They are not under pressure from everybody to do that. There are some who believe rightly that it is nonsensical to apply a law written in 1934 for telephone/telegraph to internet providers. The only way that would work is if you ignore approximately 70% of the existing law and make up a different one in your head to fill in the gaps (these are commonly called Executive Orders and Signing Statements, depending on circumstance). The correct thing to do would be for Congress to pass actual laws, rather than punting to some random campaign bundler/lobbyist spit-balling legislation from a bureau chair.
The last thing we need is for the guy who can't build a functioning website to be issuing edicts about how the whole internet should work.
It isn't a burden anyway. The biggest issue is Netflix-style HD video delivery, from what I understand. CDN's provide an excellent solution to peering congestion, and the technology is used everywhere at the moment. The issue isn't that streaming video is a huge burden, it's that residential network operators are throttling the CDN's themselves. Verizon was one of the culprits, and they had slowed Netflix to a crawl even for fiber customers. There is zero technical reason for that. The technical hurtles for delivering their own content digitally are identical to delivering a competitors'.
"the US Mail has the strongest legal guarantees of privacy"
Nope, neither one even provides a guarantee, much less a "stronger" guarantee than other forms of communication. The federal government's official position is that you abandon your right to privacy of "papers and effects" as soon as you place a communication into the hands of a third party, regardless of whether it is the U.S. Postal service or a telephone company. The third-party doctrine is a cornerstone of much of their legal argument regarding warrantless surveillance currently. As far as privacy regulations go, there are multiple conflicting regulations regarding privacy of communications, and officials often choose on a case-by-case basis which to follow.
This is precisely why Brazil dumped the Boeing bid. Lethal military hardware that is only marginally under the control of its operators is less than worthless. We tolerate that kind of thing in the commercial realm because I can always just go buy another smartphone or whatever from another vendor if the "protection" interferes with my work. In the battlefield, if your weapons don't work, you're dead.
It's also funny that they are asserting state secrets privilege to avoid revealing to a judge something which has already been leaked to international media. It's like the judge asking for permission to know about what he already knows about.
Yeah, you charge them then the President pardons them. Almost every President since Nixon has pardoned his own staff when they ran afoul of an investigation of the White House. There is a different set of laws for people who work in the Federal Government, as everyone in D.C. knows. The only way senior Executive branch people will ever answer to a court is if Congress impeaches a President for obstruction. Until then, court orders are just hot air and theater.
Right, so it's not just a secret, it's a secret why is it's secret. It's becoming more clear all the time that there's nothing behind their national security stonewall except embarrassment of certain officials still in office.
Slashdot Mirror
The government is here to fix your internet. When they're done, at least six people will be able to use it at the same time.
They are not under pressure from everybody to do that. There are some who believe rightly that it is nonsensical to apply a law written in 1934 for telephone/telegraph to internet providers. The only way that would work is if you ignore approximately 70% of the existing law and make up a different one in your head to fill in the gaps (these are commonly called Executive Orders and Signing Statements, depending on circumstance). The correct thing to do would be for Congress to pass actual laws, rather than punting to some random campaign bundler/lobbyist spit-balling legislation from a bureau chair. The last thing we need is for the guy who can't build a functioning website to be issuing edicts about how the whole internet should work.
It isn't a burden anyway. The biggest issue is Netflix-style HD video delivery, from what I understand. CDN's provide an excellent solution to peering congestion, and the technology is used everywhere at the moment. The issue isn't that streaming video is a huge burden, it's that residential network operators are throttling the CDN's themselves. Verizon was one of the culprits, and they had slowed Netflix to a crawl even for fiber customers. There is zero technical reason for that. The technical hurtles for delivering their own content digitally are identical to delivering a competitors'.
"the US Mail has the strongest legal guarantees of privacy" Nope, neither one even provides a guarantee, much less a "stronger" guarantee than other forms of communication. The federal government's official position is that you abandon your right to privacy of "papers and effects" as soon as you place a communication into the hands of a third party, regardless of whether it is the U.S. Postal service or a telephone company. The third-party doctrine is a cornerstone of much of their legal argument regarding warrantless surveillance currently. As far as privacy regulations go, there are multiple conflicting regulations regarding privacy of communications, and officials often choose on a case-by-case basis which to follow.
the stars. Now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt.
Instead of impersonating 4chan, why not impersonate an imposter? It would be a lot easier...
You just thought ATM was dead. It just didn't have DRM yet; the zombie arises anew.
This is precisely why Brazil dumped the Boeing bid. Lethal military hardware that is only marginally under the control of its operators is less than worthless. We tolerate that kind of thing in the commercial realm because I can always just go buy another smartphone or whatever from another vendor if the "protection" interferes with my work. In the battlefield, if your weapons don't work, you're dead.
It's also funny that they are asserting state secrets privilege to avoid revealing to a judge something which has already been leaked to international media. It's like the judge asking for permission to know about what he already knows about.
Yeah, you charge them then the President pardons them. Almost every President since Nixon has pardoned his own staff when they ran afoul of an investigation of the White House. There is a different set of laws for people who work in the Federal Government, as everyone in D.C. knows. The only way senior Executive branch people will ever answer to a court is if Congress impeaches a President for obstruction. Until then, court orders are just hot air and theater.
Right, so it's not just a secret, it's a secret why is it's secret. It's becoming more clear all the time that there's nothing behind their national security stonewall except embarrassment of certain officials still in office.