14 ms·
Fake Net Neutrality Comments Draw A Federal Probe
- java-man 8y agoWhy did we let this slide? What can we do to prevent this behavior in the future? Why is Ajit Pai not in jail?
- mey 8y agoBecause both the executive and legislative branches refuse to act. https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality I donate to the EFF as an individual. States are fighting back. There is an ongoing legal case.
- cremp 8y agoSerious question: Why is everyones reaction to put {executive} in jail? People don't understand that corporations, and to a larger extent, governments, are Medusa. You can cut a snake off, but there are more, who were trained by {executive}. (And it doesn't actually stop the {bad_practice} from happening; the head wasn't cut off.) (And for those who really want the myth, the head still turned people to stone, IE 'we've always done it this way.') Don't get me wrong; as a net-isizen, I want Pai to rot in hell for everything he's done, but what is the rational behind putting people in jail? USA already has enough people incarcerated from tiny drug charges; what makes this any better? Throwing people in jail won't solve anything, so why is that the biggest reaction to stuff like this?
- imgabe 8y agoWhat is your proposal to stop this behavior then? Putting people in jail for doing bad things is a signal to future people who want to do those bad things that they will suffer consequences for it. This will make them rethink doing those things. AKA "deterrence" If people can do these things and get away with it, why wouldn't they? They make billions of dollars doing this and have no chance of suffering any negative consequences. If you were in a room with a billion dollars on the table and you knew you'd be free to take it and no one would ever come after you for it, wouldn't you take it? > You can cut a snake off, but there are more, who were trained by {executive} If your boss told you to do a bunch of things, and then got thrown in jail for doing exactly those things, are you saying that you would keep on doing them? Most people wouldn't.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ikeboy 8y agoWhat, exactly, are the "bad things" you want people to go to jail for?
- imgabe 8y agoIn this case, manipulating government regulations by submitting false comments. If it's proved that companies fraudulently submitted comments to create the appearance of a grassroots sentiment that did not exist, specifically in order to obtain favorable regulations that would enrich them, don't you think that someone should go to jail for that?
- ikeboy 8y agoAre there any credible allegations that Ajit Pai, or any other government employees were behind any false comments? Because I haven't seen any such claims. It seems to me that people are demanding he be put in jail for drafting and voting for a regulation they disagree with.
- imgabe 8y agoI honestly don't know what role, if any, Pai specifically may have had. This is why we have a justice system - to investigate crimes and hold trials to determine if someone committed a crime or not. I agree he should not be put in jail solely on the basis of allegations from the Internet. I don't think anyone is proposing that.
- ikeboy 8y agoThe original comment here says "Why is Ajit Pai not in jail?"
- 8y ago
- java-man 8y agoPlease define {executive}. A business executive is different from a government official. How do we ensure that an unelected government official does not (continue) to engage in nefarious activity?
- rm_-rf_slash 8y agoWe used to throw white collar criminals in jail all the time. Over a thousand bankers were convicted and many jailed during the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 80s. Their harm to the financial system did far more to damage society than weed dealers. America just doesn’t prosecute and jail white collar criminals anymore, which is why it may seem odd to you that people call for jailing white collar criminals. For every Martin Shkreli that actually gets prison time, far too many wealthy and powerful people get away with doing great harm to society; if it doesn’t involve blood or drugs, they go home to their families.
- jchw 8y agoThe whole point of putting people to jail is to discourage behavior. This is exactly what it's for. May very well be that there's someone in line waiting to be the next Ajit Pai, but what are they gonna do if they just watched five other people go to jail for what they might've tried to do?
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoThe corporation as an entity may not care that an executive got thrown in prison, but the guy who replaced him will think twice before making the same decisions his predecessor did.
- akira2501 8y ago> Why is everyones reaction to put {executive} in jail? Because the current set of disincentives to act in this way are not adequate, and we further recognize that this is not a new problem. > but what is the rational behind putting people in jail? I think the hope is that these people will see the oversized punishment and avoid taking jobs in government service that seem to be taken exclusively to benefit their own agendas rather than to perform any public service. > what makes this any better? It actually stands a chance of modifying the behavior of the target group. It's a disincentive that they almost certainly don't want to face, as opposed to drug addicts who see it as a temporary inconvenience to their _addiction_. Are you suggesting that these executives are suffering from an addiction issue? > so why is that the biggest reaction to stuff like this? Because we've been watching this happen over and over again for years and we're sick of it being an issue. It's an over-reaction to be sure, but it's well justified given our history of failures here.
- adrr 8y agoDuring the savings and loans scandal, we convicted over a thousand people. Even if they committed the most minor infraction. I'd argue it cleaned up the banking industry for 20 years. Jail and a felony conviction which permanently destroys your career is a big motivator. Fines and not admitting wrong doing is as much risk as gambling in Vegas with a lot better odds.
- craftinator 8y agoWell, to be perfectly honest, I've held to the idea since all of this happened that he should be executed as a traitor for deceiving the American people and forcing legislation on us against our wishes. There's no way in hell that this was accidental, once you start thinking about how it all happened... So yeah, no jail for him, that's my vote!
- yawaramin 8y ago> corporations, and to a larger extent, governments, are Medusa. You mean Hydra. Medusa would turn anyone who looked at her to stone, Hydra would grow two heads to replace any one that was cut off.
- reissbaker 8y agoThis is silly. When Nixon was impeached, future Presidents didn't keep bugging their political opponents' hotel rooms in some Medusa-like fashion. When J. Edgar Hoover died, the Senate put in mandatory term limits on FBI directors, they didn't just appoint more jedgars. When Napolean was exiled, his revolution died... And when he escaped exile, it returned in full force. We aren't helpless to sanction the powerful and thereby change policies and practices. Sure, sometimes you need a few shots at it — sometimes it really is a machine — but changing the head does in fact change the organization. If you want a closer-to-home example, just look at Uber under Dara vs Uber under Travis.
- strictnein 8y ago> "Don't get me wrong; as a net-isizen, I want Pai to rot in hell for everything he's done" Settle down. The hatred towards him is unbelievably off the charts.
- inetknght 8y ago> Why is everyones reaction to put {executive} in jail? Perhaps because if it were normal civilians they would be put in jail? Why should an executive be exempt from laws?
- aaronbrethorst 8y agoWhat can we do to prevent this behavior in the future? Vote in 2020. Will you have issues with the person you're voting for? Probably. Should you vote for them anyway? Yes.
- Taylor_OD 8y agoOr vote for someone you actually believe in even if they are not likely to win. Maybe I'm crazy but I believe voting for the lesser of two evils is just perpetuating a terrible two party system here in the USA. One way to change it is support candidates outside of the two party system even if they are unlikely to win. With enough support eventually they will be able to.
- murph-almighty 8y agoThe way I resolve this is by voting for my favorite candidate in the primary, and then voting for the not insane one during the general. If you take every chance you can to get your candidate on the ballot, that lesser of two evils problem diminishes.
- aaronbrethorst 8y agoAnd support ranked choice voting.
- Taylor_OD 8y agoRanked choice is likely the easiest way to make immediate change.
- murph-almighty 8y agoI do! But this serves as a good stopgap solution for me.
- aaronbrethorst 8y agoIf every person who voted for Johnson or Stein in 2016, which is what you’re advocating, had voted for Clinton, then she would’ve won the election and net neutrality would still be alive.
- jerf 8y agoWhy would Ajit Pai be put in jail for stuffed public comments? Do you think he personally ordered them? I doubt that. Personally ordering the stuffing operations is far more likely to have been done by executives of the affected companies. (And it's even more likely that nobody personally ordered stuffing operations. "It sure would be a tragedy if some misfortune came to $NAME" isn't just a movie cliche.)
- ikeboy 8y agoI would bet it's some random trolling or hacking group or even individual. Doesn't seem like something a corporation would do, lots of effort.
- timdellinger 8y agoIt's fairly obvious that Ajit Pai knew exactly what was happening, and he acted in bad faith by letting it happen. My bet is that he signed off on things that he knew to be false, and that he exhibited willful negligence. In the process, he has likely acted unlawfully. His ultimate conviction might be fraud... hard to tell at this point until the FBI digs through everything.
- elliekelly 8y agoHe didn't just let it happen, he actively concealed it when he lied to Congress about it. At the very least he's an accessory after the fact under the government's favorite prosecution crutch: the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
- ikeboy 8y agoWhat lie are you referring to?
- elliekelly 8y agohttps://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xbezb/lawmakers-want-to-know-why-ajit-pai-made-up-ddos-attack-lied-to-congress https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xbezb/lawmakers-...
- smt88 8y agoDon't just vote. Volunteer to canvas for your favorite candidates.
- cronix 8y ago> In it, the commission voted not to release the records that the news organizations had requested: data from web server logs that could shed additional light on the suspicious comments. Well, that has to change...
- eddiecalzone 8y agoLet's hope they compare the names (typos and all) with subpoenaed data from Comcast, Verizon and others to see where the "leak" came from.
- FlyMoreRockets 8y agoEvidence very probably exists to show the faked comments accessed the FCC unpublished API to bypass the web form. I wonder if these server logs still exist...
- mattthebaker 8y agoScratch the logs, subpoena email records of Pai and direct reports.
- munk-a 8y agoIt would be interesting to compare the list of names against some of the large recent data leaks as well, to see if it may have been (possibly) an independent actor trying to influence the request. Also, if half of these are _super_ fake, the server logs should be quite revealing.
- randyrand 8y agoDuh. But why do FCC comments even matter? They mean literally nothing. You might as well be counting reddit comments.
- FlyMoreRockets 8y agoFederal agencies are required by law to request input from the public on policy changes. They are supposed to respond to this input when possible, though they are not necessarily restricted by it. https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaki...
- r00fus 8y agoThey are required to consider them by law. What you're saying is that cheating is ok, and laws can be ignored. They may be routinely ignored, but there is a price to pay for ignoring the law. Even parking tickets you can brush off for a while but you'll pay (a lot) later. Or is something different for this administration?
- craftyguy 8y ago> What you're saying is that cheating is ok, and laws can be ignored. While I don't agree with GP (like, not at all), Pai has shown repeatedly that this appears to be true. The FCC remains completely unchallenged and OP.
- 8y ago
- martin1975 8y agoEven at that rate, I still think some form of net neutrality has to exist in the absence of decent broadband competition and/or municipal fiber being laid everywhere in the US...
- craftinator 8y agoHow is this news? This has been known for like, 18 months now.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoSurprising no one who was paying attention. Similarly there will be no consequences to this action, which will also not come as a surprise to anyone who was paying attention.
- ggggtez 8y agoI agree the possibly criminal behavior in the NN repeal has been known for a long time, but the fact the FBI actually believe it's criminal enough to investigate is definitely new.
- alexeldeib 8y agoThe implication I assume is that we’ve all been down this road before. “We’ll investigate.” “Here’s the report. We recommend minimal/no action.”
- throwaway2048 8y agoLets not pile on the cynicism, if absolutely nothing was going to happen, there wouldn't even be an investigation in the first place.
- meesles 8y agoLet's not pretend most crimes result in punishment, especially at this level of business and government. Cynicism sucks, but I prefer it to blissful ignorance.
- rebuilder 8y agoHow many suspected crimes at this level, once investigated, end up with no significant consequences to the suspects? How does that rate compare to crime in general?
- jakelarkin 8y agoguess the Telecoms or their lobbyists hired some small sketchy 3rd party PR/astroturfing firms to do this, and those people will take the fall but blow back to AT&T, Comcast, Verizon will be minimal. Eventually some judge will chastise the FCC in a ruling, while also doing nothing to overturn the policy change, but perhaps forcing some vague fixes for the commenting system going forward.
- mmmmmmmmm 8y agoVoting should be the only way to influence government. Emailing representatives, posting comments on message boards, and protesting in the streets all give an unfair voice to people who have more free time.
- gerbilly 8y ago> Voting should be the only way to influence government. Sure, and when the elected representatives get a majority they get to be kings for four or five years. I don't think that's a good idea.
- pasbesoin 8y agoI would be happy to see some Verizon executives land in the pokey, among other things. Unfortunately, one of them is on course to be the next Attorney General. Enough to give pause for a moment of thought.
- benlorenzetti 8y agoDoes anyone blame John Oliver for all of this? A sort of Cold War of comments. Maybe there should be an internet startup selling e-stamps.