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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.