13 ms·
Companies to pay $615k in investigation over faked net neutrality comments
- williamtrask 3y agoOne more step towards digital ID
- rektide 3y agoYeah I absolutely hate it but yeah. Every time we feel sad & bad about the world, every time the Fear Uncertainty & Doubt is given places in our hearts, it makes us weak & susceptible. That's the premise of The Shock Doctrine & oh how sadly it's true. The web has two horrific fronts right now on this. Google is creating two specs, one to only let Attested devices through, and one to transmit government ID. So only users on devices they can't control, with id by government, can participate at all. This is what fear is bringing us to. People will welcome this hell. The end of the War Against General Purpose Computing will come with applause, from those who have been sold the message to be afraid. Coproate controlled devices only: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... Government ID required only: https://github.com/WICG/mobile-document-request-api https://github.com/WICG/mobile-document-request-api Or also see the Android Protected Confirmation API, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35942710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35942710 https://security.googleblog.com/2023/04/secure-mobile-payment-transactions.html https://security.googleblog.com/2023/04/secure-mobile-paymen...
- CSMastermind 3y agoWhat's the argument against requiring a government issued ID to interact with government systems? I mean I understand a case for anonymity for whistleblowers, etc. but it seems like if you want to file a complaint with the FCC then requiring you to prove that you're a real person who lives in the United States seems like a reasonable thing?
- rektide 3y agoHow do we discriminate on what use cases are acceptable or not? How do we prevent arbitrary sites from abroad soaking up gobs of very exact detailed government signed data? I don't see the active question as: are there valid uses? Maybe. Perhaps. But how can we create a tech so overpoweringly capable of destroying privacy at such a large scale responsibly, in a way that doesn't have horrific side effects?
- Uvix 3y agoYou shouldn't need to pay money to file a complaint with the FCC.
- zdragnar 3y agoYou need to prove who you are for all sorts of government interactions. Even getting a passport requires a small fee. Why should providing valid identification here be any different?
- kevinventullo 3y agoOr instead of pearl-clutching, how about suggesting something productive like a digital id that is only needed for public comments on work-in-progress legislation? There is quite a bit of daylight between that and 1984.
- rektide 3y agoI don't hate the idea of this. Ideally what I'd like & have suggested is that citizens be able to get attestation of their content at their desired level. I should be able to get anything I write signed by varying levels of government, federal, state, or county, or neighborhood. I should be able to opt into how much identity to share: name, initials, some rotating psuedorandom identitifer, age bracket , income bracket, other core data. I've stated this repeatedly as I think the baseline of what I think a democratic society should offer, a way to enshrine real speech of citizens as citizens so desire. That would be a real service. What we have here is a vile screwing over of society by hostile powers thieving our liberties from us, locking down the world against humanity for their own sad shallow pathetic ends. These aren't pearls. These are basic rights to be human on this planet. Thanks.
- landemva 3y agoNet neutrality, which allows Netflix to clog broadband pipes with entertainment, is a subsidy from broadband pipe provider to Netflix owners. Unlimited pipe cramming is not a human/corporate right.
- edgyquant 3y ago> These are basic rights to be human on this planet. Net neutrality and being free from government ids isn’t a human right ordained by god. That’s a whole new level of ridiculous. People will claim any policy dear to their hearts is a human right ffs
- rektide 3y agoIt's super weird to me that there are not one but two rebutalls arguing a topic that never came up? Both from relatively longstanding ish accounts.
- edgyquant 3y agoYeah I’m sorry but a government ID seems like the solution to so many issues here. I want to be able to have online discussions about political elections while being sure the people on the other end are actual voters and not spammers being paid to swing elections. I want people who create accounts just to spam and run blackmail rings to be identifiable. We already have social security numbers, online IDs are not that big of a deal.
- jagged-chisel 3y agoSounds like a pittance
- hoppyhoppy2 3y agoDiscussed yesterday at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35934504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35934504
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- esprehn 3y agoTypo in the HN headline, lost a zero.
- birdyrooster 3y agoOr it’s a European writing $615.00
- esprehn 3y agoTFA says 615k. On a personal level of course I wish it was millions...
- birdyrooster 3y agoMay as well read $615
- deepzn 3y agocorrected.
- jxf 3y agoIn other words, this will have absolutely no deterrence effect.
- bushbaba 3y agoActually. Worse. It’ll encourage mal-behavior as now the punishment is well known and way less than “consultation” fees gained.
- darkhelmet 3y agoAgreed. If that's all it cost them then they'll consider it a bargain!
- onion2k 3y agoI think it'd be dangerous for a business to assume that penalties are always this low. This is an example of the system getting things wrong in the eyes of the public more than a precedent that shows how penalties always work.
- kevviiinn 3y agoIs it really so far fetched to assume that the penalties will be low when the penalties have always been low? This isn't GDPR violation penalty, it's the US
- bhouston 3y agodefinitely not enough.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tomComb 3y agoPeople have latched onto this idea that penalties should be relative to the size of the company. Well then, this is what you get. Penalties should be relative to the scale and severity of the crime.
- kevinventullo 3y agoIt should be relative to the size of the companies actually responsible for the fraud, as determined by a paper trail, not the middle-man sanitized third-party vendors: “Two of the California-based companies, LCX Digital Media and digital marketing company Lead ID, LLC., were hired by the broadband industry…”
- tomComb 3y agoAnd what if there was no big company behind it? Then it’s ok.
- gaganyaan 3y agoI don't think you quite understand what people are saying when they talk about scaling fines. The point is to make this behavior a net loss in profit, which works across any company scale. However much money they made given illegal behavior, fine them some multiple N where N > 1 (and preferably more like N > 3 or more). Even if that doesn't get implemented for some reason, you can have fines like "$max(X * company size, Y)" that also handle any company size.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Gustomaximus 3y agoAlso focus on the people behind these decisions. Some senior execs getting real jail will have a greater deterrence than a company fine, plus doesn't punish shareholders.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> People have latched onto this idea that penalties should be relative to the size of the company. Well then, this is what you get. Penalties should be relative to the scale and severity of the crime. It depends on whether your goal is deterring bad behavior or deploying revenge.
- jmpman 3y agoDidn’t the FCC use this to justify their decisions against net neutrality? This is wholesale manipulation of our democracy and they get a slap on the wrist? I demand jail time for any broadband executive that knew of and approved this scheme.
- golemotron 3y agoCall it what you like but the FCC decision-making is not democracy. They are at least three steps removed from the voters, write their own regulations, and are not really accountable to voters. This is part of the independent agency problem in our scheme of governance. The better system would be for the elected legislature to actually write regulations. That's representative democracy rather than democracy but closer to accountability.
- SoftTalker 3y agoThe elected legislature doesn't have the expertise to write regulations in highly technical areas. Or really almost any areas, but certainly not the sorts of stuff that the FCC, FAA, SEC, etc. regulates. The representative democracy happens with their confirmation of the agency heads appointed by the executive branch.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoIf the legislature cannot write it, then the law or force of law shouldn't exist.
- dumpsterlid 3y ago[dead]
- Spivak 3y agoI think you're right in a broad sense but this is the least bad situation. Because the alternative is that no laws that require expertise ever get passed or worse, legislators rubber stamp laws they don't really understand written by people in industry.
- bostonsre 3y agoHow much did the companies make for submitting the false comments? Also, no jail time and how are the people that hired them not guilty of anything? Could they have plausible deniability with saying they thought they were just buying advertising? But having 3 separate companies guilty of submitting the comments makes that seem a little unlikely.
- matrix_overload 3y agoIs there a legal path to invalidate the FCC's decision based on this? Can the Supreme Court overrule FCC on this case?
- dahfizz 3y agoIt's not like the comments held any sort of power. The FCC could do whatever they wanted regardless of the comments.
- chiggsy 3y agoComments were the the organic voice of the public. So we know this is happening. How many L's will it take before we leave the altitude sickness of the high road, and turn our democracies into Babylon? They could have just done ordinary marketing, but nah, better results if they snake it. 3 year moratorium on working in this space would be much better. Deprive the public of it's voice and the penalty is to be silenced. This road is going to end in hell.
- valianteffort 3y ago>Comments were the the organic voice of the public The comments were likely just reactionary brigading of the misinformed as reddit, google, facebook, etc. sent mobs of people to flood the site. I could not care less if comcast wants to charge FAANG extra for the disproportionate bandwidth they consume. They frame the issue like it's about keeping the internet neutral meanwhile google and facebook want to be the whole internet and actively discourage people from leaving their gardens.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago>Is there a legal path to invalidate the FCC's decision based on this No, the comments were always meaningless. Plus the decision has already been reversed by the FCC.
- tantalor 3y agoThe image with no caption is super weird.
- withinrafael 3y agoThe caption appears on hover and reads: > FILE - New York State Attorney General Letitia James participates in the Global Citizen NOW conference in New York, on April 28, 2023. Three companies that supplied millions of fake public comments using the identities of real people without their consent to support the 2017 repeals of net neutrality rules will collectively pay $615,000 in penalties to New York and other states. The penalties come after a previous investigation by James found the fake comments used the identities of millions of consumers, including thousands of New Yorkers, without their knowledge. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)
- tantalor 3y agoOh, interesting, thanks! I never would have thought to click/hover to see the caption. That's bad UX.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jgaa 3y agoThis is fraud. If I impersonated you to commit fraud, I would face jail-time. How is it that CEO's almost never face jail-time when they do crime?
- flanked-evergl 3y agoI think this net neutrality stuff is a big boondoggle, but people should go to jail for this. Thus is fraud, fraud is a crime in the US, this should be criminally prosecuted, and I would be very happy to see a judge sentence someone to some time in prison for this.
- dandigangi 3y agoCool and all but $615k is nothing to this companies. Slap on wrist, pay it off, and back at whatever scummy sh*t they want to do next. Classic America.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoIt's an absolute disgrace. Not to mention that these companies had perpetrated similar frauds. These companies should be seized and shut down.
- ohashi 3y agoJail. Executives need jail. So do the people who hired them to commit fraud.
- Brybry 3y agoDoes prison time actually benefit society, other than in an emotional capacity? Is there any evidence that prison time for executives would help prevent such abuse in the future? I personally think a harsher punishment is needed but I'd also prefer it to be effective towards the goal of helping prevent these abuses, rather than merely vindictive. For example, it seems logical to me that a situation where the perpetrators were removed from, and unable to hold in the future, any executive or decision making position might better protect society. Prison might be one way to effect that but I think we can probably do better. And probably the financial penalties should be applied to all the individuals involved rather than the companies, otherwise consumers are the people paying in the end.
- mikeiz404 3y agoInteresting point. I think you would need a significant penalty aside from being unable to be a decision maker though. Perhaps the individual financial penalties you mentioned, if high enough, would accomplish this. Otherwise some one found guilty of this could be replaced easily with another willing soul, be moved to another role in the company and paid a handsome salary as a reward, and or consult for others on how to commit fraud or run the company.
- chiggsy 3y agoThis had to be higher, they got what they wanted, at least take some of their GPT cash, so they can't fund Skynet or Roku's basilisk or worse, fill our elderly ears with perfect reproductions of our parents and children selling us plausible products, adding product placement in our photos in exchange for more storage as we weep helplessly in confusion until we step into the street and are pounded down by self driving cars who instantly and algorithmically spit out scripts so that our killers skate. Or, don't fine them at all, but don't fine me either.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- darig 3y ago[dead]
- surume 3y agoFor an issue that is worth billions, if not trillions, $615k is not even a slap on the wrist. It's more like a warm and encouraging pat on the back. Not good.
- asdfman123 3y agoThe equivalent of fining someone $0.06 for a traffic violation
- nubinetwork 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35938463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35938463
- codedokode 3y agoWhy such controversial questions as net neutrality or DMCA are not submitted to a referendum? In this case there would be no way for companies to lobby a decision they want. Is it because referendums are too expensive or because government doesn't want to let people make decisions?
- SilverBirch 3y agoReferenda are no panacea. As you say, partly they're expensive. But also, there's good reason to prefer representative democracy over direct democracy- for complex topics people aren't informed enough on a topic to decide, the referendum can be decided by a small group of highly motivated voters who don't agree with the what would be the majority view, and it's difficult to present a complex issue on a ballot paper. It's also very easy for highly motivated corporations to spend a huge amount of money to win a referendum on a topic that massively effects their profitability but has low salience to the general public. Remember, the FCC determine these rules and they are run by presidential appointees, so it's not completely anti-democratic.
- 34679 3y ago$0.07/comment is literally pennies. Certainly not enough to discourage this activity in the future.
- daneel_w 3y agoWow, they really got out cheap for such a heinous, manipulative crime. This could be seen as indirect encouragement.
- testHNac 3y ago> Instead, they each independently fabricated responses for 1.5 million consumers. The third, marketing company Ifficient Inc., supplied more than 840,000 fake responses. So this is 3,840,000 incidents of 'falsifying comments' - not Identity Theft ? Fine is $615,000. Edit - I realized that it's individuals in the first sentence, number of responses in the second. I will let this comment stay as is. So about $ 0.16 for faking identity of an American and use it for lobbying purposes. That's damn cheap. This news piece won't deter people from doing this. It is basically an advertisement for these companies. See what you can do and get away with.
- Clubber 3y agoYes, this needs to be treated much more seriously, perhaps criminally.
- josephd79 3y agoWho's going to jail? Someone signed off on this and should be held accountable. A 615k is nothing.
- more_corn 3y agoWhy is this figure not followed by an “M”?