Slashdot Mirror
FCC Refuses Records For Investigation Into Fake Net Neutrality Comments (variety.com)
"FCC general counsel Tom Johnson has told the New York State attorney general that the FCC is not providing information for his investigation into fake net-neutrality comments, saying those comments did not affect the review, and challenging the state's ability to investigate the feds." Variety has more:
The FCC's general counsel, in a letter to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, also dismissed his concerns that the volume of fake comments or those made with stolen identities have "corrupted" the rule-making process... He added that Schneiderman's request for logs of IP addresses would be "unduly burdensome" to the commission, and would "raise significant personal privacy concerns."
Amy Spitalnick, Schneiderman's press secretary, said in a statement that the FCC "made clear that it will continue to obstruct a law enforcement investigation. It's easy for the FCC to claim that there's no problem with the process, when they're hiding the very information that would allow us to determine if there was a problem. To be clear, impersonation is a violation of New York law," she said... "The only privacy jeopardized by the FCC's continued obstruction of this investigation is that of the perpetrators who impersonated real Americans."
One of the FCC's Democratic commissioners claimed that this response "shows the FCC's sheer contempt for public input and unreasonable failure to support integrity in its process... Moreover, the FCC refuses to look into how nearly half a million comments came from Russian sources."
Amy Spitalnick, Schneiderman's press secretary, said in a statement that the FCC "made clear that it will continue to obstruct a law enforcement investigation. It's easy for the FCC to claim that there's no problem with the process, when they're hiding the very information that would allow us to determine if there was a problem. To be clear, impersonation is a violation of New York law," she said... "The only privacy jeopardized by the FCC's continued obstruction of this investigation is that of the perpetrators who impersonated real Americans."
One of the FCC's Democratic commissioners claimed that this response "shows the FCC's sheer contempt for public input and unreasonable failure to support integrity in its process... Moreover, the FCC refuses to look into how nearly half a million comments came from Russian sources."
They're covering up their fraud by saying "It wasn't important" - but that's not going to fly.
It doesn't matter if any comments were faked or not. The FCC is not using any of the comments in their decision. The only comments that matter to them are those from Verizon et al.
So they are making their own. Freedom for the few and higher cost for the masses.
Either we break up the companies doing this, fine them, and punish the individuals (why isn't regulatory capture a federal felony?) - they will just keep attacking the foundations of the internet every chance they get.
The FCC guy is right, though. Millions of fake comments had no bearing on the outcome at all, which was preordained.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It is a scandal that such a group can make such important decisions and that the congress is not taking action. It is very likely that the vote on December 14 will just follow the recommendation of its chairman and that the comments of the public are completely ignored. Instead, there is a lot of PR: there was a recent comment by Ken Engelhart in the New York times with the title "Why Concerns About Net Neutrality Are Overblown" Well Engelhat had been a Telecom guy for 25 years. Well what ever helps old friends ... It looks not good. If one believes this article then the only remaining hope would be the courts.
DELETE FROM comments;
Whoops you meant a select? Well they're all gone now.
There was never even a need to do more than have a period for public comments. A lot of the spam is from adversarial interests against the general American population, such as ISPs, Russia, etc. I've seen all the recent interviews with Ajit, the guy looks like a sociopath just dribbling brain diarrhea hoping to muddy the waters just enough to flee with the illicit billions about to be reaped from America. The man has stone cold glee in his eyes, there was never a sideways fart given about non legal tender arguments. The real damage, though, is the anti-competitive, anti-trust no consumer protection, content and provider monopolies, and freedom to censor anything nonsense that is likely to follow. It won't end until they are held accountable, so at this rate never.
The FCC won't comply with FOIA. They just ignore it. The only way to get the comments is to subpoena them and have an injunction filed preventing them from moving forward with any new net neutrality changes.
In case some of you missed it, the public input wasn't a vote. It doesn't matter who or how many said they wanted it or they should get rid of it. The public comment period was seeking novel legal arguments.
See that "Preview" button?
all the way to the US Supreme Court and then see, what this whole system is worth...
The FCC is pointing out the rules under which it's legally obligated to operate.
This notice and comment procedure is specified in law, and the FCC cannot legally deviate from it. Under the law, neither numbers of comments nor identities of commenters really matter. A regulatory body is required to address concerns raised in comments as they make their rules, but it doesn't matter who is bringing those concerns so long as they're addressed.
The FCC is merely pointing out that there is a legal process here, and the NY State suit isn't exactly in line with the federal law.
YES, there have been so many articles going around the internet that suggest this is some sort of voting process, that sending in form comments matter, but legally they do not. The FCC gets its orders from Congress, not from people submitting comments on the internet. Those articles were pretty damaging, misleading people about how this part of the US government is designed to operate, and leading them to misunderstand when things don't actually go the way they're told they should go.
So we're at a place where we need to correct that misinformation. People who are interested in the functioning of a body like the FCC now need to know just how the notice and comment process works.
By law numbers and identities don't matter for notice and comment, exactly as the FCC is pointing out. NY State should probably stop joining in on that rhetorical bandwagon suggesting otherwise.
It is a scandal that such a group can make such important decisions and that the congress is not taking action.
Except that congress stated explicitly that the internet not be regulated, and ditching NN brings the FCC in line with what congress wanted.
Undo, UNDO!!! Click! Click! Click!
#DeleteFacebook
And how many dozens do you think come from Canada?
And more importantly, how will you be able to detect those, eh?
#DeleteFacebook
WTF? FCC comments are open to anyone and searchable.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Do you have any idea how much of that infrastructure is on public land or on land taken by eminent domain? For that matter, do you know how much of it is paid for by tax dollars? The telecoms are very, very happy to take everything they can get "for the public good", but somehow people like you come out of the woodwork screeching about grubby communists!
Get a grip. Infrastructure can be "nationalized" by simply getting rid of the various laws directly granting monopolies to various telecom companies and building separate competing infrastructure with open access policies. Heck, in some cases, do you think maybe, just maybe, it might be fair play to use eminent domain to take back some of the stuff that was taken from private citizens via eminent domain and given to the telecoms in the first place?
What is wrong with you people?
...but who are now supposed to be believed because they SAY Michael Flynn lied to them?
He did lie to them. He said so himself when he put in a guilty plea. Believe me, I'm no big fan of the plea bargaining system in the US because of the way it rolls over the little guy who can't afford expensive lawyers, but Mike Flynn can afford expensive lawyers. That means, in order to plead guilty of this, they must have had him over a barrel. He plead guilty because he was as guilty as sin and they could have crucified him on much worse charges.
What we are now seeing the the oligarchy is so emboldened, they are openly saying "screw you citizens, you have no rights, only we have a right to your money".
The GOP hasn't won an honest election popular vote in 15 years - This open brazenness is just the beginning. The next step is law change. Notice that Trump has filled more Judge seats at this point in his tenure than Obama, Bush or Clinton... The GOP means to change the US in their favor, regardless of the "will of the people". We witnessing the resurgence what in the past was "robber barons" where law is bought and life is cheap.
One asks for public comments to know what the various parts of the pubic wants, to weigh in your deliberations. If you want to pretend to listen but actually ignore the comments, you have a comments period but set rules that exclude the answers you don't wish to hear.
You can ask for only blue-haired commentators, but that would be a bit obvious. Instead, you might ask for "novel" comments, meaning only those no-one had ever made before[1].
That should get it down to just things like "Dr Who personally said he disapproved" or "please eat an elephant", which can be ignored on the basis that they're non-responsive. (:-))
--dave
[1. of a new kind; different from anything seen or known before: a novel idea. Origin. 1375-1425; late Middle English. Courtesy of dictionary.com]
davecb@spamcop.net
Ever.
None of the comments effected the review, whether for or against. The FCC was going to roll back Net Neutrality anyway, so who cares if they did or did not investigate the issue? They have made their lack of morals and accountability abundantly clear.
The FCC won't comply with FOIA. They just ignore it. The only way to get the comments is to subpoena them ...
Depends. Does the FCC have the same management style as Georgia Election officials?
A server and its backups, believed to be key to a pending federal lawsuit filed against Georgia election officials, was thoroughly deleted according to e-mails recently released under a public records request.
The new e-mails, which were sent by the Coalition for Good Governance to Ars, show that Chris Dehner, one of the Information Security staffers, e-mailed his boss, Stephen Gay, to say that the two backup servers had been "degaussed three times."
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea — you have your "worker's paradises" to move to.
And Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Canada. . .
Almost all infrastructure runs through the government anyway, no matter what country you live in. For someone who comes from a "Communism-destroyed" country, you have a poor grasp on what communism really is. You also shouldn't apply some bullshit golden age fallacy to America's past. This country was one of the last to abolish slavery. We had government sanctioned racial segregation until the 1960s. There are neighborhoods known as "food deserts" because you literally can't buy healthy food. I'm glad America's worked out for you, but it doesn't work out for everyone.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
He did lie to them. He said so himself when he put in a guilty plea. Believe me, I'm no big fan of the plea bargaining system in the US because of the way it rolls over the little guy who can't afford expensive lawyers, but Mike Flynn can afford expensive lawyers. That means, in order to plead guilty of this, they must have had him over a barrel. He plead guilty because he was as guilty as sin and they could have crucified him on much worse charges.
Yes, he pleaded guilty probably because he was. But IIRC, The Feds had his son on stuff too. So perhaps it was also a father's love that was part of his motivation.
The next few months will be fun. 'Scuse me, I need to make some popcorn.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
but Mike Flynn can afford expensive lawyers
How do you figure? By all reports he's now essentially ruined by legal expenses. This wasn't a rich business guy who entered politics, this was a government salary guy.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Then stop the glut of local and state governments creating a monopoly on service providers by allowing one provider to string cable on poles and no others. Prevent the same governments from preventing municipality-owned service providers as well.
You want to get the government out of infrastructure? Get them out then.
'Til then, you're nothing but a fascist fool destroying what's left of America.
I'd very very much like to stop that "glut". Yes. For years I've been reposting this link
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Please explain how a local government catering to a single provider by preventing all others from hanging/sharing cables and thus providing service, in exchange for kickbacks from that single provider is anything but fascism.
To quote your linked article:
"Fascism's distinguishing characteristic is a "mixed economy." Unlike socialists and communists who seek to abolish private business, fascists are content to let business remain in private hands. Instead, fascists use regulations, mandates, and taxes to control business and run (and ruin) the economy. A fascist system, then, is one where private businesses serve politicians and bureaucrats instead of consumers. Does the modern American economy not fit the definition of fascism?"
Nationalizing the infrastructure doesn't work if it leads to the same situation we're in now, with most of the country being served by one broadband provider. Nationalizing the infrastructure does work if it leads to increased competition amongst multiple broadband providers. However we solve this particular issue, by nationalizing the infrastructure or some other way... it comes down to that. Limiting competition is bad for the consumer, and encouraging competition is good.
[The FCC's general counsel] added that Schneiderman's request for logs of IP addresses would (...) “raise significant personal privacy concerns.”
I love that one, coming from the FCC when, to everyone’s surprise, they published (freely downloadable) the full set of comments, complete with not only names, but also e-mail address and (if provided) home address of their authors.
I think you vastly overestimate the popularity of this site.
Not sure, why you listed these
I listed them because they're countries that implement heavy socialist policies and yet for the average citizen they're much better places to live.
are barely at the America's wealth
Wealth is relative. If you're talking about GDP then it would be a better comparison to look at the EU vs. the U.S. than individual countries in the EU. I think if you look at the poorest of the poor in those countries vs. the poorest of the poor in the U.S., you'll see a stark difference.
despite not maintaining a military worth a damn
How exactly is this relevant?
Collective ownership of the means of production — that's what it means. And every time you nationalize something — as the asshole above proposed — you get closer and closer towards that.
There's nothing inherently wrong with such an economic model. The problem with Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea are their totalitarian leaders. Sure, a totally centralized economy probably doesn't work well. China has learned that. But neither does the opposite extreme of laissez-faire. Some things work better when the government controls them and some things work better left to the free market. Some things work best on the free market yet highly scrutinized by government regulation. When you become an absolutist when it comes to economic models, you cease to search for pragmatic solutions. That's when economies tank.
It remains the magnet
Just because other countries have it worse off than the U.S. doesn't mean that vast improvement cannot be made. Lots of immigrants flock to France, too, and they also could improve things. I don't hold Venezuela as the standard to which my country ought to be judged. I look at the Scandinavian countries and wonder why, despite having so much less national wealth, their education system is so much better and their poor don't live in conditions that actually are comparable to Venezuela. Oh, yeah, because we spend like a third of our budget on that stupid military you're so impressed with.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
By that definition, Obamacare as it was passed is fascist. Not denying it, just point it out. Socialized medicine seems less evil by a mile.
The FCC should not have the power to withhold data like this. This is our government. That is our data.
It just shows you who Ajit Pai is working for. (Hint: Unless you're the CEO of Verizon, Ajit Pai is not working for you.)
Let's face it- the fix is in.
Net neutrality is going to be removed because doing so will allow large corporations to make a shitload of money, AND because it will stifle the free exchange of information (including important political news and information).
Politicians HATE the fat that ordinary people can use the internet to help track what our government does. They HATE the fact that millions of people can instantly find out what they're doing, and band together to try and effect some change.
This benefits NO ONE except the mega-corps and politicians, and so they're going to do it no matter what we mere mortals want.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Yeah. Nothing inherently wrong with Communism — except, wherever implemented in earnest, it leaves millions of dead and the survivors with neither material wealth nor human rights.
You think Norway is communist?
lol. You're a stupid cunt mate. Safe to ignore.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Critical of Orange Freak = fake news
Praises Orange Freak = true and real
Gotcha.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
perhaps the real issue here is the fcc covering up their lack of competence to manage a basic internet information service. The irony hurts. Really, that seems like what this maneuver may accomplish as far as sweeping the key issue under the rug. Just like their handwaving reference to 'our commercial cloud partners' when talking about how their information service will handle the ddos issue. Of course the mind boggling thing is that *presumably* they have effectively the knowledge base of the entire fucking nsa and cia at their disposal, and they still can't do better than pass the buck to their 'commercial cloud partners'. For fuck's sake, when the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION admits lack of in-house competency to RUN A BASIC WEBSITE, it's pretty clear what the score is. Certainly an interesting 'history of the internet' chapter for some long future academic text...
No doubt, but I really would love to have someone keeping an eye on state actors (especially our own) that are doing massive psy-ops campaigns. The NSA leaks show that even /. was on the radar. Perhaps the FCC isn't the right organization, but I would certainly appreciate a report on those activities to help color my view of the ideas shared on sites such as this. I notice (or think I do) that on certain types of stories, there are a barrage of comments meant to scatter meaningful discussion, particularly on stories that would be of interest to Russia.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
I've heard of many instances where people's names and cities match. These aren't just randomly generated, but some database of people that someone obtained and used to submit anti-Net Neutrality comments in those people's names.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If they wanted to be transparent they could have just asked to only hear legal tender arguments.
And yet, we are still richer than most of those Socialist paradises you listed.
For all your disdain for the collective and praise for the individual, I find it odd that you measure wealth based on GDP rather than the spending power and economic freedom of the poorest of the poor. Socialized medicine frees. Capitalist medicine makes one a slave to their own health. Market regulations free consumers from predatory lenders and inhumane working conditions.
I save citations for research papers and extreme claims. Nothing I claimed warranted such a waste of time. However, you may want to read more carefully before you waste your own time refuting something I didn't say (there's a huge difference between "one of the last to abolish slavery" and "the last").
The fact that you believe the U.S. is an example of a laissez-faire country demonstrates your ignorance. Have you ever heard of the U.S. Postal Service? Do you know what a grant is and how they have propped up higher education and are the main reason U.S. innovation was unsurpassed in the twentieth century? Social Security? Medicare? The who article is about the FCC, A REGULATORY AGENCY.
Laissez-faire is a myth. It's never existed and never will. Just like communism. All countries are socialist, they just have unique ways of structuring it. Your equivocation of all collectivism and the U.S.S.R. is a silly fallacy. That's why no serious intellectuals take Ayn Rand seriously.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
You mean where the FBI had a backup and the deletion of the original was part of standard operating procedure and there was literally no reason or obligation to keep the original?
What was the point in linking that example?
Of course they are... I mean, they spent all that time and money creating bots to flood the site with them in the first place. Why would they want to backtrack on that now?
It certainly is Fascism — or, maybe, just "unofficial" corruption.
Nationalizing infrastructure does not work. Period.
But, no less important, such confiscation is also tyrannical. Even if it did work, you can not do that — not in a free country — unless it is a punishment for a crime and you have jury's decision to the effect.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yes, and the cited opinion states exactly that.
Only because you've never tried it. As bad as Fascism is, Socialism/Communism is much worse — which is why I can't sympathize with the "Antifa" assholes, who "fight Fascism" with hammer-and-sickle.
Consider the example of Spain — ruled by Fascism for decades. For all their Collectivism-induced troubles, they were always better off than the USSR and, when they abolished the Fascism, they were able to recover pretty quick. Recover to the levels, that Russia could only dream about even during the height of its gas-fueled boom.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The FCC's own rulemaking process requires it.
However, nothing obligates them to give a rat's ass about what they learn from it. Your tax dollars at work.
Never confuse "We want to hear from you" with "We care about what you say."
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The records are supposed to be preserved in the case of litigation, furthermore, the Election Commission was given notice and they destroyed the records anyway. So, not standard operating procedure, willful destruction of evidence.
Marilyn Marks, the executive director of the Coalition, a group that is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, told Ars that she had issued a litigation hold notice to the defendants.
"They know that they are required to preserve all records when they are sued," she e-mailed. "They don’t need court order. Even IF the SOS office didn’t have three dozen attorneys to tell them to preserve the records, they got this attached letter from us on July 10 and destroyed the second server hard drive on August 9."
Fortunately, it looks like the FBI may have a forensic backup of the data - as noted in "UPDATE 11:40pm ET" at the end of the article.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
... There was no fortunately about it. The FBI recommended what be done with the original.
Again, the FBI had a backup, recommended original re-purpose, all was within standard procedures for a server to be discontinued, and there was no obligation, legal or otherwise, to keep the original. Congrats, any subpoena can get the data... What's the controversy?
You didn't add anything new. If the FCC has the same "management" style it would lawful with backups for other investigations. ... What is the point in linking that story?
So releasing the IP addresses would "raise significant privacy concerns," but requiring the name and home address for every comment and making it publicly available on the internet does not? Or are you just afraid that the IP addresses won't remotely match the postal addresses? And that they suspiciously originate from a data center somewhere in Northern Virginia?
And my warning stands — I will not stand passively aside, if you, Commie assholes, start moving this country in the wrong direction again. Long before the nightmare of Stalin and Kim, comes the devastation of Chavez — I will not let you do that.
What are you going to do? Invent a time machine and go back and assassinate FDR?
I think we've hit a brick wall. I could keep going but you just don't seem to get nuance, as evidenced by your claims of "proof" and your demands for "proof." That's not how empiricism works. You can show me evidence, I can show you evidence, but those who believe in proof are fools.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
That is the main objection to removing the classification of the internet as a public utility and moving the administration of internet issues to the Trade Commission; who investigates a monopoly doing reprehensible things.
The FTC only investigates if there is a legal challenge to what a company is doing and it takes lawyers and years. As a public utility, the companies have to get permission to change how they do business and public comment is done prior to decisions being made.
Obviously, the current FCC head does not like public comment at all.
NRRPT/RCT