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! --
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.
Because you don't have to use the content platforms, but you have to use the ISP as there is only one in the area. We need GDPR equivalent to apply to all the platforms and content providers and all companies you interact with on the internet
Agreed. It seems a very tricky thing to get right but I don't see how you can avoid implementing some sort of protections for folks at the platform level.
It's like, the pipes are the ISP. As long as Facebook isn't sending corrosive liquids down the pipes, what business is it of the ISPs?
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
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.
Ah sweet, you're conflating privacy and security, issues that nobody really thinks every handler of data on the internet should be responsible and accountable for, with content issues for two entirely different segments of service and function on the internet. Waters sufficiently muddied, false dichotomy suggested! Telcos pleased!
Net neutrality doesn't have shit to do with what kind of data is published on websites anymore than the owner of the only road in town should be able to say that because a store can kick somebody off their property, the road owner should be able to as well.
"Old man yells at systemd"
A competitive ISP market doesn't guarantee that at least one provider will offer reasonably priced, net-neutral service. We need net neutrality mandated by law even if there are multiple high-speed, low-latency ISPs serving every area.
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.
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
Because ISP and content providers are not the same thing.
Your ISP is only one of many ISPs that your data passes through when you use the Internet. You may select the bestest most trustworthy ISP, but somewhere between you, your ISP, and the end link are several other ISPs for which you have no recourse if they record and distribute your sessions, or if they downgrade your QoS. Your ISP's EULA is not their EULA.
This is why ISPs must be regulated - so they all play by the same laws, and so you can know what those rules are.
Suppose I have a contract with some ISP and I use it only for my on-line banking. I do not want anyone to know what bank I access. I really don't want that.
Facebook, Twitter, etc cannot learn about my having an account that bank because my bank's EULA tells me it does not share that information. They have no way of getting that info unless my bank gives it to them. However, numerous ISPs see who you connect to, even ones you have no relationship to.
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.
Actually, it is not illegal. Doesn't mean you won't get fired, but what law is broken by giving a sales rep a deal better than the company normally would? There is nothing illegal about it. At all.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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
Great, now the comments are duplicates too. Parent was shot down already. We certainly saw an article about how throttling threatened public safety recently and how Verizon belatedly backpedaled and sort of apologized for it./
No, it doesn't. Please don't try car analogies without a licence.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
If the road needs to be neutral as who is allowed to drive on them, then why don't the garages and houses connected to the roads let everyone into them?
It's probably because the roads are intended to be generic and public, whereas the "edges" are far more diverse and intended to be for whatever someone wants. Everyone has to use the roads to get somewhere, but for any given place, there's probably not many people who ever need to go there.
But I think I can get you to answer your own question to your own level of satisfaction, simply be asking this:
Here you are, using the internet. That means your computer is on it. Are you running a telnet server which gives root shell access to everyone? Are you running an anonymous ftp server? If not, why aren't you letting anyone and everyone have access to your computer? Are you, for some reason, thinking of your computer as exclusively yours, with exceptions determined on a case-by-case basis?
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/
Ouch
A competitive ISP market doesn't guarantee that at least one provider will offer reasonably priced, net-neutral service. We need net neutrality mandated by law even if there are multiple high-speed, low-latency ISPs serving every area.
True, a competative market doesn't guarantee someone will step up and provide what really ought to be a cornerstone of civilization, akin to clean water and greasy gyros. It practically guarentees it in any major city. SOMEONE would start up a business and launch it and even in some crazy brainwashed dystopia there'd still be enough TrueGeeks(tm) that would want the real Internet. But in rural America the odds of that happening shrink. We might see what the effects of a non-neutral net would have on small communities. In the dial-up era in the 90's, NN violations weren't a big thing, and that was just the free market keeping services in line with what was in demand. But Internet companies are more sophisticated now and there's potential for abuse. Liiiiiiike, Disney getting into a deal with all the surrounding ISPs that scan for IP violations so people don't upload videos or pictures of "incidents" at their park. Or the local church banning certain online purchases on Sunday. Or the local backwater bumpkin blockbuster making a deal to block the bittorrent protocol. But all that's only a worry for rural america. The portions that don't have geeks who get pissed off. Hell, if it became a problem, they'd sell turn-key solutions so anyone that got pissed off could start up their own ISP.
A free-market solution, while not perfect, would be good enough. Unfortunately the market is NOWHERE near the realm of free. It has been conquered and dominated and parceled out by a handful of tyrants.
We need net neutrality mandated by law
That would also work. I'm not totally sure I trust the current sitting congress critters to craft laws that could effectively do that. They'd probably just get their telcom lobbyist buddies to write it for them. And I CERTAINLY don't trust those asshats. Case in point, read the article again. I really liked the title ii classification, although that IS at the whim of every FCC head.
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.
Adding more corn doesn't make pooping on the dinner table any more attractive.
In Soviet America, content platforms use YOU!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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.
Right, we can't endanger profits just because some people want to have an internet that ain't just a walled garden.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The problem here, no lobbyist, no politician and no CEO ever felt useful, so they don't even know what they're missing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
The rule is "thou shalt not murder". And murder is only killing another one of our kind, that doesn't mean we can't commit some happy genocide in other peoples.
And no, I don't want that regulation back.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think the untrustworthiness of the congress that would be crafting the laws is my biggest concern. As for leaving it to regulators we already know that just means it will be controlled by whatever industry hack the latest administration puts into the FCC, either on the telecom or media side depending who's in power.
The best way to fix this is probably to prevent ISPs from being media companies, just like we don't let film studios own theaters. Free market principles don't necessarily mean allowing for the existence of megacorporations. The market was much freer when corporations were only allowed to exist as entities limited to operating in specific businesses. Prevent ISPs from engaging in media businesses and the incentives for them to differentiate content goes away.
The best way to fix this is probably to prevent ISPs from being media companies
You're only looking at the current industry fight with ISPs and netflix. You want something like film studios not owning theaters (or car manufacturing owning car dealerships). But what industry doesn't make use of the Internet? They'd have to be restricted to ONLY being an ISP.
And even if they themselves don't own the competition, they can simply sell priority. ESPN3 made deals with ISPs to blatantly violate NN. Rather than selling to individuals, they sold to the ISP. That service is now not neutral with respect to what content you're requesting. Their incentive is simply CASH rather than promoting their own business.
The market was much freer when corporations were only allowed to exist as entities limited to operating in specific businesses.
Was this ever a blanket rule? I think it might have just been a trend to bust up companies and make those sort of restrictions on a few industries after we got through the period with Robber Barons and Trusts. Uncle Sherman's Trust-busting hammer.
That would become an Intranet, once you remove links it's no longer the Internet therefor there would be consumer laws protecting you because you didn't get what you paid for.
No, the ISP is the interstate and the country roads.
The platforms are places ( libraries, store fronts, etc ) I might want to go to using the above.
ISPs are attempting to become modern "highway men" making their money on allowing me ( really, not allowing me, unless the library or store front pays them ) to visit.
emt 377 emt 4
A few more such zingers and you have a standup routine.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.