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resist moves toward international governance of the Internet, and seek to 'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile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."

Comments

Look at ninety percent of the effort towards gov't

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not so fast

[bl968]

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.

Re:Not so fast

[DiamondGeezer]

Seems legit to me. After all it wasn't the Republicans who missed the 9/11 threat, passed the Patriot Act, created the Dept of Homeland Security, created an enormous deficit, greatly increased the size of Government and sleepwalked the economy into the greatest clusterfuck since the 1930s...that was obviously the Democrats.

Not.

Re:Not so fast

[DiamondGeezer]

"Bill Clinton passed on Bin Laden after the first trade center attacks."

No he didn't. In 1996 Clinton authorized the use of a Cruise missile aimed at Bin Laden's satellite phone signal. Clinton was then lambasted for wasting money by the Republican Congress, especially Trent Lott (remember him?). And it was GWB just a year after 9/11 who said that he didn't know where bin Laden was and wasn't interested. It was Obama who finished the job.

"Obama re-signed the Patriot Act and the NDAA" - that doesn't absolve the Republicans any.

"Obama has deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB" - that doesn't absolve the Republicans any either.

"The 2008 economic decline was from......the housing bust." - and the housing bust was caused by the Housing Boom caused by the securitization of mortgages on GWB's watch while the Glass-Siegel act was gutted into uselessness

There is a lot of blame for both parties, but to absolve the Republicans and just blame the Democrats is just pathetic. And twisting history to fit your political beliefs is beneath contempt.

Re:Not so fast

[tmosley]

Girls, girls, you're both stupid and ugly.

Re:Not so fast

[0xdeadbeef]

Government mandating home loans be provided to people who couldn't pay them back.

I hate those poor people who busted into Manhattan boardrooms, put guns to the heads of financial services CEOs and demanded they engage in real estate speculation and sell investment products that hid and lied about risks. It really is all their fault.

Internet Freedom

[theedgeofoblivious]

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.

Re:Internet Freedom

[heypete]

Yes, you can have freedom without net neutrality. We've had net freedom since forever, and no-one started talking about net neutrality until a couple of years ago.

Because net neutrality was the de facto standard for the internet up until a few years ago when certain providers thought they could make more money by penalizing their competitors (e.g. Comcast imposing bandwidth caps, but not counting their own streaming video service [ala Netflix] towards that cap).

Translation

[Hardhead_7]

remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition

"If you elect us, we will get rid of net neutrality so fast it'll make your head spin."

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go

[bhagwad]

This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to get rid of net neutrality laws. "Remove government regulation" indeed!

Decoding the code speak

[goombah99]

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.' "

Re:Decoding the code speak

[WaywardGeek]

By "removing regulatory barriers", they mean Verizon can stop suing the FCC because the GOP plans to give Verizon what they want: the right to censor the internet in any way they choose, which Verizon considers a matter of corporate free speech.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Look at ninety percent of the effort towards go

[davester666]

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].