Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Petition Calls For Making Net Access Inalienable Right

Posted by samzenpus on from the 1337th-amendment dept.

CelticWhisper writes "Targeted at stopping SOPA, a petition has been started at the White House's 'We The People' page calling for a Constitutional amendment that would render internet access an inalienable right. Other countries have already adopted such classification for internet access. An excerpt from petition text reads: 'The United States Government is actively attempting to pass legislation to censor Internet. There are numerous campaigns against this Act, but we need to do more than just prevent SOPA from passing. Otherwise, future Acts of similar nature will oppress our rights.' Is calling for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee this too extreme, or is the Internet sufficiently entrenched in modern life that access to it should be guaranteed by the Constitution?"

55 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. It already is... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's called Free Speech. That's not to say that the Government won't try to take it away, as they have with other rights, but there it is. The Internet isn't a thing which can be (properly) regulated, it's just a bunch of people/organizations voluntarily communicating.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:It already is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Freedom of speech does not necessarily extend to the methods used for speech. Freedom of speech does not give you an inalienable right to stand in public area speaking my mind into a 200dB sound system. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to call every number in the phone book at 2am. Hell, there's already significant precedent giving the government the right to revoke a citizens right to use a telephone. I'm not saying that the right to internet access shouldn't be be granted, but it is 100% not covered under existing precedent and interpretation of the first amendment.

    2. Re:It already is... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Freedom of Assembly could legitimize DDoS attacks, at least if done manually with a browser. It's just a lot of people visiting a website at the same time right?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:It already is... by spectro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This, every time I read a petition and people organizing against SOPA or whatever other law the *IAA comes up with I just face-palm and *cough* first amendment *cough*.

      There is no need to organize against this law. The day it gets signed (if ever) it will get overturned on first amendment grounds.

      Congress keeps trying to wipe their asses in the constitution and the courts will keep knocking them down.

      --
      HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
    4. Re:It already is... by kahless62003 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Like... ahem... slashdotting?

    5. Re:It already is... by Oligonicella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No more than freedom of assembly encourages mobs.

    6. Re:It already is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're an idiot. You represent the faction of limpdick idiots who say "the constitution protects us"... and none of you understand why the US constitution was an important document.

      Clue: it wasn't because of the freedoms it grants - all of those freedoms existed in laws in other countries (example: England) - but they were written down in Latin or French and buried in vaults where only legal scholars with the right education could read them. People didn't know that the state wasn't allowed to do that.

      The US constitution was important because it put YOUR RIGHTS in simple English on a sheet of paper. You know your rights and therefore you can exercise them and you know when people try to take them away... AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

      Not sit on your arse and imagine that a piece of paper protects you.

    7. Re:It already is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Intent is an important aspect of law. The Constitution guarantees the right to "peaceably assemble", and the peaceable part includes both intent and action. So if a bunch of people all click on a link because they're interested in it (eg it got posted to slashdot) then even if the server crashes, no crime has been committed. If a bunch of people decide to maliciously take down a website by convincing a large group of people to hit refresh all day on their browser, then their intentions are not peaceful, and their actions would not be protected by the first amendment even if it was decided that the freedom of assembly applied to visiting a webpage. Much like freedom of assembly does not protect a group of people blocking the doorway to a grocery store.

    8. Re:It already is... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is no need to organize against this law. The day it gets signed (if ever) it will get overturned on first amendment grounds.

      oh, how cute. somehow who still believes the system works for us little folk.

      look, mate, the governments are totally and all inclusively in fear about the freedom equalization that the net brings to citizens. not one of them likes it. its against the control-concept of governments (every single one of them, by nature) to allow your ruled subjects to have this kind of power.

      "but its wrong!"

      yeah a lot of things are not just in this world. deal with it. you and I are the 99% and its how its always been and will always be.

      and when they want to take this and that from us, THEY DO AS THEY PLEASE. with little fight from us, usually.

      and they know it.

      we should at least realize it, too.

      and stop looking to the system to help you. the system IS the problem, don't you see that?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:It already is... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean like OWS?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    10. Re:It already is... by countvlad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the US constitution was important because it put THE GOVERNMENTS rights in simple English on a sheet of paper. It's supposed to list what the government can do, not what the people can do; I say supposed to because the monstrosity of government we have now is so out of scope of the original purpose of government that it's beyond defining. The Bill of Rights (which is what you're really talking about) was an afterthought introduced by Madison because it was feared that the Constitution wasn't explicit enough, i.e., people would allow the government to grow beyond its purpose and trample certain rights were key to the revolution in the first place.

      The Constitution doesn't give you freedom. It gives the government freedom. Freedom isn't given to you by your government - it's something your government is supposed to protect!

    11. Re:It already is... by operagost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The US constitution was important because it put YOUR RIGHTS in simple English on a sheet of paper. You know your rights and therefore you can exercise them and you know when people try to take them away... AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

      Actually, the Constitution was meant to enumerate the rights of the federal and state governments. It also specifically excludes some known abuses of government, such as ex post facto laws. It's the amendments to it that specifically enumerated the rights of the people. Founders like James Madison were actually concerned that enumerating them imply that these were the ONLY rights held by the people, so just for the cretins and the power hungry the ninth and tenth amendments were included to clarify this. Of course, despite the stupidly obvious fact that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" means every right does not have to be enumerated, we're constantly having to explain this to people who apparently didn't learn it in public school. I guess that's what you call a conflict of interest.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:It already is... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those examples you gave were abuse of those rights, but they still don't necessitate limiting the rights of everyone else because of a few bad actors. Just because 10% of people on the internet are trading warez or pirated movies and music doesn't give them the right to infringe upon my rights to freely travel the internet.

      If we allow the government (or any private company, not just the government) the right to censor what web sites we can access, the internet is doomed in the U.S.. Just because the sites they want to censor right now are allegedly IP violators (and the alleged part of this can't be ignored; as it stands there is no recourse whatsoever to prevent erroneous reports from killing perfectly legit, legally-operated web sites), that doesn't mean they won't turn their sites on something else later. First it's child pornographers. Then it's IP thieves. Then it's bomb making instructions, fringe websites like Westboro Baptist Church and "Terrorist Groups". Then it's the Occupy organizing websites because of the conflicts with different police forces all over the country. Then it's sites promoting the overthrow of our government. After all, these actions are all "for the public good", right?

      Our access to the internet today is just as much a necessary facet of the public's right to revolution as the Second Amendment and Freedom of Speech and Assembly was in our Forefather's time. We've grown beyond the days when someone can ring the town bell and have all the men come rushing to town with their Brown Bess'. The internet is our town bell, so to speak.

      Giving the government the ability to limit our access to the internet is no different than allowing the government to rescind the 2nd Amendment and start collecting our guns. Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, evinced this mindset when he wrote the words:

      But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      Without unfettered access to the internet, the government is in effect limiting this human right. We have the right to gather and demonstrate and, yes, even throw off our government if we feel that we are not being properly represented. If any of our sitting reps actually respect our founding fathers and the foundations of our country, they will vote against this ridiculous SOPA shit.

    13. Re:It already is... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that as long as it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution you'll find people like Thomas and Scalia that pretend that it doesn't exist. Despite quite a few references to privacy in the bill of rights, there's plenty of folks that like to claim that there is no right to privacy. Well, if that's the case then why did they amend the constitution so that people would be secure in their persons, paper, houses and effects against unreasonable search and seizure?

    14. Re:It already is... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Certainly what these petitions are trying to get is a state where everyone gets Internet access gratis.

      Oh, bullshit. This isn't about free internet, this is about open access to it. Neither our government nor private business has the right to tell us where we are allowed to go on the internet. Just because right now this is about IP violators doesn't mean it will stay that way, eventually it will be used as justification to shut it down for reasons of social unrest under the reasoning of "the public good".

      I pay for a web connection. What I do with it is my business. If I am infringing upon the rights of others in my actions, than by all means, prosecute me for my actions, that's the way the law works. What you can't do, though, is use the fact that I used my internet connection to break the law as an excuse to block everyone else.

      This shit is all based on the premise of guilty before proven innocent. It is totally against the spirit of our legal system in it's entirety.

    15. Re:It already is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So we will need permits to come to /. in the future else we will be called a mob?

    16. Re:It already is... by LongearedBat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Freedom of speech should be within the bounds of respect for others (as with any kind or right/priviledge).

      So in addition to your examples, freedom of speech shouldn't allow you to be offensively racist, derogotory against disabled people, disdainfully homophobic, etc.

      That said, as long as you are respectful, you should have the right to voice your honest opinion.

    17. Re:It already is... by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While fine in intent, restricting freedom of speech to exclude hate speech only leads to restricting other types of speech. That's how we get into this whole mess of political correctness. If left unchecked, anything different/new could be considered harmful to people [society] and banned/restricted. Books, newspapers, etc. Some people would even go as far to say that we need to make Fox News illegal because it disagrees with their world view.

      It's not nice to spout obscenities, but I don't think it's the place of the government to monitor/regulate speech. We need to learn how to tune these people out.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    18. Re:It already is... by theCoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if the courts ultimately found SOPA unconstitutional, it wouldn't happen the "day it gets signed". It would take years for a case to get to the Supreme Court level. And in the meantime, there would be quite a chilling effect on speech on the Internet.

      And there's always a chance that the powers that be would rely more on intimidation and bluffing rather than risk getting the law overturned. For example, it's remember all those technically illegal t-shirts and other things that have the DeCSS code printed on them? Since they were never prosecuted, the DMCA never got challenged. But there's still a chilling effect on Linux distributors (not to mention DVD player makers) to not distribute that code, just in fear of prosecution, and the costs that would entail.

      This is why it's important to stop bad laws BEFORE they become laws.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    19. Re:It already is... by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are wrong. At least in the US, it is supposed to be that...the constitution does NOT grant you rights. You have the rights born to you inately....and keep them all unless limited by law. That law should come primarily from your state/local laws.

      The natural right/positive right debate has been going hard and heavy for three hundred years now, and while the founders had a diversity of opinions on the issue, they had the good sense to keep ideology out of the constitution. The first amendment is a proscription on the power of congress to make certain kinds of laws, nothing more or less. You can believe that you have a natural right or the right is granted, neither interpretation conflicts with the text of the constitution and both theories had adherents among the writers. Getting them to all agree on one theoretical interpretation or the other would have guaranteed the language of the amendment would never have passed.

      Either way as pertains to privacy, it's most parsimonious to say US constitution does neither "recognize" nor "respect" a simple, holistic right to privacy. That the fourth amendment manages to spell out what it means without using the word "privacy" should be instructive, they probably left it out for a reason.

      it does, however grant a FEW enumerated rights/responsibilities to the Federal govt.

      You can ask Hamilton, Washington and Adams about how they felt about the interpretation and limitations of enumerated powers.

      The problem is that as long as it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution you'll find people like Thomas and Scalia that pretend that it doesn't exist.

      Their real problem is that their theory of constitutional interpretation is based on idea that their understanding what James Madison "meant" when he wrote something down in 1782 is superior and more valid than how a modern, reasonable person interprets the plain language in the time they're actually living in. Scalia has been very specific about the fact that he "doesn't understand" modern culture enough to apply 18th-century constitutional rights to modern situations in the manner of a "living document" constitutionalist, but he's quite certain he understands the culture of the late Georgian period enough to come to all kinds of precise conclusions about things like eminent domain in Kelo or corporate personhood.

      "Strict construction" is about embedding the terms and significations of the constitution in an historical-revisionist mythology and hermeneutic, with the objective of re-defining the law in minarchist terms (and guess who makes all the money when that happens).

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  2. Not so fast by imamac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't have an inalienable right to someone else's property.

    1. Re:Not so fast by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't have an inalienable right to someone else's property.

      You can't have all the cookies you want without a tummyache either, but WTF does this have to do with the topic?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Not so fast by rioki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually not "the internet" but unfiltered internet ACCESS is what is should become a inalienable right. Like the right to read any book I chose...

    3. Re:Not so fast by masternerdguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The internet isn't someone else's property, the ISP's infrastructure is. Since most people need that infrastructure to access the internet, then you need cut the ISP out of the picture. You could provide a state owned ISP (scary) that's open to everyone, or we could do something more exotic like mesh networks.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    4. Re:Not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're looking at this backwards.

      You don't make an amendment saying, "The people have an inalienable right to access the internet."
      You make an amendment that says, "Congress shall make no laws denying the people access to the internet."

      Regulate Congress, not the industry.

      (It's still a dumb idea when we don't have an inalienable right to oh, say water or power...)

    5. Re:Not so fast by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The internet is made up of other people's networks. One uses the internet through access provided, for profit, by other people. Making internet access an inalienable right would mean giving one group of people, those without internet access, a right to the property of other people, ISP owners. Also, it would require that people who have no means of access the internet (i.e. someone without a computer), the means to do so. Libraries, etc. are not acceptable because then the libraries would have to be open 24/7, otherwise the person "inalienable" right is being alienated for part of the day. Then, there is the small problem of content filtering. Libraries would be unable to prevent people from looking at hard core porn.

      Are you getting the idea?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    6. Re:Not so fast by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't have an inalienable right to someone else's property.

      "Somebody else's property"?

      Who owns the internet, genius?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Not so fast by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not how it works. Free Speech is a right, but only idiots claim that means one can take over a private conference hall to make ones self heard. The right only means, as the Constitution states, that Congress shall make no law abridging this right. Similarly, an amendment to make Internet access an inalienable right would simply prevent Congress from taking it away. It would not mean that private enterprise or individuals would be forced to provide access.

    8. Re:Not so fast by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's true, but we're not talking about property here, we're talking about ACCESS to property, public property I might add.

      What these guys are trying to do is limit our access to the internet. This is no different than your phone company only allowing you to call people that they approve. You still have to pay for your phone connection, but the phone company has no right whatsoever to tell you who you are allowed to call until you infringe upon that person's rights (i.e., harassing them). You can call whoever you want with a telephone, period.

      This is really no different than the concept of the internet. The ISPs can charge us for service, but they can't tell us who we can "talk" to online. We can talk to whoever we want because we're free citizens. Just TALKING to a bunch of people on, say, a forum for breaking the encryption on a new disc-based format (09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0, for instance?) is not grounds to cut me off. I have every right to talk about that subject, this is a free country; up until the point that my actions actually break the law they are protected by it. End of story.

      Why is it so difficult for people to understand this point? We're not trying to make the internet a right as in "they have to give it to you for free". We're trying to make internet access a right, as in you can go wherever you want on the internet without your ISP, either for their own reasons or on someone's behalf, playing content police predetermining what you have a right to access, who you have a right to talk to, etc.

    9. Re:Not so fast by careysub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The internet is made up of other people's networks. One uses the internet through access provided, for profit, by other people. Making internet access an inalienable right would mean giving one group of people, those without internet access, a right to the property of other people, ISP owners...

      Sorry, your reductionist approach in trying to make this a "property rights trump all" issue fails. Do you realize that ISPs run wire and fiber over other people's property left and right, due to easements granted by law without paying a penny? Those people are forced to accommodate the property of a private business, denying them unlimited use of that portion of their property. The ISPs are given special legal privileges in exchange for providing a service to the public, as well as the opportunity to make money.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:Not so fast by Entrope · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So what happens if the government recognizes "unfiltered Internet access" as an inalienable right?

      imamac's point was that recognizing it as a right doesn't get you anywhere. It is like saying food security or access to medical care is an inalienable right: Somebody has to pay to provide it, and it requires the transfer of goods or services from one person to another. That makes it different from the things that we traditionally recognize as inalienable rights.

    11. Re:Not so fast by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Too many inalienable rights and you dilute the meaning. Same with people calling everyone in the armed forces a "hero".

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    12. Re:Not so fast by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's great until said private interests and your own interests are in opposition, then you're left with no recourse whatsoever. If we had private roads, and the private company that owned the roads decided you weren't allowed to use them anymore because you were talking crap about them online, or pissed off the wrong person in management, or one of the countless reasons a private company and their lawyers could come up to the justify it, what do you do when you need to use those roads to go to work?

      Privatizing everything is just as dangerous to the common man. I know that a lot of people are on this "Government BAD!!! Privatization GOOD!!!!" kick right now, but it bears mentioning that our own government for decades was able to manage and improve our infrastructure just fine. It's not the government that has failed, it is the people in government lately that have failed. Say what you want about all the problems this country had in the past, and how our "golden years" weren't necessarily all sunshine and roses, but there were still a fair number of people in government that came out of World War II with a sense of civic duty. The fact that they've all been forced out by opportunists doesn't mean that government has failed, it means that we need to put better people in government.

      Like all this nonsense with Social Security, they take money from it for years and years and then, when they've finally taken enough to put the fund into real danger of not being able to meet it's obligations, now it's being trotted out as an example of why government can't do anything right. Bullshit. S.S. was working just fine until those self-serving assholes started robbing it and playing games with money that didn't belong to them.

    13. Re:Not so fast by Bardwick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod up. I served in the military during a time of war. I was stationed on an aircraft carrier. I was never shot at. Am I damn proud of my service? You betcha. Am I a hero, definatley not. I have no idea how I would react to getting shot at. Would I have the courage to run forward to help a wounded man? I would like to *think* that I would...

    14. Re:Not so fast by Bardwick · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is already a right. The government does not GRANT rights, they can only take them away. "Quality of life".. Seriously?? Where did you read that? Contrary to popular belief, the government is charged with promoting the common good. Not providing it.

    15. Re:Not so fast by Aryden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      actually, it's exactly what it means : "a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred". So he is correct. His version would mean that you can have access to the internet if you so choose, but that right cannot be taken away by the government at their leisure. It does not mean that private companies have to give it to you for free (see 2nd amendment, when was the last time you were given a free gun?)

    16. Re:Not so fast by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Second Amendment is not a right to a gun or a right to own a gun. It prevents one's right to bear an arm being infringed. The Second Amendment doesn't give the right, but rather assumes the right exists and denies the government the right to remove it.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    17. Re:Not so fast by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can't separate the politicians from the government, no matter how much you'd like to. If you don't trust politicians, then you sure should not be trusting any government program in the long term.

      This is the fundamental difference, as I see it, in your thinking and my own; I believe that there are plenty of good men out there that would not fuck over their fellow man if given the chance, they're just never given the chance because they're not as easily corruptible, whereas you feel that the government itself corrupts any man so that no matter how good he is, he will fuck over his fellow man.

      Assuming that I am correct in that assessment, I have to disagree. I have worked along side and interacted plenty of people that still have the good moral character and civic virtue to, in my opinion, execute those offices fairly and responsibly. Cincinnatus was a real person, remember. The problem is they will never, ever get the chance. Why? Because everyone must pass the gatekeepers before they can even attempt to run for office, i.e., the GOP and the DNC.

      They are the reason why our government is so broken, not government itself. They have secured their stranglehold on the political process in this country, little by little, over the last hundred or so years, and in doing so, have totally twisted our government to act in their own interests. It's not government in itself that did this, but men, corrupted men, that ignored their civic responsibility to their constituency and instead served their own interests. At no other time have the same two political parties held onto their power in our government as they have today. There is almost no chance whatsoever for anyone to have the resources to run for office in this country without going to one of those two parties with their hat in hand, asking for their support. Said support comes with a price, promises are exacted, and the corruption continues.

      If we were able to force simple changes on our government it would clean itself up pretty quickly. Term limits, for one. Disallowing any sitting rep to run for more than two terms would end the political dynasties and cliques. Campaign Finance Reform is another one, a huge one. Disallowing people to give money directly to a candidate, and instead forming and mandating a general election fund that is distributed equally to qualifying candidates, would pretty much end the stranglehold of those two parties in one fell swoop. It would give truly independent politicians a real chance in competing with the guys sponsored by Team Donkey and Team Elephant. Corporate contributions (and control of our government) would end quickly, because they would no longer be able to give their money to the guy they want directly...in making a donation to the guy they support, they would be giving money to his opponent, too.

      Then, of course, would be the disallowing of people to move between the public and private sector with impunity, particularly the regulators that jump ship and go immediately work in the industries they previously regulated. Anyone with a brain can see how allowing them to switch sides like that is going to cause problems. The FEC and other financial regulatory bodies are all full of ex-Wall Street Bankers...and those Wall Street firms are all full of ex-Regulators. They trade players back and forth every year. They have luncheons together and conferences to, no shit, discuss how they regulate the financial industry. Imagine if our police met with drug dealers and pimps to discuss how they would enforce laws on drugs and prostitution and took their advice. There would be blood in the streets.

      So was it their office that corrupted them? Does their existence in itself necessitate corruption? It didn't for decades, our regulatory bodies worked just fine, for the most part. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but to make the leap from "[organization] is screwed up, we must dump it completely and let the market do what it will" is irresponsible and, honestly, a little ridiculous.

    18. Re:Not so fast by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first amendment includes freedom of the press, which obviously includes peoples access to the press. I've never heard of it meaning you get free newspapers, just that the government can't stop you from acquiring a newspaper of your choice. This would just be the same for the internet.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    19. Re:Not so fast by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You'd be forced to work in a position that is not under the umbrella of regulation you previously had a part in crafting and enforcing.

      As an example, the Backscatter Radiation/Full Body Scanners in airports that everybody loves so much. Back in like 2007 and 2008, higher up's in the TSA set down regulations for their use, contracted out for their manufacture, training on how to use them, etc. All the things that would be necessary with a new technology. Seems fine, right, I mean, that's their job.

      Then, once the regulations were completely in place and these machines were contractually getting bought by the government for $250,000 a piece, (not to mention the dozens of billable training hours multiplied across what, 60,000 employees in the TSA?), then a whole slew of these higher-ups all resigned their posts in the public sector and immediately started working for the private contractors that supplied and maintained them. People from both the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security did this.

      See the huge conflict of interest there? They obviously signed those contracts knowing full well that they would be the ones collecting the checks in a few short months. They make the regulations that will benefit these private companies, then go work for these private companies. That's just the obvious cases, there are tons of people in government that are good friends with these government contractors, too. Dick Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton for 5 years before he got elected vice-president in 2000, then 2 years later the war in Iraq and, holy shit, Haliburton was getting blank checks from the government for security over there

      If a person wants to hold elected office, they're going to have to take concessions. If you are a policy maker in a regulatory agency or the government, there is no way you should be allowed to immediately transfer to the industry you previously regulated. It is far too easy for people to set up their own sweetheart deals and then immediately jump ship and capitalize on them.

      There is no reason why people working in regulatory roles shouldn't have to make sacrifices. In private industry it happens all the time, there are non-compete clauses for a reason. Why is it such a stretch to expect the same thing in public/private career changes?

  3. Sign it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (Posting AC from work)

    Show me a Canadian version of it and I'll sign! Imagine a world in which people would be banned from having access to a telephone. Seems pretty insane, right? Well, the internet is now in the same realm as phone access - it is a vital means of communication. Banning access to it is unacceptable. Sign it.

  4. NOOOOOO! by Bardwick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No more rights!!! This is a dangerous precedent!!! We already have the right to internet access, don't you people understand???? We have the right to EVERYTHING that is not illegal. The only power the govt has is to REMOVE certain rights (which i agree with). If we run down this road of "We, the GOVERNMENT" did not "grant" the right to internet access, the whole thing falls down. Things like this scare the shit out of me. Every single law that is passed has one thing in common, it limits your rights (which, again, is a good thing, felons with guns, etc..).

  5. duh by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Funny

    how do you tell your robot helicopter which truck to land on if you don't have access to the internet?

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  6. Yes. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is an inalienable right.

    Consider what would be like if someone attempted to pass a law that says people should not talk with loud voices in public spaces. Or, people should not talk in groups bigger than 2. that would basically totally neutralize your right to free speech as you used it through your own, inalienable voice. it would basically alienate your right to speak, with your inalienable throat. this would totally end free speech back in ages where there wasnt technology like newspapers, tv, internet.

    Or, consider a law that banned anyone from printing and publishing anything without consent from king's council. that would basically end free speech circa 1774. no pamphlet, or newspaper would be published that king didnt allow. notice, how pamphlets, newspapers had had taken over your sole, single throat as the medium free speech was conducted back at that time.

    Fast forward to today. This isnt no different. internet is the medium that free speech is conducted - but actually more - its the best avenue for free speech. you restrict it, and you restrict free speech. It has taken over throat, newspapers/print medium and tv as the vehicle of free speech. Notice that i skipped the radio and tv era. that is because there has never been free speech in that era, due to the license/financial requirements they had.

    internet is now our throats. cutting people off from internet, is like cutting their throats so there wont be free speech.

    --
    Read radical news here
  7. And So If Your Connection Is Down... by blcamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does that mean the staff of your ISP has to be hauled into The Hague and charged with Crimes Against Humanity, for denying you of your "human rights"?

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
  8. Good luck with that. by grahamd0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    By signing this petition, you are demanding the Obama Administration to add an amendment to the Constitution that limits the power of the Government from being able to censor the Internet.

    Even if someone somehow got the impression that the Obama administration did not fully support the pro-copyright laws mentioned in the petition, the president cannot simply "add an amendment" to the constitution. The process by which amendments are added to the constitution is specified in Article V. Here it is so you don't have to bother looking it up:

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    Note that the president has no official role in the process.

    Secondly: sorry folks, Obama is not your guy in this one, even if he could amend the constitution. Frankly, I'd very surprised to see anti-corporate-copyright opinion taken seriously by any presidential administration in my lifetime. You don't get to be in that position by making an enemy of Big Media.

  9. And why do these morons think this isn't by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Funny

    already covered by:

    """
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    """

    And if it's "they ignore that" then why do they think some new amendment wouldn't be ignored in exactly the same way?

  10. Aleady in First Am, but Constitution already dead by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    The right to assemble applies to cyberspace, not just meatspace. Furthermore, the right to freedom of press is meaningless without the right to assemble to give the person your leaflet. Even though the document is over 200 years old, already it made first-class acknowledgement of technology: the printing press, a major technological leap from the fifteenth century. The Constitution is technology-aware. The Internet is the new press, and to prevent publication on it or to prevent receiving publications from it is unconsitutional.

    Of course, this is meaningless with a Constitution that is not just routinely ignored, but at this point completely dead. Although the Constitution has been dying for the past century, the watershed moment for me came last month when a U.S. judge nullified the War Powers Act and put the capacity for declaration of war completely in the Executive Branch. Worse than the actual court decision, is that no one noticed or cared.

  11. Re:A REALLY bad idea by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh Pooh. The right to free speech doesn't make others pay for the pamphlets you print. The right of free speech also doesn't give you the right to solicit prostitutes or send out offers for illegal drugs in the mail. The right to bear arms doesn't give you the right to shoot people.

    This is how internet access should be approached.

    Congress shall make no law prohibiting the access of any person to the internet.

    See?

  12. Re:US is slow by bsane · · Score: 3

    Correct, but the point of this is preventing Congress from ever taking them away. Something I wouldn't have thought we needed 10 years ago, but as the years go by they sure seem awfully excited to limit or prevent access.

  13. Re:Aleady in First Am, but Constitution already de by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Of course, this is meaningless with a Constitution that is not just routinely ignored, but at this point completely dead. Although the Constitution has been dying for the past century, the watershed moment for me came last month when a U.S. judge nullified the War Powers Act and put the capacity for declaration of war completely in the Executive Branch. Worse than the actual court decision, is that no one noticed or cared.

    Except, per your reference, the judge did none of that. He simply stated the lawmakers bringing suit had no standing to do so; they did it as private citizens. The case was not a test of Constitutional powers (which would go to the supremes) but yet another simple case of individuals using the courts to further their agenda.

    While the question of what rights does the President have to send troops, in his role of CiC and as a furtherance of his diplomatic powers, and what powers does Congress have to limit such actions is interesting; this was not a test case for that.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  14. Not by gr8_phk · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're an idiot. ... The US constitution was important because it put YOUR RIGHTS in simple English on a sheet of paper.

    Nope. The constitution doesn't say much directly about your rights. It says what the government can and can not do. An example would be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While it does indicate the people have a right, the purpose is to limit what the government can do. AFAIK it is impossible for a citizen or business to violate the constitution - that's why bars can have "ladies night" and not be charges with discrimination. Your right to discriminate is not spelled out in the constitution, only the governments requirement NOT to discriminate.

    IMHO the internet should not be mentioned explicitly. At most, the first amendment might be extended to include electronic communications. Plain and simple language is important, and specifics should be avoided. In fact, speech and things should not be taken as literal "speaking", but communication - in that case, the internet is already covered.

    1. Re:Not by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IMHO the internet should not be mentioned explicitly. At most, the first amendment might be extended to include electronic communications. Plain and simple language is important, and specifics should be avoided.

      Yes, and one of the specifics to be avoided is the term "electronic". This would, for instance, tell the lawyers (and the Supreme Court) that optical fiber isn't covered, since it used photons rather than electrons.

      More generally, we should probably tackle the growing problem that, whenever a computer gets involved in any activity, all legal precedent is discarded, and all legal rights must be re-established from scratch. Thus, we see all sorts of limitations of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, etc., because we're doing those activities online rather than in the "real world", and the online world exists primarily inside computers (and their comm links). So people don't see the communications as "speech" or publishing or assembling together, or whatever; they see the communications as electronic and computerized. The US Constitution doesn't mention computers (or electronics or photonics or tachyonics or whatever follows), so the people in power don't think that the US Constitution applies.

      What we need is an Amendment that specifically states that our "free" activities can't be limited by the government regardless of the equipment that we use to carry them out. We need to find a way to prevent them from cancelling all the freedoms whenever a new technology comes along that improves our ability to carry out the protected activities. And we need a phrasing that covers new technologies in such a way that the more authoritarian members of the Supreme Court will understand that the freedoms still apply.

      (And I refuse to call them "conservatives". An actual conservative would want to preserve our historic freedoms, regardless of whatever newfangled gadgetry we're using to exercise them. These people are "authoritarians", because they support those in positions of authority who want to limit our rights whenever they can think up a new excuse to do so.)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  15. Definitely an inalienable right by FridayBob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the one hand we have a society that is making it increasingly difficult for people to function normally (buy things, pay bills, find government information, etc.) without access to the Internet. On the other we have corporations that 1.) are trying to criminalize whatever we do on the Internet as much as they can in order to increase their profit margins, and 2.) have way too much money and influence on our governments, meaning that they will attempt endlessly to push their agendas until they succeed. A Constitutional amendment would be a good way to put a stop to their attempts once and for all.

    Okay, so what about the really bad guys out their, distributing spam, viruses, kiddy-porn -- wouldn't they then also have an inalienable right to Internet access? Well, yes, but those people can also be fined and/or incarcerated.

  16. Amendments 9 and 10 by mangu · · Score: 3, Informative

    The word "internet" does not appear even once in the US Constitution. ... As such Congress is perfectly able legislate restrictions on internet use

    Ahem... wrong!

    Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    If it's not in the Constitution, Congress cannot make any laws about it. AFAIK, that's why abortion is legal in the USA, because it's not mentioned in the Constitution.