Slashdot Mirror


Was Your Name Stolen To Support Killing Net Neutrality? (dslreports.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from DSLReports: New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has launched a new tool for users interested in knowing whether their identity was stolen and used to fraudulently support the FCC's attack on popular net neutrality rules. The NY AG's office announced earlier this month that it was investigating identity theft and comment fraud during the FCC's public comment period. Researchers have noted repeatedly how "someone" used a bot to fill the comment proceeding with bogus support for the FCC plan, with many of the names being those of folks who'd never heard of net neutrality -- or were even dead. The new AG tool streamlines the act of searching the FCC proceeding for comments filed falsely in your name, and lets you contribute your findings to the AG's ongoing investigation into identity theft.

"Such conduct likely violates state law -- yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed," noted Schneiderman. "We reached out for assistance to multiple top FCC officials, including you, three successive acting FCC General Counsels, and the FCC's Inspector General. We offered to keep the requested records confidential, as we had done when my office and the FCC shared information and documents as part of past investigative work." "Yet we have received no substantive response to our investigative requests," stated the AG. "None." As such, the AG is taking its fight to the public itself.

128 comments

  1. New Republicanism - fraud, denials, prison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drain the swamp and FILL THE FEDERAL PENITENTIARY. These traitors have to go.

    Amen.

  2. I checked and by OffTheLip · · Score: 1

    my name was used but it was the other guy with the same name. I think he is legit, we just share the same name.

    1. Re:I checked and by Sebby · · Score: 1

      Did both of you not provide an address?

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    2. Re:I checked and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same thing... damn you person with the same name in Utah.

    3. Re:I checked and by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I also found my name but a completely different state. I suspect it's someone with the same name

    4. Re:I checked and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what is crazy... my email address is FirstnameLastname@gmail.com. Bunch of assholes use my email address to sign up for all sorts of shit. Now I have a lot of their addresses

    5. Re:I checked and by Dale512 · · Score: 2

      I was not on the list but my mother was. Name, address, the works. She doesn't even know what NN is.

    6. Re:I checked and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing, but he's for net neutrality.

    7. Re:I checked and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure John Smith, Jane Doe, etc. at 123 Fake St, 987 Fuck Yerself Ave, etc. are terrified of that. Consider calling them at 800-555-1234 to reassure them.

      I don't want to victim blame, cause that's next to Nazism these days, but surely you knew this was a possibility when you selected that email address?

    8. Re:I checked and by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
      There are all kinds of people using my name. I never knew there were so many near by. The ones with pro net neutrality were organized, thoughtful, and polite. The ones against, without a full address, were spamming the filings database with an obvious cut and paste of the exact same message over and over and over and....

      Idiots. Well, what can I say. Someone *is* making *me* look like a total idiot. Well, for anyone that knows my name and that I live in this zipcode.

  3. Checking by Translation+Error · · Score: 4, Funny

    *click*
    Oh, my god--a hit! *click*
    It has my actual address! I can't believe someone used my name to post a comment ... in favor of net neutrality? Oh... right. Yeah, that was me. Never mind.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    1. Re:Checking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After your search, how did you like that "&sort=date_disseminated,DESC" at the end of the URL? You tried stuff, didn't ya.

    2. Re:Checking by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      I too was pleased to see that it found my comment. At least we know it works.

    3. Re:Checking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. Too bad we can't bump it up.

    4. Re:Checking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw crap, my name's in there, too. Oh, wait, it's just some idiot in California who happens to have the same name. At least it's not the knuckle-dragging mouth-breather in Florida who keeps signing me up for spam.

    5. Re:Checking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're stupid?

      Because what we're arguing about is only named net neutrality.

      But that's just a nice name for 'lets hand control over the internet to the fcc because business is SPECIAL when its on the internet'.

  4. Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by Sebby · · Score: 1

    If they're choosing to be complicit in having your name used without your consent, then they're complicit to a crime. If everyone affected sues the FCC, they'll have a fun time dealing with the individual court cases across all the different states!

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    1. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Trump would probably just pardon them.

    2. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by Sebby · · Score: 1

      As was recently indicated (in Trump's first/last pardon), the act of the pardon implies (and even acknowledges) guilt, which means there's even more potential for suits if they get pardoned (likely at other state levels - I don't know the details of the possibilities).

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    3. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sue the President for embarrassing America, according to the Pinkie Protocol, Joyce DeWitt is supposed to take over.

    4. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by Sebby · · Score: 1

      That'd be SWEET!

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    5. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, from prison?

    6. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commutes-bulk-of-chelsea-mannings-sentence.html?_r=0

    7. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      I'm imagining Ajit Pai in a prison cell, doing up to 7 years for identity theft. Wouldn't that be great?

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    8. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      No, that means he'd be out in 4 years.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay -- how about 7 years per count, to be served consecutively?

    10. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      4 years of no Ajit Pai in the media or doing what he does to the internet would still be bliss. It'd also put a damper on his successors' ambitions if he's languishing in a US prison. But yeah, 7 years per count would be even better :)

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    11. Re:Sue the FCC for identity theft/fraud by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Trump can pardon criminals who violated Federal law. He can, within limits, have the Department of Justice refuse to investigate something. He can't pardon offenses against state law (that's usually the state governor's prerogative). He can't dismiss civil lawsuits. If there's ground to file civil lawsuits against the FCC or anyone in it, they would go ahead despite what Trump could do.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. AND... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They apparently had no intent of reading any of them for or against any way :/

    Only if you found a legal arguement that might stop them, they decided long ago

  6. What the actual crap by EnigmaticSource · · Score: 2

    Yep, got me here too; even though I have a previous accepted, disseminated comment supporting the Title II restrictions. Funny though how the duplicate got nearly everything right, except where I actually live, and that I might actually not be braindead.

    I shouldn't say I'm surprised, I'm not, just oh, oh so jaded.

    --
    The Geek in Black
    I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
    1. Re:What the actual crap by werepants · · Score: 1

      I got a hit - it just so happens that the comment is pro net neutrality, which I agree with. I suppose there are spambots on both sides of the fight. It could also be someone with the same name, though, so unless you've got a tremendously unique name, I'm not sure how you prove that the comment is fabricated.

    2. Re:What the actual crap by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      If it is a different address it is just a different person. There are probably 10s of thousands of people with your name.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:What the actual crap by EnigmaticSource · · Score: 1

      Well, in my case at least the first comment (the one I made) actually has the proper information, and is diametrically opposed to the fake one; so at least in my case it's easy to prove that at least 1 is fake.

      If it'd remove the stain from my name, I'd gladly see both of them go away (as my proper name is well, unique... can't blame the stupid on someone else if you're the only person on the planet with that name.)

      --
      The Geek in Black
      I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
    4. Re:What the actual crap by EnigmaticSource · · Score: 1

      Nope, just the one. It's disappointing I know, but I'm the only one. (Made sure my kids have proper sounding, but globally unique names as well [at time of birth, YMMV, etc.])

      --
      The Geek in Black
      I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
    5. Re:What the actual crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake comments can be detected by a NLP tool. There was an article about that. I think we can find the fakes easily.

    6. Re:What the actual crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there middle name DROP TABLES ?

    7. Re:What the actual crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some idiot spammed a comment box with fake names, but I don't see why it matters so much--this isn't a vote.

      The real problem is that the Republicans sold us out to lobbyists on this one. I'd focus more on that being a stupid decision that leaves us at the mercy of predatory monopolies than who stuffed what in a public comment box that they ignored anyhow.

    8. Re:What the actual crap by EnigmaticSource · · Score: 2

      Naw, and California's naming conventions (and official paperwork) put a stop to that; It's a shame really Little double-dash, wildcard and backtick would have it so much easier if they didn't have to write their names out in longhand.

      --
      The Geek in Black
      I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
    9. Re: What the actual crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the real problem is that were unwilling to see that the previous administration did the same thing. This thing you call net neutrality. It's not what you think it is. It,wasn't neutral, it had loopholes specifically shaped for billion dollar companies, and it wasn't a law, just imperial fiat. Obamas legacy will be opening the door for trumps executive actions.

    10. Re: What the actual crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, whatever that gibberish meant, I agree!

    11. Re:What the actual crap by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I suppose there are spambots on both sides of the fight.

      While using the tool to look for comments from me, I was shown pages and pages and pages of comments from the same guy with the same address with the same comment. Probably a couple hundred or more. All in favor of net neutrality.

      So yes, the spambots were running on both sides. What do you expect for an issue that has to do with computers using a forum that has no authentication at all? Does the FCC even have a captcha on the submission system?

  7. Are they ALL under investigation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there ANYONE in the Trump administration, or being appointed by Trump, that is NOT under investigation for some thing or another ?

    Not surprising, considering Trump's "illustrious" business carreer and shady, if not downright criminal, business practices.

    And now,as president, evidence keeps piling up that his a fucking traitor who colluded with a foreign nation. How could we expect anyone even remotly connected to him to show even a hint of morality, ethics, and plain old basic human decency.

    Tell me, Trump supporters, how much longer are you going to try to polish that turd ? Or are you going to again do what you always do: Close your eyes, cover your ears, and repeat time and time again your religious mantra: Fake news ! Fake news ! Fake news !

    1. Re:Are they ALL under investigation ? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is there ANYONE in the Trump administration, or being appointed by Trump, that is NOT under investigation for some thing or another?

      Being investigated doesn't mean squat - other than that somebody in power feels like seeing if they can find anything that can be used to cause you trouble.

      Been there. Had that done to me. (Try protesting the military draft while doing classified research some time.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:Are they ALL under investigation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Being investigated doesn't mean squat" - You've never been investigated. Certainly not by a special appointed counsel or grand jury. Lol, moron keep talking.

    3. Re:Are they ALL under investigation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being investigated doesn't mean squat

      No, but there have now been several guilty pleas for lying to the FBI, the most recent of which pretty much suggests he lied about doing an illegal thing which he did at the request of Trump's son in law.

      The reality is, the investigations to the illegal things Trump and his team of crooks and idiots did are starting to yield actual people making guilty pleas to real, actual crimes.

      Please, don't pretend this is fake news. This is evidence of malfeasance within his campaign, and once in office.

    4. Re:Are they ALL under investigation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is evidence of malfeasance within his campaign, and once in office.

      Admitted to lying about two different, not related issues/events... do keep up.

  8. Stupid yanks should get off the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yanks are on average the stupidest users on the internet. (The flyover states drag it way down).
    I hope they lose their "net neutrality", and end up confined to crappy facebook-only internet packages.

    1. Re:Stupid yanks should get off the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's rather ironic that it was "the yanks" who invented it.

      (I do agree that the rubes and hicks in the flyover states are dragging the average IQ down.)

    2. Re:Stupid yanks should get off the internet by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      it's okay, give it a few decades and you'll be under sharia law my european friend.

    3. Re:Stupid yanks should get off the internet by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Frankly these idiots currently in power are making Sharia Law or Any-Other-Type-of-Law sound better and better every week.

    4. Re: Stupid yanks should get off the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From someone in a "flyover state": Fuck your own face.

      Generalizing about 40+ million people is as stupid and ignorant as it gets. And that's what you just did.

  9. OMG, someone stole my name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I left it in the parking lot, running, while I ran into the store to buy milk. When I came back out it was gone.

  10. Don't be naive ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed

    Do you really think the crooked industry shills running the FCC don't know this happened? Do you think they don't know it was the ISPs themselves or someone hired by them who did this?

    The entire fucking FCC is pretty much on the payroll of the large ISPs/cable companies, was on the payroll of the large ISPs/cable companies, or will return to being on the payroll of the large ISPs/cable companies.

    This entire administration is made up of rich assholes who are doing nothing but giving the wealthy and the corporations carte blanche to fuck us over.

    Someone should slap some contempt of court charges on the heads of the FCC and force them to hand it over.

    Make no mistake about it, the FCC is refusing to participate because they know the comments are fake, they just don't care because that is the outcome which was paid for.

    America has become an oligarchy, it's time to realize that. This administration is full of crooks and thieves who don't know or care what the laws are.

    1. Re:Don't be naive ... by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Make no mistake about it, the FCC is refusing to participate because they know the comments are fake, they just don't care because that is the outcome which was paid for.

      Sorry, but you're the naive one: the comments are not a popular vote. They did not produce any outcome.

    2. Re:Don't be naive ... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're the naive one: the comments are not a popular vote. They did not produce any outcome.

      Of course they did; everything has an outcome. They didn't produce a decision, for the reasons you mentioned, but the outcome they produced was to give the anti-net neutrality people the illusion of having popular support for their plans.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:Don't be naive ... by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      but the outcome they produced was to give the anti-net neutrality people the illusion of having popular support for their plans.

      I could buy that if there was the first glimmer of anyone keeping score on comment volume other than the the bitter, disgruntled NetNeut fanbase. Are you aware of any source at all that said anything close to "yay -- we got the most votes -- we win"?

  11. It changes nothing by Merk42 · · Score: 1

    FCC will just claim that because of spam, they didn't take any comments into consideration.

    1. Re:It changes nothing by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 0

      It changes nothing because the comments aren't a popular vote.

      The millions of cut-and-paste submissions that came in on both sides were completely worthless to the rulemaking process, as well as a royal pain to sort through.

    2. Re:It changes nothing by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Reflexively mod me down all you want, rabid NetNeut mob -- it will still be true that comments are not a popular vote.

  12. WTF. My name is on there as anti-net-neutrality. by mbourgon · · Score: 1

    Motherfsckers.

    Well, this could be a fun Slashdot poll.

    Anybody know how I object to this, besides filling out the NY form?

    --
    "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
  13. OK, what gives america with the amount of stink... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that this has kicked up, it should be pretty much obvious to the powers that be (outside and inside the FCC) that people want net neutrality, aren't in favour of 'paid speed lanes' and want a kind of level playing field

    Or is politics literally that shit that your public servants are no longer public servants, but business servants?

    (UK user here, so, ignorant/whatever I suppose, but it seems nuts!)

  14. Mine was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just checked, and surprisingly sometime in early August, some douche submitted a fraudulent one on my behalf. I'm contacting my local state attorney general.

  15. Re:OK, what gives america with the amount of stink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supreme Leader Lord Trump has said it's bad, therefore it is bad. MAGA

  16. Pretty much Yes it was by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    But not the name you're seeing here.

    And the comments are so botty.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  17. Found my real comment and a fake by Leptolinae · · Score: 1

    I'm glad I saw this. Found both my real comment (pro NN) at my home address and that really common fake anti title II comment using my work address.

    The fake was submitted in august. Sometime in the last 3-6 months I started getting spam phone calls to my work, using my name. Makes me wonder if they are related.

    I filled out the AG's complaint page for whatever that is worth, even though I don't live in NY

    1. Re:Found my real comment and a fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh just admit you are anti net neutrality and posted both to cover it.

    2. Re:Found my real comment and a fake by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      Even if you don't live in NY I think it will still be useful information for their case.

  18. This is absurd by FlamingGuts · · Score: 2

    My 90 year old grandparents are both on this list... They don't even own a computer, smart phones, or have an internet connection, but apparently they have very strong opinions about the internet's future!

    1. Re:This is absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do their opinions sound like this:

      Before leaving office, the Obama Administration rammed through a massive scheme that gave the federal government broad regulatory control over the internet. That misguided policy decision is threatening innovation and hurting broadband investment in one of the largest and most important sectors of the U.S. economy. I support the Federal Communications CommissionÍs decision to roll back Title II and allow for free market principles to guide our digital economy.

      The current FCC regulatory scheme known as "Title II" represents an unprecedented increase in government control over the internet. Such over-regulation is hurting our economy and suffocating innovation. I support Chairman Pai's plan to return to a commonsense regulatory framework that allows for the internet to grow without useless government interference. The internet has flourished for decades without the heavy hand of government over-regulation. ItÕs time we return to what works.

  19. Anyone else concerned over the address being clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else concerned that his tool clearly lists out peoples names and addresses?

    A simple facebook lookup with some of these anti-net neutrality posts on the government website shows me exactly who these people are and where they live, plus all the crap FB shows users...

    Privacy nightmare anyone?

  20. Fake Comment! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone stole my identity and here is what they posted:

    "The Obama-era FCC regulations known as "Title II" enable the federal government to exert an extraordinary and unnecessary amount of regulatory control over the internet. This bureaucratic overreach impedes innovation, stifles investment and continues to create economic uncertainty for one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy. I support Chairman Pai's proposal to roll back Title II and restore the sensible regulatory framework that enjoyed broad bipartisan consensus and enabled the internet to thrive for more than two decades. I strongly urge all of the FCC Commissioners to support the Chairman's proposal to repeal the harmful Title II internet takeover."

    Such bullshit!

    1. Re:Fake Comment! by EnigmaticSource · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much word-for-word what they posted under my name as well. Honestly, the whole ordeal tempts me to switch out this nice white hat I wear for a black one. That and a nice helping of dox pertaining to the guys who posted it would really ease my pain.

      At least Flynn isn't stuck in the game anymore, so that's my bright spot for the day.

      --
      The Geek in Black
      I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
    2. Re: Fake Comment! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same comment appeared under my name, from a PO box in Yosimite National Park. There were 4 comments over 2 months saying the same thing with slightly different phrasing. And 2 more from actual street addresses in Vermont and Utah. All identical in basic content. "Save the free internet by stopping liberals from regulating ISPs."

      What a mess.

      Maybe It's time for a citizen comment ID. Like a voter registration but usable across federal agencies to verify unique submissions and citizenship.

  21. I have a pretty common name by theurge14 · · Score: 1

    58 hits and I can't see a way to filter out the city/state.

    1. Re:I have a pretty common name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      160 hits for me. Never realized how popular my name is. I guess I will be opening links for a while...

    2. Re:I have a pretty common name by jhecht · · Score: 1

      Two others with the same name - I think there are at least a couple dozen in the country - plus two really from me. Only one rant against net neutrality, from one of the others, and a web search confirmed such a person existed. I don't know if the silly rant was his.

  22. Yes, yes it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, yes it was. Now What? Because slashdot tells me this is not a valid comment. Because having my ID stolen apparently doesn't matter in the grant scheme of geek-ness. Thanks, thanks a lot!

  23. Gotta love politics by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2

    Eric Schneiderman, who is on record characterizing voter fraud as an "imaginary problem," has decided to beat his chest and make political hay out of the idea that people may have misappropriated identities for something that wasn't even a vote . I wish I could say I was surprised.

    1. Re:Gotta love politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By making a big deal about something for which an abundance of evidence exists, Eric Schneiderman is being hypocritical because he's not also making a big deal about something for which little to no evidence exists, and which isn't really the same kind of situation at all? Is that basically what you're saying?

    2. Re:Gotta love politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when considerable resources have been poured into finding the Republican alleged voter fraud, almost none has been found. While in this case it is known that numerous frauds were perpetrated. And you feel that this AG deserves a black eye because he deals in facts that prove your political hallucinations completely false?

  24. Holy Shit by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    There I am.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  25. Re:OK, what gives america with the amount of stink by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    That's essentially been the status quo since the Eisenhower administration =/

  26. Re:WTF. My name is on there as anti-net-neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I clicked on a few of them. I think there were maybe 2 or 3 form letters spammed across all of them. No wonder they said 'screw listening to that'. It is so manipulated you can not even tell who is who.

  27. Just reminders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you a sell out?

  28. HOLY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My name too appears in the list, NONE of my pro-NN comments though! And someone used my name and my old address I haven't lived in since 2006!

  29. Well that's certainly a shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. I'm on there. Oddly, making the case FOR net neutrality. So I'm not sure if I should be upset or thankful they wrote such a well-worded message for me.

    Still, can't believe they had me in there. Name and address.

  30. common name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone with a reasonably common first name and last name, this tool is a waste of time. Maybe it will be useful for the few people who have a unique name.

  31. Dead Voting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or were even dead
    My grandparents voted Republican their entire lives. They have voted Democrat ever since.

    1. Re: Dead Voting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! I get it!
      Do you know what is funnier, though? The "fraudulent two million votes for Hillary" of which absolutely no evidence has ever been presented! This administration is ignoring that many crimes?

  32. Re:OK, what gives america with the amount of stink by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." -- Theodore Roosevelt - An Autobiography, 1913

    I'd say its been the status quo further back than Eisenhower.

  33. Re:Anyone else concerned over the address being cl by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    Anyone else concerned that his tool clearly lists out peoples names and addresses?

    Yes, as American Airlines would say, those in favor of maintaining net neutrality would need to be reaccommodated. I don't doubt that my ISP will find a way to do so.

  34. Skimming through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found a couple that looked like {firstname} smith and Susan {lastname} why would you even accept those characters in the name field? Never mind that they both had word for word identical comments.

  35. Why use Gmail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you using Gmail to begin with? Use StartMail or ProtonMail if you care about not being ad mined.

  36. No, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a very rare last name but found relatives I never knew existed living in St. Joseph, MI using the tool.

  37. Common name... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    Proud to say my fellow namesakes all supported net neutrality.

    There was one shill that didn't, but his first is my last and vice versa... and clearly a partisan hack.

    1. Re: Common name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd, I had that too. Everyone with my name was pro NN, but everyone with name reversed was against it. None shared my address.

  38. Re: OK, what gives america with the amount of stin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mueller Ain't Going Away?

  39. Online polls are not reliable by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    doesn't matter if the feds are running it or not.

    there were bogus names FOR and AGAINST NN.

    Trying to figure out how many people support it or don't support it is not possibly by looking at the FCC's polling.

    And more importantly, does anyone really care?

    Let us say for the sake of argument that the polling were totally 100 percent accurate... would that change anyone's opinion on the matter? Nope. So why does it matter when its a dumpster fire? It doesn't.

    Its a joke.

    There is corruption on the issue everywhere. For AND against are both corrupt.

    There are arguments to do it either way for various reasons.

    The FOR campaign can point to bad behavior by monopolistic agencies that abuse consumers.

    The AGAINST campaign can point to bad behavior by monopolistic agencies that abuse consumers.

    BOTH sides accuse the other of being in the pocket of billion dollar mega corporations.

    Consider that NN and anti-NN are both right at the same time for the same reason. Consider that the corruption is bigger and thus encompasses both positions at once.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Online polls are not reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all makes more sense if we consider that you are a full of crap shill.

    2. Re:Online polls are not reliable by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Most shills are ACs... it makes it easier for one person to pretend to be lots of people.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Online polls are not reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an example... if I were a shill, I'd post this way.

      Not posting anonymously is generally not what shills do.

      Contradict me while hiding your fake name. It makes you sound more credible to double down on stupid arguments. /s

  40. For Net Neutrality by kaoshin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't care what the other hundred fake me's might have spammed, here's the deal. I and most of my friends are conservative southerners, some more hardcore than others. A group of us had a discussion today on this and I was expecting to clash with them on the issue, but surprising enough, everyone seemed to be in unanimous agreement that Ajit Pai's argument was flawed or at least that ending net neutrality was bad. Some of us also find it concerning that particular republicans who were otherwise thought to be a voice of reason are on board with abolishing net neutrality, and that leaves us kind of conflicted.

    Not sure where I heard this, but I remember a saying to the effect of... yall can do whatever you want to Americans, but don't ever get between their couch and their T.V. I kind of feel for similar reasons, railroading this could really backfire for Republicans. IMO, ending neutraility probably won't last because it would create too much of an uproar, but you can bet Republicans will have a hard time living down the mess from trying. This all doesn't make a lick of sense to me except that this guy is a crook. They need to drain this dude at the FCC with the rest of the swamp as far as I'm concerned. This whole thing stinks like a load of crap if you ask me.

    1. Re:For Net Neutrality by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      So stop voting Republican.

    2. Re:For Net Neutrality by kaoshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corruption isn't strictly a republican problem last time I checked, and voting for Hillary clearly wouldn't have served my interest in ending corruption. Chairman Pai was after all originally appointed by Obama, who was just as beholden to special interests as anybody.

    3. Re:For Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bread and Circuses; and the Internet is the Circus.

    4. Re:For Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They took our bread with the tax bill and now they're taking our circus. There will indeed be an uproar, in fact it is already beginning. Everyone is either in fear or pissed off. Just need the straw to break the camel's back at this point a and heads will fly.

    5. Re:For Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... stop voting Republican.

      That's not the problem: It's the majority of US voters willing to settle for the second-biggest arsehole in the presidential election. The US can decide that Clinton is the worst but there were better alternatives than Trump.

      ... backfire for Republicans.

      It always does: That and money in politics is why the Democrat party doesn't try to listen to the people. You'll notice the Democrat party isn't talking about themselves and the political system needing to change.

      The Democratic Party is in the worst position it's been in in my entire lifetime, I mean, going back to the 1920s. They don't control any of the branches of the Federal Government, and they're wiped out at the, you know, at the state level all over America in a sort of unprecedented way. And no, they don't intend to change course.

      And so they have, in their minds, I'm talking about the Democratic leaders of the party here, there are no lessons to be learned. There's no need for any kind of accountability. They just have to regroup and try again with the exact same thing - just try it one more time.

      All they have to do is wait for Donald Trump to screw up. I don't know for sure, but I would venture a guess that that is their plan.

      Thomas Hardy, 2017

    6. Re:For Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama had no choice to appoint a Republican, and Pai was probably who the Republicans suggested - he wasn't obviously unqualified, so...

    7. Re:For Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then stop voting democrat too!

    8. Re:For Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it must be Obama's fault not the guy who actually appointed him to head the FCC or the people that confirmed his appointment as FCC chair.

      Man that Obama was so powerful. Somehow he is still controlling thing even though poor fuhrer little fingers is trying so hard to drain the swamp. It must because Trump is White and the White man struggles so bad because of the all powerful minority.

  41. Fuck- my parents were in cahoots with the Russians by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1
    I typed in my last name and found that both my parents submitted the exact same text:

    Before leaving office, the Obama Administration rammed through a massive scheme that gave the federal government broad regulatory control over the internet. That misguided policy decision is threatening innovation and hurting broadband investment in one of the largest and most important sectors of the U.S. economy. I support the Federal Communications Commission's decision to roll back Title II and allow for free market principles to guide our digital economy.

    This is highly suspicious because these two don't agree on ANYTHING.

  42. Two relatives of mine names were stolen for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I see several of the same form letter attached to lots of other people with my surname.

    The fake bullshit posts are soooo plentiful, and all anti common carrier.

  43. I'm in there 5 times by Vektuz · · Score: 1

    for what its worth, for those interested - I got six hits. But they were for other addresses which may or may not be real.. 3 were pro-neutrality, 3 were anti-neutrality.
    The pro neutrality ones were unique and well written, in general, maybe with one or two spelling mistakes. Short, and fairly to the point.
    The anti-neutrality ones? well, here's an example of one of them. They were all like this or similar ones with words replaced. Its just a giant block of what looks to be randomly cut out of a much larger body of generated text or scraped data.

    "which reclassified broadband as a public utility | well this language here is solid, in terms of a public utility the internet is a bulletin board no dissimilar to what you would find in a coffee shop. It's a public bulletin board. It is a public utility and it was created by the public for the public and the public has done the most work on the internet and has invested the most in the internet for every unit of investment an ISP has put into the internet the public has collectively put in 1,000,000 units of investment and quite frankly the public's interests outweigh the ISP's interests in terms of clout when it comes to the internet to whit the internet was created to be a public bulletin board and ISP's need to be informed that now that the metaphor that represents the internet has been created we can inform ISP's that the internet can be closed and we CAN go to an analog internet involving notebooks, binders, folders, we can live in a city where someone sees something on a coffee shop bulletin board and then write a note in their ledger and hands it off to their local man on the street right outside and go about their day WE DO NOT NEED THE INTERNET that needs to be said, word of mouth got us to the internet, and quite frankly internet service providers can charge as much as they want to provide internet service access because they provide the access to the internet as a private enterprise and let the economy speak if i know only the lindner's in cincinnati ohio could get access to the internet because they charged what the rate should be at $1,000,000 an hour to quote unquote surf the web I in my knowledge of things would move in ways that would provide the internet to people on the ground by developing websites on a local drive computer and saving websites on a thumb drive and there may be people that think they are a monopoly but not after all of the exposure that we have been given to the internet there is not a generation genius that eats at the genius bar at apple and we grew up with this and the finest thing ISP's could do noting the classification of broadband as a public utility is to work keep working keep providing access and conduct a collection of taxes to offset the living expenses of those involved internet service providing and we can afford a free internet but it is tax supported we pay a fee once a year at tax season instead of monthly fees and everyone gets access in the united states of america and we can experience something fluid in our economy to the extent that similar to a start from nothing business you work with what you have access to for nothing including skills and tools you have acquired and ISP's and the PUBLIC want a funded free internet ( note funded free internet is new language ) and we want our business platform and then in the next session of congress we can begin discussing PUBLIC UTILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC UTILITY such as facebook and twitter"

  44. No way to contest people who don't exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have a unique last name (in the US we're *all* from the same family; there's a few German folks with our name but even that's not a lot of them). I happen to know all my relatives.

    When I searched my last name there were three hits, one was an entry for someone who doesn't exist but who shared my last name. To be more sure there I wasn't forgetting someone, I searched both Google and Ancestry and those searches essentially said the person doesn't exist.

    But according to all the verbiage on the form, the ONLY person who can object is the person named. If that person doesn't exist, who is there to speak out for them?

    (The other two were me, in favor of NN, and another I'll have to ask my uncle if he was against NN - I'm pretty positive he wasn't and isn't, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - as long as he has an opinion I'm fine with whatever that opinion is).

  45. Futurama characters too by schmookeeg · · Score: 1

    Looks like the spambots are stealing cartoon character identities also.. misspelled even. Ha. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

  46. My wife's long-dead aunt opposes net neutrality! by swillden · · Score: 1

    I found this one, with my wife's aunt's correct name and address: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

    Only problem is that she died in 2006.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  47. great way to mine names and addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it me or this is a public way to mine everyone's addresses and names? Kinda scary I can find all the fcc posts with just a simple search. Maybe I should write to my relatives more often.

  48. Needs more search functionality by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    My name is extremely common. There are 60 results, looking at the comments it actually has the State and City though. But, there is most certainly something strange going on here...MANY of these comments say exactly the same thing! Both "sides" are copy n pasting.

  49. Re:WTF. My name is on there as anti-net-neutrality by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    His home address:

    Ajit Pai
    4868 Old Dominion Dr
    Arlington, VA 22207-2743


    What you do with that information is up to you. But to get you started, here is an idea...

  50. Re:OK, what gives america with the amount of stink by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    It was done by Obama, so Trump has to "undo" it. It doesn't seem to matter what it is, that is Trump's mission. If Obama had passed an Executive Order saying "the planet we are on is called Earth" then Trump revoke that and would change it's name too. Or would say "I call it the Earth; no one has ever called it that before me. I came up with that name."

  51. What's the point? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

    I put in my name and got nearly 120 results found. But most of them didn't share either my first or last name. A lot of them did share my name though and everyone I checked put in something other than my own address. Okay, when I put my name in quotes I only got about 50 hits and most seemed to actually share my name but there's still no way to narrow it down further.

    I have no reason to doubt that those people are real. But I couldn't punch in my name and ZIP code and I'm not going to click on that many names just to check each one of them and what if I found something? Who would I call?

    Oh right - I click on a link and report it and then what - do I really think that would do anything?

    This whole idea on anonymous online petitions is stupid. Don't tell me it's not anonymous just because you have to put in a name. I can think of thousands of fake names.

    I just searched for "donald trump" and got over 1600 results, but it's searching the comments too. Most of these people mentioned "donald trump" in the comments but they're not claiming to be named donald trump.

    One person did claim to be named Donald Trump and lists his address as 600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (I know, the WH is at 1600 Pennsylvania, but does trump know that? Do his supporters?)

    How would anyone go about separating the fake from the real for something like this?

    I actually agree with "donald trump" of 600 Pennsylvania Avenue but I suspect that's neither his real name nor his real address.

  52. There's even an API by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

    The FCC has a published API for bulk submission of comments. Why is anyone surprised that someone took the phone book and posted a bunch of bogus comments from everyone from Aaron Aaronson to Zebediah Zywiec? https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/public-api-docs.html

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  53. 149 results by pgn674 · · Score: 1

    I get 149 results for my name. I think a tool with a crawler needs to be created, so that only results with both my name and, say, my zip code are returned. I'm not going to manually click through 149 results to see if any use my address.

    1. Re:149 results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a fairly common name, so I didn't bother looking through all the out-of-state hits. But one of the in-state ones has the address of a liquor store in a town I used to live in.

  54. Felony Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fraud involving a value of more than a few K is a felony in most US states.

    This is not the first time that the cable & telecommunications cabal has done this.

    The officers should go to prison.

    The companies should lose all monopoly protections and be forced to pay back the subsidies they pocketed.

  55. Pale Moon killer! Also, coarse search! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In all the years I've used Pale Moon, I believe there have been only two sites that made it hang so badly I had to kill it: Microsoft's Download Catalog and, now, the FCC's search page. Well, I guess that's one of the things other browsers are for...

    As for the search itself, I have a really common name, so for me it was comparable to Republican state secretaries of state's use of Interstate Crosscheck. (They used first and last names alone to conclude duplicate registration and strike voters from the rolls, even though more personally identifying data, like middle names and dates of birth, were available.) Most of my namesakes were pro-net-neutrality, a couple were anti-regulation, "pro-innovation" shills, and I even found a comment of my own (pro-net-neutrality) ... with the right street address but the wrong city and state. Curious, that. Normally, I'd wonder whether it would be grounds for my comment being excluded from consideration, but since Pai announced publicly that he wouldn't be taking comments into account anyway, it's probably a moot point.

  56. Found my real comment and a fake by Leptolinae · · Score: 1

    You can actually put your zip in the search box along with your name. It seems to be searching all the fields in the submission.

  57. No I actually support filling it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No I actually support filling it.