40 ms·

Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutralit

Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the “First Amendment of the Internet.” Not just harder. Infinitely more dangerous. Probably the scariest implications for NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet. ISPs who are allowed to sell users' browsing history, data packets, personal info with zero legal implications --> that anonymity suddenly comes with a price. And anything that comes with a price can be sold. A reporter's sources must be able to be anonymous in many instances where release of information about corruption creates political instability, endangers the reporter, endangers the source, endangers the truth from being revealed. These "rollbacks" of regulations make it orders of magnitude easier for any entity in a corporation or organization to track down people who attempt to expose their illegal actions / skirting of laws. Corporations have every incentive to suppress information that hurts their stock price. Corrupt local officials governments have every incentive to suppress individuals who threaten their "job security". Corrupt PACs have every incentive to drown out that one tiny voice that speaks the truth. A government that endorses suppression cannot promote safety, stability, or prosperity of its people. EDIT: Yes, I am also referring to the loss of Broadband Privacy rules as they have implications in the rollback of net neutrality: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp... Loss of broadband privacy: Yes, your data can and will be sold Loss of net neutrality: How much of it and for how much?

gcb0 9y ago
current regulation doesn't account for anonymity. only that a isp must also do its best to route packages it can't understand. but doesn't guarantee either. if they can understand the content and want to monitor it, there's no protection against it. without it they can just block/charge extra for things they cant read. making anonymity and privacy harder. but again, they wont have any new rigths that they don't have today.
apexalpha 9y ago
I'm not American, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see any proof of this whole 'sell your internet history' complaint that seems to be blatently copied by everyone without any research. The way I understand it is that ISPs can sell anonymized data from groups of users. Like: people who visit news.ycombinator.com generally also visit stackoverflow. I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual internet history if the website uses HTTPS. Yes, I am a strong supporter of NN and I was appaled when the EU diluted it, but this reply is directed at your 'ISPs who are allowed to sell users' browsing history' part.
- curt15 9y ago
  >I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual internet history if the website uses HTTPS. Charge users extra fees for "premium service" unless they agree to let the ISP their traffic.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    How does that change how HTTPS works?
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      It doesn't, but the ISP still know what pages you went to. If they want to determine your political leanings your browsing history is enough.
      - manigandham 9y ago
        How would the ISP know what pages you went to over HTTPS? Only the domain name would be available, through SNI/DNS.
        rocqua 9y ago
        They could just MITM all connections and say 'for compatibility reasons, please install this root certificate'. With a fee, this requirement could then be waived. Dystopian but technically possible.
jfaucett 9y ago
"NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet." How is that by necessity a bad thing? People aren't anonymous in every day life and their internet anonymity is mostly an illusion anyway. Big brother can almost always find out who did what if they want to. " These "rollbacks" of regulations make it orders of magnitude easier for any entity in a corporation or organization to track down people who attempt to expose their illegal actions / skirting of laws" It also makes it orders of magnitudes easier for anyone to find out about a coorportions illegal actions / skirting of laws. I agree with most of your statements. But in the long run there really are a lot of benefits to a non-anonymous internet that can't be denied (just as there are a lot of problems as well). For instance, full access to health and medical data for research purposes would be a huge benefit for mankind and the sick people themselves just as that same access would necessitate a major rehaul of the ligislation concerning insurance companies. I don't see how removing anonymity is inherently by its very nature a bad thing. It seems likely it would be like everything else, you'd need to legislate the legality of certain things given that all activity is non-anonymous, etc.
- ibgib 9y ago
  These are my thoughts as well. In particular: > _It also makes it orders of magnitudes easier for anyone to find out about a coorportions illegal actions / skirting of laws._ I would add that I find it more important to ensure that there is transparency about the ISPs and other corporations' (and governments') actions.
- methehack 9y ago
  Anonymity balances power. Think not about this government, but the next, and the next after that. How much more thorough, brutal, and administratively easier would China's "cultural revolution" been if this technology had been in place in China as Mao took power? What if they could have used ISP logs for kill lists? IMO, you trust too much in existing social structures and laws. As unimaginable as they are, these things happen.
  - jfaucett 9y ago
    You're acting as if our governments don't have access to all this information already which they do. Its because I do not trust social structures and government that I think anonymity needs to go away. In a truly de-anonymized system if you are a malevolent actor (gov't or individual) anywhere your actions are broadcasted to the world and people or governments can respond before too much damage is done, no one cares what the benevolent actor is doing. In a fully anonymous system a malevolent actor can run wild and no one will be able to stop him. The same is true for a benevolent actor, but in a de-anonymized system no one is trying to stop him anyway. The whole thing though does depend on whether you think the world at large is made up in majority of benevolent people willing and wanting to help their fellow man or malevolent people wishing to do damage in the world. I think the majority is benevolent which is why I'm for de-anonymizing structures.
woah 9y ago
What are you on about? What does privacy have to do with net neutrality?
Oxitendwe 9y ago
The bill he reversed was passed last year. How much selling of our browsing history happened before then? Do you have any evidence of this happening?
rhino369 9y ago
I don't see how net neutrality has any relation to privacy. It is orthogonal to privacy. In fact, since the anti-privacy law was put into law, removing Title II status from ISPs would allow the FTC to regulate privacy again.
self-diversity 9y ago
Your edit makes me wonder if you realize consciously that your rant is completely orthogonal to net neutrality even with your epplanation, and you're just doubling down on deliberate unawareness as a strategy to avoid feeling foolish.
- shawnee_ 9y ago
  No, not really... have a look through my (quite infrequent) posting history and comments to follow the logic. The current GOP-controlled administration is implementing a cunning strategy to undermine the safety and freedom of all Americans. These are deliberate actions being taken, with specific goals to suppress what it is calling "fake" news/media, but what most people call facts. The most astonishing thing is that they've twisted and mangled the definition of "freedom" into something that doesn't resemble freedom at all; and yet there are many people who are stupid enough to believe they're actually being helped by these ludicrous decisions.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>Probably the scariest implications for NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet. Does it currently exist? Do something significantly illegal enough online most anywhere and you will be caught. Other than very specialized internet usages that are outside the purview of the common individual, the only question currently is if the government can justify going after you, not if they can go after you. Right now if you point out corruption against a local government they likely won't go after you due to lack of resources, not technical limitations. Point out major corruption at a high enough government scale and you will be caught (especially given that one will have to go outside of legal channels to do so).
Jayakumark 9y ago
We will fight now, but sooner it will come back. We won the last battle but what about this and the ones that will come if we win again. This is going to be never ending battle until we lose and corporations win. There should be a strong amendment with irreversible clause on Title II .
chiefalchemist 9y ago
I think if you read Chaos Monkeys and/or Dragnet Nation (and I'm sure, others) you'll realize the data privacy cat is out of the bag. It's likely such ISP data to be sold is already available via other channels. Aside from that, the danger of the internet doesn't seem to be free speech, but free thought. The bar is much higher and deeper. Droves are being manipulated, nudged and misled. That's happening, nearly frictionless, now. Even Orwell would blush thinking, "My, I really underestimated what was going to happen." Mind you a lack of NN isn't going to help. But with NN or without NN the root issue(s) aren't NN.

gcb0 9y ago

current regulation doesn't account for anonymity. only that a isp must also do its best to route packages it can't understand. but doesn't guarantee either. if they can understand the content and want to monitor it, there's no protection against it. without it they can just block/charge extra for things they cant read. making anonymity and privacy harder. but again, they wont have any new rigths that they don't have today.

apexalpha 9y ago

I'm not American, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see any proof of this whole 'sell your internet history' complaint that seems to be blatently copied by everyone without any research. The way I understand it is that ISPs can sell anonymized data from groups of users. Like: people who visit news.ycombinator.com generally also visit stackoverflow. I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual internet history if the website uses HTTPS. Yes, I am a strong supporter of NN and I was appaled when the EU diluted it, but this reply is directed at your 'ISPs who are allowed to sell users' browsing history' part.

curt15 9y ago
>I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual internet history if the website uses HTTPS. Charge users extra fees for "premium service" unless they agree to let the ISP their traffic.
- manigandham 9y ago
  How does that change how HTTPS works?
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    It doesn't, but the ISP still know what pages you went to. If they want to determine your political leanings your browsing history is enough.
    - manigandham 9y ago
      How would the ISP know what pages you went to over HTTPS? Only the domain name would be available, through SNI/DNS.
      - rocqua 9y ago
        They could just MITM all connections and say 'for compatibility reasons, please install this root certificate'. With a fee, this requirement could then be waived. Dystopian but technically possible.

jfaucett 9y ago

"NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet." How is that by necessity a bad thing? People aren't anonymous in every day life and their internet anonymity is mostly an illusion anyway. Big brother can almost always find out who did what if they want to. " These "rollbacks" of regulations make it orders of magnitude easier for any entity in a corporation or organization to track down people who attempt to expose their illegal actions / skirting of laws" It also makes it orders of magnitudes easier for anyone to find out about a coorportions illegal actions / skirting of laws. I agree with most of your statements. But in the long run there really are a lot of benefits to a non-anonymous internet that can't be denied (just as there are a lot of problems as well). For instance, full access to health and medical data for research purposes would be a huge benefit for mankind and the sick people themselves just as that same access would necessitate a major rehaul of the ligislation concerning insurance companies. I don't see how removing anonymity is inherently by its very nature a bad thing. It seems likely it would be like everything else, you'd need to legislate the legality of certain things given that all activity is non-anonymous, etc.

ibgib 9y ago
These are my thoughts as well. In particular: > _It also makes it orders of magnitudes easier for anyone to find out about a coorportions illegal actions / skirting of laws._ I would add that I find it more important to ensure that there is transparency about the ISPs and other corporations' (and governments') actions.
methehack 9y ago
Anonymity balances power. Think not about this government, but the next, and the next after that. How much more thorough, brutal, and administratively easier would China's "cultural revolution" been if this technology had been in place in China as Mao took power? What if they could have used ISP logs for kill lists? IMO, you trust too much in existing social structures and laws. As unimaginable as they are, these things happen.
- jfaucett 9y ago
  You're acting as if our governments don't have access to all this information already which they do. Its because I do not trust social structures and government that I think anonymity needs to go away. In a truly de-anonymized system if you are a malevolent actor (gov't or individual) anywhere your actions are broadcasted to the world and people or governments can respond before too much damage is done, no one cares what the benevolent actor is doing. In a fully anonymous system a malevolent actor can run wild and no one will be able to stop him. The same is true for a benevolent actor, but in a de-anonymized system no one is trying to stop him anyway. The whole thing though does depend on whether you think the world at large is made up in majority of benevolent people willing and wanting to help their fellow man or malevolent people wishing to do damage in the world. I think the majority is benevolent which is why I'm for de-anonymizing structures.

woah 9y ago

What are you on about? What does privacy have to do with net neutrality?

Oxitendwe 9y ago

The bill he reversed was passed last year. How much selling of our browsing history happened before then? Do you have any evidence of this happening?

rhino369 9y ago

I don't see how net neutrality has any relation to privacy. It is orthogonal to privacy. In fact, since the anti-privacy law was put into law, removing Title II status from ISPs would allow the FTC to regulate privacy again.

self-diversity 9y ago

Your edit makes me wonder if you realize consciously that your rant is completely orthogonal to net neutrality even with your epplanation, and you're just doubling down on deliberate unawareness as a strategy to avoid feeling foolish.

shawnee_ 9y ago
No, not really... have a look through my (quite infrequent) posting history and comments to follow the logic. The current GOP-controlled administration is implementing a cunning strategy to undermine the safety and freedom of all Americans. These are deliberate actions being taken, with specific goals to suppress what it is calling "fake" news/media, but what most people call facts. The most astonishing thing is that they've twisted and mangled the definition of "freedom" into something that doesn't resemble freedom at all; and yet there are many people who are stupid enough to believe they're actually being helped by these ludicrous decisions.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

>Probably the scariest implications for NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet. Does it currently exist? Do something significantly illegal enough online most anywhere and you will be caught. Other than very specialized internet usages that are outside the purview of the common individual, the only question currently is if the government can justify going after you, not if they can go after you. Right now if you point out corruption against a local government they likely won't go after you due to lack of resources, not technical limitations. Point out major corruption at a high enough government scale and you will be caught (especially given that one will have to go outside of legal channels to do so).

Jayakumark 9y ago

We will fight now, but sooner it will come back. We won the last battle but what about this and the ones that will come if we win again. This is going to be never ending battle until we lose and corporations win. There should be a strong amendment with irreversible clause on Title II .

chiefalchemist 9y ago

I think if you read Chaos Monkeys and/or Dragnet Nation (and I'm sure, others) you'll realize the data privacy cat is out of the bag. It's likely such ISP data to be sold is already available via other channels. Aside from that, the danger of the internet doesn't seem to be free speech, but free thought. The bar is much higher and deeper. Droves are being manipulated, nudged and misled. That's happening, nearly frictionless, now. Even Orwell would blush thinking, "My, I really underestimated what was going to happen." Mind you a lack of NN isn't going to help. But with NN or without NN the root issue(s) aren't NN.