from within their borders. The Rust Belt country might follow suit after a while. The Southeast and Heartland countries probably wouldn't do it at all, since that's probably where a lot of the opposition comes from. (I'm not sure about the Southwest country, but they might institute it before long.) How about abortion, which hasn't stopped being a giant issue over 40 years? Again, the New England and Northwest countries would probably make it legal and stop arguing about it, and the Southeast, Southwest, and Heartland countries would ban it, and that'd be the end of it.
While a lot of the friction in this country is rural vs. urban, certain regions are much more urban than rural, and vice-versa. Heartland states, for instance, are much more "red" than New England or Northwest states, and the two sides are constantly fighting. Breaking up the nation into smaller regions would stop a lot of that, because states in the different regions are much more aligned with their neighbor states than with states farther away, so not having to constantly fight over the same issues would free them up to work on other, more important issues, and each region could do things in its own way.
Going back to a Confederation would be a step in the right direction too, but I think one problem is that the states are simply too small and too numerous. If you look at the European Union, you'll see that it's mainly dominated by some very large countries: France, Germany, Italy, and UK. While not large in land area, they are large in population, compared to any of our states (remember, many of our states have huge amounts of uninhabited space, especially in the West: UT, AZ, CO, WY, MT, NV, even CA), so it'd be really inefficient to make each state do everything itself. This of course is an argument for Federalism, but the problem with Federalism in the USA, of course, is the constant in-fighting as I described above, because the different regions are just too different and can't agree on anything. Federalism at a smaller level (e.g. the New England states only) would probably work just fine, since, for instance, there isn't that much disagreement between Vermont and New Hampshire, or even Maine and Connecticut. Notice, for instance, that almost all the New England states have legalized gay marriage, another big issue these days that people are fighting about.
Now, if all these new 6-10 countries wanted to create a loose confederation, whose only responsibilities were a common defense and a shared currency, that would be a good idea. But what we have now obviously isn't working.
Jeez, can't a Democrat get credit for wanting to tax the rich these days?