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.
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.
It doesn't matter here. What matters is that the NY AG is investigating a criminal impersonation and the FCC is obstructing justice.
The only comments that matter to them are those from Verizon et al.
Those were instructions not comments.
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 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.
And how many dozens do you think come from Canada?
And more importantly, how will you be able to detect those, eh?
#DeleteFacebook
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?
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. . . .
More accurately, the only comments that matter to Pai are the ones from his future employer.
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."
It doesn't matter here. What matters is that the NY AG is investigating a criminal impersonation and the FCC is obstructing justice.
I agree. Sure the FCC doesn't have to care about the comments. That is the result of losing an election.
Still, if there is an investigation into fraud then they should cooperate. Even if the low life political appointment at the FCC honestly don't give a damn about the comments, if people's identities have been stolen, then you have to assume that the thieves are going to continue to use those identities for bad purposes.
Basically Trump's government is now aiding and abetting crime by obstructing justice. Nothing new there I suppose. Maybe Mueller can tack on another charge.
Then again, I don't think this Senate, nor any Senate we are apt to get in the next three years is likely to convict and remove the chief criminal, though perhaps if enough charges are brought and enough actual facts are pointed out, maybe we can be sure this crap ends, for a little while at least.
[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.
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."
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...
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."