Slashdot Mirror
In an Accidental Email To TechDirt Editor, Telco Lobbyists Outline How They Intend To Shift The Blame For Privacy, Net Neutrality and More To Internet Companies (techdirt.com)
Technology news outlet TechDirt on Thursday published a hell of a story about the ways telecom lobbyists are going to try shifting the blame for a range of recent developments -- including net neutrality, competition, privacy, and cybersecurity -- to internet companies. The outlet cites talking points that it received in an accidental email that was supposed to go to a different Mike. Here's an excerpt from the story, which shares the privacy section: MESSAGE: Here is the modern reality of consumer protection: the greatest risks are posed by companies on the internet's edge. Privacy is a shared responsibility -- and the burdens and obligations can not rest solely with ISPs and must be applied equally across the internet ecosystem.
The increased scrutiny of Facebook and other edge provides offer a significant opportunity for Congress to implement clear and consistent rules that apply equally to all companies in the internet ecosystem. And when they begin the process of establishing best practices for privacy, they will need to look no further than broadband providers.
For years, our members have embraced strong consumer privacy policies, because they understand the success of any digital business depends on earning their customers' trust.
Consumers and companies alike deserve one set of protections and rules of the road. This is the best way to ensure consumer protection while also providing the necessary flexibility for a competitive and innovative marketplace. TechDirt editor Mike Masnick writes: There's a brief section later in the document, suggesting that they play up Trump now fighting with Google, and suggest that's a good point to drop in the "same rules for edge" providers meaningless argument:
Trump/Google Drama: People have spent years clamoring for ISP net neutrality. We need same rules of the road for edge. On net neutrality: MESSAGE: Our nation's broadband providers strongly support net neutrality -- without 1930's-era regulations -- and with consumer protections that are consistently applied across the entire internet ecosystem. Read the full story here.
The increased scrutiny of Facebook and other edge provides offer a significant opportunity for Congress to implement clear and consistent rules that apply equally to all companies in the internet ecosystem. And when they begin the process of establishing best practices for privacy, they will need to look no further than broadband providers.
For years, our members have embraced strong consumer privacy policies, because they understand the success of any digital business depends on earning their customers' trust.
Consumers and companies alike deserve one set of protections and rules of the road. This is the best way to ensure consumer protection while also providing the necessary flexibility for a competitive and innovative marketplace. TechDirt editor Mike Masnick writes: There's a brief section later in the document, suggesting that they play up Trump now fighting with Google, and suggest that's a good point to drop in the "same rules for edge" providers meaningless argument:
Trump/Google Drama: People have spent years clamoring for ISP net neutrality. We need same rules of the road for edge. On net neutrality: MESSAGE: Our nation's broadband providers strongly support net neutrality -- without 1930's-era regulations -- and with consumer protections that are consistently applied across the entire internet ecosystem. Read the full story here.
This is really awesome. Kudos to Mike for publishing it.
Too bad it won't happen this time. The lobbyist will just bribe some more politicians with fun money to make this story "go away."
Except we don't, suckers!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
But if ISP's have to be content-neutral and take responsibility for privacy and security issues, then why shouldn't platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc. have to do it too?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Can we just ban all lobbyists and campaign donations and kickbacks and bribes?
I mean, if I took money for my company to give preferential treatment to someone or to another company I would be arrested. How is this different? (and don't bother replying with, "its the American way" or some canned response like that, really try to come up with a valid reason)
And how are lobbyists support anything but corporate best interest at this point? They are all bought and paid for as well.
And here's some snippets and I'll spend most of the article talking about why these snippets i picked out are wrong.
How about posting the email with the names/addresses redacted?
if we give away more than we keep, there's still enough for everyone... & we get to feel extra useful.. truth+mercy=justice.. see you there..
You notice how some of the worst people in the world are now using Trump's antics to excuse the most dishonest and despicable behavior? Everything from white supremacists and jackoffs with swastikas tattooed on their necks are crawling out from under rocks and trying to claim their rightful place atop the dung heap. There are bunches of openly white supremacist candidates running as Republicans this election, some with open nazi connections. Cops are throwing up gang signs and shooting into cars filled with black kids. Neo-nazis demonstrate in front of the White House. If you need an excuse to be shitty, you just have to point to Trump and expect a pass.
Remember when people were saying that Trump would "Drain the Swamp"? Those people have had to fully retreat from reality into some #qanon insanity just to try to keep their fragile worldview from falling to pieces, and now there's no way back for them. All because, as the noted philosopher Lao Tzu once said, "You never go full retard".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Trump did everything he's going to be charged with to himself, and Hillary should be forgotten like Dukakis. One is a legal matter, the other is politics. Forget politics. Lock Trump up for provable crimes.
And for the love of God stop making us think about Hillary, she's politically dead and she's not the reason Trump faces life in prison. Her email issue was small-potatoes criminal, and she skated w/o provable intent.
If anything Trump's given the US, it's evidence of his intent to conspire to undermine US institutions wherever and whenever the cowardly traitor feels threatened. He ought to feel threatened. Mueller is coming.
Sounds vaguely like a Meatloaf song.
Because there's a huge difference between the two? I can have ISP service and avoid using these platforms, but I can't access anything on the Internet without an ISP. If you can't see how the two are not even remotely comparable then you must be brain damaged or an industry shill. One of them is literally the gatekeeper to access anything on the Internet which grants them far more power than any of these platforms have.
My bet is his assets are so encumbered right now that he would be worth less than nothing if the Russians pulled their money. Melania would get zilch. Besides, she's signaled more than a few times her own fascist sympathies.
Never in the history of mankind has it been legitimate to excuse your own wrongdoings by pointing out that others are also doing bad things.
Was just going to mention how their tactics were similar to asinine alt-right brainsharts about the need for "neutrality at the application layer" and here we are. Remember when there was a conspiracy theory that net neutrality was a stealth Fairness Doctrine 2.0, and the right considered that to be A Bad Thing? Good times.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
We recently saw on Slashdot how throttling helped fire departments communicate while by-standers were streaming their videos to Youtube and Facebook during fire emergencies.
The entire idea of net neutrality resides on the false belief that bandwidth is unlimited, up for grabs by anyone. With Net Neutrality, the streamers would have eaten up all the bandwidth and left the firemen holding their dicks.
Melania is a smarter, quieter Russian spy version of Sharon Stone in Casino. She knew what she was doing.
My bet is his assets are so encumbered right now that he would be worth less than nothing if the Russians pulled their money. Melania would get zilch. Besides, she's signaled more than a few times her own fascist sympathies.
It's not all Russian. There's the $500 million China "loaned" him to call off the State department from giving ZTE the corporate death penalty.
Gives a new meaning to "diversify your assets"
Politicians campaign donations don't go into the government wide tax revenue pot, do they? Getting campaign donations for a stance is be like giving a car to a sales rep for a good deal at the expense of the company they where claiming to work for.
This is illegal, or at least the second one is, the first is only illegal in functioning democracies.
I'm not excusing them I'm saying some pronn people should demand the same rules for the platforms which actually have and continue to engage in widespread and pervasive censorship as opposed to the largely apolitical hypothetical future censorship of isps, instead of showing a complete lack of concern.
Following the old adage that the best scenes are in the trailer, this teaser doesn't quote anything terribly contentious, so what's the big deal?
TechDirt always publishes cutting edge news about tech issues, legal issues relating to tech, copyright, DRM, FOSS, and YRO stuff as it happens.
Their writers, Mike Masnick, Tim Cook, others, and occasional insight by EFF writers give HUGE ("YOUJE") perspective as to the politicial, legal, and social climate with regard to tech issues -- not just in the US -- but also including Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
They've covered everything from Kim DotCom, Julian Assange, Paul Ceglia, to people you might even like. I read it daily, and I quote it daily because the FACTS and NEWS are always followed by the link to the original source of information... so you can go vet it yourself.
Also I am the inventor of email. Shiva Ayyyyuuuudddaarrraai was a cute 14 year old who wrote a little program he called EMAIL, but it's not email.
E
It is their response to their wrongdoings being pointed out. That's an excuse, not an attempt to improve the world. When you get a parking ticket, you don't get out of it by pointing out that others where also parking where they shouldn't be parking, and you're not trying to get them ticketed too by pointing that out: You're trying to make an excuse. It has never been legitimate to do that and it isn't legitimate in the case of ISPs trying to deflect blame.
LOOK AT THIS FAGGOT'S RETARDED SOURCES LOL! That's the real story here, this "taustin" faggot has more disinformation than information in his pathetic crybaby nazi life, lol! INCELNEWS.COM lol? Whiny nazi faggot.
Hmm... sure seems like they haven't changed.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
or an industry shill.
Never underestimate how much social media is flooded with paid shills.
people should demand the same rules
Should the rules for who can park in a business' parking lot be the same as the rules for all the roads that can be used to get to that business? Why not? Shouldn't we be using the same rules wherever cars can go?
that makes it their business. The only question is are we, as a society, going to tell them no. So far we're not. We've elected an anti-regulation, pro-corporate (or pro-business if you prefer) administration to virtually all levels of government. Net Neutrality is a regulation. We shouldn't be surprised when an administration opposed to regulation eliminates a regulation...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Melania is a smarter, quieter Russian spy version of Sharon Stone in Casino. She knew what she was doing.
Perfect!
How about that PRE-1930s era regulation, Thou Shalt Not Kill?
Just because a rule is old does NOT mean it is necessarily obsolete, or that we should do away with it.
Ouch
Yeah, there is a HUGE difference between the two. I only had one real choice in ISP before I moved to a real city. Service sucked. (Now it's just expensive).
Buuuuuuuuuuut, they're similar in certain ways. ISPs should be dumb carriers not liable for the packets they transport and they shouldn't fuck with them. And since that whole "internet 2.0" craze, any website you can publish your own reviews, comments, posts, blogs, and diatribes. I would also like these websites to be dumb carriers not liable for the packets they host and they should really keep their fucking around with them to a minimum.
I'm perfectly ok with ISPs and sysadmins stopping spam. It gets into some scary territory if they decided certain political advertisement was spam. That's a potential abuse of power. But really, I'm ok with them just dropping all that worthless email spam that continues to exist for some bloody reason. And if Fedex has good reason to suspect your package is a bomb, they can call a bombsquad. And if another widespread worm hits the world, sysadmins can do what they can, NN be damned in times of emergency. LIKEWISE, for websites I'm perfectly ok with them simply blocking forum spambots, death-threats, shills, and providing the masses some way to moderate the quality of the commentary. In short, I'm not advocating absolutes.
I'd like to see more freedom in online discussions. This IS the modern-day public square. The fact that the servers are owned by someone raises some issues.
downstream platform monopoly
You can choose to get your ill-thought short diatribes and banal status updates from somewhere other than Twitter.
Unless you're an ideologue like many of the 'pro netneutrality' crowd who are completely fine with other voices being censored so they can monologue unopposed.
Just who the fuck are you? Show me one god-damned instance of someone arguing in favor of network neutrality that somehow veered into advocating for censorship. Go on. Pour some sauce over here. Throw me a link. Because you can't just spew that sort of garbage around without at least SOME sort of backup.
I'm pro-NN as fuck and I believe Hall said it best: I might disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
It's probably their job, so don't take it too personally. This particular troll likes to provoke people into responding in the hopes that they don't change the comment title, effectively hijacking the karma bonus and increasing their visibility.
Here's some recommended reading about the methods these parasites use. They're a lot easier to ignore once you understand them.
Remember the fight against sugar in the 1970s? Lobbyists blamed eating and weight disorders on fat: Sugar was blameless. Because they were no longer talking about sugar, they were no longer talking about empty calories, disruption of metabolism and the intestinal flora, or the lack of nutrition in breakfast products. The glory win was getting the FDA investigation run by a Mad-Ave executive - who formerly worked advertizing sugar. Talk about foxes in the hen-house!
Here, the tel-cos are talking about privacy and security, thus avoiding market competition and net neutrality which don't exist, because of the dishonesty of the same tel-cos.
Just because another problem exists doesn't mean we should ignore this one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is what the future holds across all sectors.
Why do you think they've been dismantling consumer protections over the last year and a half?
I am still amazed at how middle and lower class conservatives are still so in love with this man. Oh, that's right it's all Obama's and Hillary's fault.