Slashdot Mirror
Republican Platform To Include Internet Freedom Plank
First time accepted submitter jay.madison writes "The new Republican Party platform includes language which promises action to promote freedom on the Internet. The move is being driven by Rand Paul's libertarian wing of the party. The text, which is still in draft form, says Republicans will work to guarantee that 'individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties,' and that 'personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach.' Republicans would resist moves toward international governance of the Internet, and seek to 'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.' The platform is due to be adopted at the Republican National Convention next week."
They'll spend most of the language attacking the evils of government data collection and storage, to the point where they only mention private actors off-hand.
They might even just say the contractors aren't responsible for government abuses of it simply because they've been paid.
Oh wait, they're already seeking to remove regulatory barriers. You know, the ones that keep companies from screwing their customers.
I'm sure they're really looking out for our freedom.
They also claim they are going to make the Internet Family Friendly, ban internet gambling, require ISP's to monitor their users for sexual deviancy, and require laws against pornography and obscenity to be vigorously enforced. You can't have it both ways but that is what this article is claiming.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Both the US parties (Dem and Rep) need major schisms to break their stronghold, and thus usher in change, may be accompanied by a more democratic electoral system then FPTP.
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
You can't have internet freedom without net neutrality.
You can't have internet freedom with 1-2 companies having a monopoly on internet access.
You can't create freedom by restricting the power of only some of those who would deny you freedom.
And "remove regulatory barriers" means ending any concept of 'net neutrality. Them republicans don't cotton to people telling their corporations what to do. Can't stand in the way of excessive corporate profits, oh no.
Oh wait, they're already seeking to remove regulatory barriers. You know, the ones that keep companies from screwing their customers.
It's worth remembering here that customers should be working to avoid getting screwed. Say like using competitors who don't screw them? Classic examples are the huge banks with the ridiculous fees.
Republican internet freedom is freedom for large corporations to do what ever they want, with the citizens getting the shaft. You can forget net neutrality out of them.
"If you elect us, we will get rid of net neutrality so fast it'll make your head spin."
You do realize placing restrictions on what the government can't do, is part of that "not trusting government" thing, right?
Or by having legal protections against that screwing, not to mention mechanisms that lead to competition not collaboration.
See the banks aren't struggling against each other. Thery're working together to get what they wasn't from the government. All in the name of freedom and liberty.
This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to get rid of net neutrality laws. "Remove government regulation" indeed!
No net neutrality is what this means:
" 'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.' "
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Republicans will work to guarantee that 'individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties,'
No attempt will be made to ensure you are able to exercise those rights; the Republicans will do nothing to altar any terms of use you come across on the internet, which universally demand you waive those "rights."
'personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach.'
Remember the speaker. Replace "personal data" with "Swiss bank statements" and "government overreach" with "the IRS."
'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.'
Recall the Republican definition of "regulation." They could have simply said "remove regulations" and left it at that. Contrast this statement to the first statement above; a regulation ensuring an individual can control their personal information would "stifle innovation" from Facebook, et al.
It ain't regulation that's letting AT&T charge more for FaceTime.
My thoughts exactly. I would be more intersted in a plank that promised net neutrality rather than protecting users data.
The remainder of the Repbulican plank reads like something from the 1800's.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/what-the-gop-platform-represents.html
Vaguely promising to protect your personal data, while including language that puts the police state in your bedroom isn't exactly what I would call a fair trade.
I don't believe network neutrality is a Good Thing, because I recognize that most people's definition amounts to price fixing of bandwidth
You /know/ that net neutrality has nothing to do with bandwidth. Carriers cannot discriminate on content, source and destination. What is so difficult to explain. There's nothing about bandwidth in there.
And the public has a moral right to this, since the government paid for most of the infrastructure anyway, in huge corporate giveaways.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
But government is involved in marriage. It has been since the days when common law ruled. Marriage affects taxation, shared finances, inheritence, child custody, immigration, all manner of things. All of which require the government recognise marriages in some way, which in turn unavoidably means the government must have some standard for what constitutes a legal marriage and what does not.
A nice ideal, but it runs into economic issues. All that infrastructure is expensive. Fiber to bury and routers to power. Administering it needs highly skilled workers who need paying. There are really only two options for public-access networking over a large geographic area: Private commercial interests or a tax-funded government department. Profit or power. The only way this is going to change would be the introduction of some form of revolutionary new networking technology.
> Republicantards
Yes, and the "Demoncrats" are all socialists who want to compromise American sovereignty and reduce us to a third world nation. Right?
Dood, BOTH parties are bought and paid for. Each may be owned by a different set of crooks, but at the end of the day, they're P0wned.
Look at each candidate. Forget the party. The best time to do this is during the primaries, but it's too late for that now. You'll just have to hold your nose and vote for the least-offensive candidate. But if you're a believer that EITHER party has your best interests at heart across the board, you're deluding yourself.
If the American people would stop following party lines, and (most importantly) stop treating each election like a popularity contest, there might be some real change.
When I see Karl Rove or Mitch McConnell, I change the channel or click to a different Web page. They both turn my stomach. But so do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is especially endearing because she is obviously as thick as two short planks. (Not that she's alone in that distinction by any means.) I have a salt shaker in my kitchen with a higher IQ.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
You are assuming a perfect market of a wide availability of choices of middle size playing fairly. The reality is an oligopoly that suppresses competition from small players and squeezes customers for all they are worth. You can't use the fundamentals of capitalism to defend the practices of an oligopoly, please wake up.
And no, the government is not to blame for this, this is the natural state of affairs of an unregulated market. Yes, the government is corrupted to serve the oligopoly's interests, but to say the answer to that is to remove the government is to reward the disease for making the patient sick, removing all barriers to complete abuse of the customer.
Why do so many fools cling to the myth of the clean unregulated market? An unregulated market naturally gravitates to an oligopoly that colludes and
1. Squeezes smaller players
2. Abuses the customer
3. Corrupts the government
That is the natural state of the market. Wake up! The only effective remedy is a strong government with effective regulation. Cure your government of its corporate infection, its the only thing on your side. Really!
So many blind propagandized putzes.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The restrictions on water are on pure quantity - not on what you do with a given liter of water. You can brush your teeth or wash your face. No restrictions. No water company will say "Oh, this water filter belongs to xyz company so you can't use it with my supply". The power company will not say "You can't run abc toaster brand with my electricity supply".
And that's the fundamental difference.
This is a bad example; plenty of municipalities have water regulations during summers or droughts.
A - those are extreme, non-everyday cases, bordering on natural disaster conditions.
B - such regulations are there solely for the reason of "providing equal service to everyone". Not to ensure greater profit or for the sake of control.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Laws can't make legal actions retroactively illegal. They can make illegal actions retroactively legal. Classic example are the numerous immigration amnesties passed over the years.
Now, you might be right about the wrongness of making illegal actions retroactively legal, but that's not something built into the US system. You would need an amendment for that.
It is isnt violating religious freedom to force employers to pay for contraceptives any more than it violates religious freedoms to ban human sacrifice.
Yes, it is. One bans an action that infringes on others basic rights. The other forces an individual to do something for another which is not related to any constitutional rights.
Of course, you wouldn't want people to not be able to have as much consequence-less sex as they want, they might actually get interested in politics or something if that happened (see: Brave New World .)
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
And as soon as total market transparency as well as instant access to information (AND the ability to understand it flawlessly) is a reality, I will instantly agree with you.
The problem is that the information situation is highly asymmetric and putting the customer at a severe disadvantage. Take your average contract with a bank. That contract put under your nose has most certainly been drafted and approved by a lawyer that specializes in finance laws and it is certainly worded in the way that is most favorable for the bank. You, as the average bank customer, are neither a lawyer nor a finance specialist. You might not understand every word in the contract and every abbreviation used, despite them being completely usual and well known in the finance world. For reference, take IT and its various terms.
Ask the banker what they mean? Oh sure, and they'll explain it to you in the most colorful words followed by "oh, but that never happens" or "that's just a legalese phrase without any real meaning". Good luck trying to prove you've been tricked.
Not signing a contract you don't understand you say? In this time and age, be happy if there's a bank that will lend you money altogether. People pretty much HAVE to sign whatever is shoved under their nose.
And for these asymmetries, the government has to step in to protect the consumer. One reason for its existence is actually to allow people to play on a level playing field.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My thoughts exactly. I would be more intersted in a plank that promised net neutrality rather than protecting users data.
If that's what you want, don't expect it to come from Ron/Rand Paul. They consider "Net Neutrality" to be "internet collectivism. They don't want the government to have any part in regulating the internet.
What interests me most about their paper is how much they seem to rely on appeal to authority. They quote Reagan, and since he said it, it must be true. They quote Von Mises as an authority not to be doubted. They give authorities, not reasons, to back up their opinions. (yes, they do give some reasons too, but not enough to really establish their case).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This may work in some cases, but not really for internet access in the US.
Both wired and wireless connections have a huge barrier to entry [both financially and regulatory]. And the incumbents know you don't have a real choice.
You can tell, because the few places that have [or could have] real competition, they actively fight against it [by legislating against it, suing to prevent/delay it, dropping prices locally & temporarily to kill it].
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!