12 ms·
FCC Proposes Changing Comment System After WSJ Found Thousands of Fakes
- baby 8y agoHere is another article without a paywall: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/396490-fcc-proposes-to-overhaul-comment-filing-system http://thehill.com/policy/technology/396490-fcc-proposes-to-... Note that this is an effort to post alernative sources when one is behind a paywall.
- fwdpropaganda 8y agoFirefox extension to bypass WSJ and FT paywall https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/read-ft-wsj/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/read-ft-wsj/
- darkstar999 8y agoOr just prepend any url with "archive.is/" https://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-proposes-rebuilding-comment-system-after-thousands-revealed-as-fake-1531315654 https://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-proposes...
- neonate 8y agohttp://archive.is/HLBOW http://archive.is/HLBOW
- mcguire 8y agoThanks!
- freeone3000 8y agoOh really. No shit. How about that.
- dang 8y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments here.
- javagram 8y agoAdding a captcha seems nice but will hardly prevent fake comments. I doubt there is any online comment system that could prevent people’s names from being misused really. It’s not like we have a national ID card with private crypto keys issued to every citizen or something. How are you supposed to verify someone’s identity online without going through a laborious and expensive process (e.g. an in person interview, or requiring upload of a state or military ID number that is then used to send a postcard to the address on file asking for verification) that would then be criticized as discouraging public comment?
- nightski 8y agoI'm not saying it is the solution but the government already has systems which let you log in securely and verify identity, such as the IRS and SSA websites. Neither of them are much of a hassle to sign up for. I think a slight inconvenience to signing up is better than having your comment drowned out in useless noise.
- chipperyman573 8y ago>Neither of them are much of a hassle to sign up for. When I signed up for the IRS's website I had to verify my mailing address by receiving a letter in the mail. It's not a huge hassle but it delayed my account creation by about a week, and someone could argue (fairly, imo) that this would create a large enough barrier-to-entry to dissuade people from leaving their opinions.
- hyperrail 8y agoRecently, the federal government has been internally promoting https://login.gov https://login.gov as an single sign-on system for all government services to the public. I don't know how good it is at preventing fake accounts, but in my experience, it does get the basics right, with no max password length or character restrictions, and 2-factor authentication through phone calls or texts.
- sharkmerry 8y ago
- gruez 8y ago>Among the changes proposed by the senators and accepted by Mr. Pai was to require commenters to fill out a Captcha—a system designed to prove humans rather than bots provided the information. Great, so instead of costing $0 to post 100,000 fake comments, it costs $200 ($2/1000 solves is the going rate on captcha farms)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gcb0 8y agoExactly. instead they should use the money/time/effort to do some accountability! start by warning everyone that was incompetent enough to use blatantly false data at face value. then, use the fact it was trivial to abuse the system and hope the malicious actores were not sofisticated, use that to try to trace back bad intentions and try to mount a case with a prosecutor. those two things might not be the most efficient, but it will be required with the new system too, so better start with it.
- sarah180 8y agoDon't underestimate the magnitude of the difference in skills & knowledge required to script an HTTP request vs. buy Captcha solves. Basically everybody in America would know a friend who could help them submit an HTTP form in a loop. I don't think everybody in America would know somebody who knows how to orchestrate the contracting of a Captcha farm. Any discussion of security should include a discussion of the threat model. A captcha is quite effective at dissuading abuse by casual or unsophisticated parties. It's not at all effective against a sophisticated and well-funded adversary.
- msumpter 8y agoI may be cynical but when I read they want a new system to create 'safeguards against abusive conduct', I really think they mean they want a system to suppress the sudden influx of actual public opinions (similar to that of the rush of traffic Last Week Tonight referred during their segment on Net Neutrality) and not flood out the machine driven comments supporting their decisions.
- imglorp 8y agoI'll see your cynicism and raise you. Next up: pay-to-play/kickback-dealing single source contractor (crony?) brought in to make a new system, over budget and years late.
- iamdave 8y agoIs Diebold still around? Gimme five on Diebold by decision.
- chris_mc 8y agoNew FCC Comments page! [Insert dark patterns here] * Sponsored by Comcast
- aresant 8y agoI think this is an interesting problem to solve. The FCC, and other government agencies that require input from Citizens, need to know the comments they are getting are from actual citizens aka taxpayer id, aka social security #. As a Citizen I'd want to submit comments with some superficial guarantee of anonymity. EG the bureaucrats can't attach my comments to my name, only my comments to a valid US Citizen. (1) As a mechanism for verification there should be a preliminary "two-factor" registration system via postal mail to verified citizen addresses. And a secondary "two-factor" to execute comments. Will this cut down on the discourse? Dramatically. Will it improve the integrity of the comments? Absolutely. Will the politicians still ignore the desires of its constituents vs special interests? No question. This has been a paid ad by the People For Campaign Finance Reform. (1) Of course the NSA is watching everything anyways, and probably reading our minds with lazer brain topography rays, but we'll leave that concern out for now.
- Edmond 8y agoThey should consider something like this: https://www.cipheredtrust.com/using-irs/ https://www.cipheredtrust.com/using-irs/ Every citizen can generate cryptographic certs that they can verify their identities with, even anonymously.
- mjevans 8y agoThe proper way of doing this is to have a trusted* (because the process is open, monitored, and audited) observer (probably run by the government) that consumes messages enciphered to it which contain a signed delegation. It would then (daily, weekly?) release a signed batch of public keys with designated metadata. Metadata might include simple yes/no statements or very short string tags. * Country * State/Provence * County/Locality * City * Is Locally Contract Age * Is Locally Unrestricted Purchases (alcohol/tobacco/etc) * Is a Driver * Is a Voter (might not be registered or might be serving time for crimes) * etc Ideally someone would have a unique key for each slot, and of course their primary (high security) civic key could be used for cases where proof of identity is required anyway.
- peterwwillis 8y agoSome background: 28 senators, and the New York Attorney General, had to tell Pai to stop the FCC voting on new rules last year because of all the fraudulent comments. The fake comments were made apparent over a year ago. https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-bots-senators-letter/ https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-bots-s... The FCC refused to provide records to the NY AG in order to investigate the possibility of fake comments. In other words, the NY AG was the only part of the government investigating the fake comments, and the FCC actively worked against investigating them. https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/12/10/0037222/fcc-refuses-records-for-investigation-into-fake-net-neutrality-comments https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/12/10/0037222/fcc-refuses... Pai's office issued this response to calls to delay the vote: This is just evidence that supporters of heavy-handed Internet regulations are becoming more desperate by the day as their effort to defeat Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom has stalled. The vote will proceed as scheduled on December 14. As promised, the FCC voted to repeal Net Neutrality. And now, 7 months later, the FCC is saying there were fraudulent comments, and maybe they should redesign their website.
- craftyguy 8y agoSo basically, it doesn't really matter if comments are fake or legitimate, if pai is going to ignore them anyways.
- MBCook 8y agoThey’re also going to drop unofficial complaints against ISPs. You’ll have to pay the $230 to make an official complaint if you think they’re doing something illegal.
- philipodonnell 8y ago> Alex Howard, an open-government advocate and founder of e-PluribusUnum.org, which has urged safeguards in the comment system, said the FCC fixes are a small step. “Adding a Captcha to try to prevent spam, unfortunately, sounds like a solution from the last millennium to a decidedly 21st century set of problems,” Mr. Howard said. What they really need to do is check to see if the referral header is also from the FCC site to make sure people are using the website and not just hitting the API. /s
- tmp3456 8y agoAhh yes! and check the IP to make sure it is not just someone from a single computer faking the referral header.
- duxup 8y agoSomeone had a site where you could search to see if your name was used when it came to the Net Neutrality comments. I was horrified to find mine was on there .... then I realized no wait. I actually did sign a thing about it and it appeared to be an appropriate comment that was associated with a petition that I agreed with. I think, it was actually hard to tell....
- thecosas 8y agoIf anyone wants to help make US government systems better: https://code.gov/#/help-wanted https://code.gov/#/help-wanted https://www.codeforamerica.org/ https://www.codeforamerica.org/
- mr_spothawk 8y agointerestingly, codeforamerica has no posted openings for software developers.
- thecosas 8y agoCheck for other CFA opportunities here: https://www.codeforamerica.org/join-us/partner-with-us https://www.codeforamerica.org/join-us/partner-with-us https://www.codeforamerica.org/join-us/partner-with-us https://www.codeforamerica.org/join-us/partner-with-us
- asdsa5325 8y agoNot too many issues listed on code.gov
- paul7986 8y agoUmm this is an internet problem .. as long as their isn’t a verified identity system on the web then fake comments/news will remain an issue. Either govt mandated or something the public embarrasses something commercial like twitter verified identities where posting anonymously no longer holds any weight vs. using your verified Twitter identity.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- godelski 8y agoBut didn't they KNOW which comments were fake? Or that at least an estimate? Captchas don't stop internal malice. That's why everyone was mad. It was easy to tell it was happening and a large number of comments could be identified as fake. This more seems like they are trying to save face.
- jorblumesea 8y agoA new comment system won't cure any of their ailments. So long as Pai and other industry lobbyists remain at the helm of the very organization that polices them, nothing will change. This is true for every agency of this administration. A coal lobbyist is running the EPA. A cable lobbyist is running the FCC. etc etc.
- nojvek 8y agoStuff like this really makes me think the next economic collapse is right around the corner. America has become the kind of Govt the founding fathers hated for it to become. The issue is, it’s the lesser of evils compared to other countries. We have a long way to go before we sort out better ways to govern nations of a planet.
- jorblumesea 8y agoVictim of its own success. Money and power corrupt both parties. Inability to rein in corruption produced just more corruption.
- chasing 8y agoI'm glad they're looking into fixing their comment system, but: Fake. Not fake. The comments wren't a vote -- they were comments. If anything they should be used to add ideas to the mix. Things that may have been overlooked. People who might be impacted but haven't been considered. And smart, well-meaning people should've synthesized those into useful and not useful piles to help inform their decision. The core problem is that Ajit Pai was determined to ignore all signal from people who supported Net Neutrality.
- briandear 8y agoHowever, based on what you just said, the pro-NN people might ought to consider other views as well. The pro-NN crowd is guilty of one-sided thinking and has had no interest in actually considering other viewpoints. So the FCC should consider everyone’s comments, but then regardless of those comments, uphold NN anyway? Is that what I’m reading? Regarding the ignoring NN supporters — at least a few of those supporters engaged in credible death threats against Pai and his children. At that point, I’d be done. I would give no credence to the pro-NN side if they are going to threaten my children. As soon as some NN supporters started acting like racist jackasses, that point of view ceased to matter to me.
- patient_zero 8y agoAs a pro-NN person, I'd appreciate a good explanation of the benefits of removing NN that reflects the current reality of the situation. If you could kindly explain to this one-sided thinker why Pai seems like he just does the bidding of the companies he used to, likely will again, and (one would argue) currently works for, that would be a boon to my jackass brain. Thanks in advance for your hard and thankless work.
- benlorenzetti 8y agoIts really a very simple argument, for me at least: this shouldn't be regulated at the federal level. State and city regulations (or even outright ownership) are fine though. Heck the cities literally own the streets. Beyond that, how did the net neutrality policy makes sense? If two parties want to communicate with each other, why does it matters which side gets what percentage of the bill? It makes sense for the health of the network for big companies like Netflix to have business relationships with the ISPs to push the servers closer to the edges. The main argument for net neutrality is they are monopolies so we should beat them up, but I fail to see how net neutrality does that. You read a lot about the FCC chairman's bad motives (who can say, maybe true?), yet in the same opinion piece the author will want him to have more legal power over the conduits of free speech and media.
- wnevets 8y agoAfter the fake comments Ajit Pai wanted to be submited, now they want to fix it?
- Reedx 8y agoOr maybe, what if policy decisions were made based on experts? Not internet comments or lobbyists or donors.
- glitcher 8y agoSounds reasonable, except it would still backfire when those in power believe their "feelings" are more important than widely acknowledged and vetted scientific data like many appointed in the current administration. And when need be, any corrupt official can buy an "expert" to tout whatever point of view fits them.
- natch 8y agoLet me guess... Ajit Pai has a brother / brother in law / sister / somebody who happens to own an IT consulting firm.
- upofadown 8y agoThe federal government had already decided to get rid of net neutrality so the number of comments for or against it was irrelevant at that point. So this strikes me as a whole lot of who gives a damn and is a distraction from the actual issue. There seems to be a weird tendency to use the regulator (FCC) as a scapegoat and to give the actual people making the unpopular decisions a free pass. It's as if the actual political process has become entirely invisible...
- makecheck 8y agoKinda sad that a group with “communications” in its very name was able to let communication break down so much. There is no way to “rebuild” a comment system without solving more fundamental security problems first, as it is simply too hard to believe what you read online. Some ideas: - Costs have to be ingrained in the system. It can’t be “easy” to spout crap in forums, nor should the hurdles be resolvable through traditional advantages (like having enough money to pay lots of people). One example would be: in order to post, you must donate X CPU cycles to Y. - Webs of trust, one of which would be run by the government itself, seem like a reasonable step toward being able to partially verify where stuff even comes from. The webs must be decentralized so they are hard to bias, where the reliability of a circle is decided by the network at large. If Anonymous Poster X doesn’t have many reliable circles associated, that is equivalent to “take this comment with a grain of salt” (if not “ignore this drivel”).
- blackflame7000 8y agoI guess they discovered you can't really make $8000 a week working from home part-time online.
- dr_teh 8y agoYes because Sybil attacks are trivial to fix right