14 ms·

Here's the thing that bothers me the most about a lot of the talk about net neutrality by government officials: > If a consumer requests access to a website or

Here's the thing that bothers me the most about a lot of the talk about net neutrality by government officials: > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. Specifically "and the content is legal" is what raises a flag for me. I've seen similar phrases in nearly everything I've read coming from any government official regarding net neutrality. If this phrasing makes it into eventual laws regarding net neutrality, it seems to me that it could easily require inspection of all traffic by ISPs to ensure the legality of traffic.

antocv 12y ago
Which is the whole point of net-neutrality, that ISPs must not accountable for what flows through the network, or to block "illegal" messages.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Not quite the "whole" point. It's not so much about accountability as not demanding customers pay more based on content; not being accountable for content is a consequence of not analyzing that content for whatever reason. It's about customers getting the bandwidth they pay for by not throttling the content they're requesting.
couchand 12y ago
It's a pretty massive stretch to go from "ISPs are permitted to block illegal traffic" to "ISPs are required to perform deep-packet inspection to ensure the legality of all traffic they carry".
- AndrewHampton 12y ago
  It is. It's just a concern I have since similar language seems to be everywhere, which makes me think including it is intentional.
  - jstalin 12y ago
    You're right to be concerned. If they keep using the same language in these sorts of statements, you better believe it's for a reason. Look for any legislation or regulation to implement such language.
- bushido 12y ago
  Those two statements from a legal (writing) perspective are mutually exclusive, sort of. One is a Right and the other is a law. But both need to exist is some form to make the other possible. Also, they both require the same technology to be automated and possible. The main constraint for the latter is computational power.
  - richardwhiuk 12y ago
    No they aren't. There is a difference between being required to do something by law, and being allowed to do something by law.
    - bushido 12y ago
      I agree they are different and stated that as such. Yet that regulation cannot exist without this Right. And the regulation is required to limit the abuse this Right can bestow on users. This is a tricky one, because the right and the law are both mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive.
- dguaraglia 12y ago
  On the other hand, just think about it: now you have the wedge in, there'll be a massive lobby (Hollywood, recording companies, 'big media' if you will) trying to use that wedge to push stronger legislation in. In fact, the government itself (NSA, FBI) will think 'hey, now that we have this, we might as well use it to Protect Our Children (tm)'. On the other hand, besides the ACLU and maybe a few people organizing over the internet, there will be no money spent in lobbying to tighten up definitions and improve privacy. So there, it's a 'pretty massive stretch' but by no means it's an unexpected thing.
  - randomfool 12y ago
    SSL everything.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      You mean: "TLS Everything" ;-P
    - smsm42 12y ago
      Unless, of course, direct encrypted communication is prohibited. Because, you know, Internet is a public utility now, and if you are using public thing, you should abide by public's rules. Like connecting to SSL sites only using approved ISP SSL proxies that allow lawful intercept. After all, you accept that to drive on public roads you need a license. So, to browse on public internet, you need to follow the rules too. And the rules say law enforcement should be able to see what you are transmitting - given properly signed court order, of course - so that means you can not use non-interceptable encryption. See how this logic works?
      - venomsnake 12y ago
        I think that this creates both first and fourth amendment issues.
        smsm42 12y ago
        I don't see 1st amendment issues if this is content-neutral (I don't think the Supreme Court would consider the choice of encryption scheme being speech by itself and thus protected expression) towards underlying data. As for 4th amendment, right now I think the prevailing position is that ability to collect data is not search until the data is actually collected, so providing capability for lawful intercept would not be considered 4th amendment problem. I don't like it too much, but that seems to be the state of affairs now.
- emcrazyone 12y ago
  Agree. ISP owner here. Not all web sites or IP addresses contain 100% illegal material. Virtual hosting (hosting more than one web site from same IP address) poses problems as does content among sub-domains. I don't have the resources to monitor and track such things and if I were forced into it, I would either go out of business or try to become a search engine.
  - aragot 12y ago
    I don't see why the good old model of "Someone deposits a complaint against a website at a police station, then the server/website is investigated upon, then the fine is raised against the renter/owner of the server" isn't enough.
  - arthurcolle 12y ago
    I've actually wondered how do you go about providing access to internet? I write a lot of code and spent a good amount of time on the internet and it's always made me wonder how exactly one goes about providing internet to customers. Really curious for any resources to read about this if you have any resources to read or just your personal experience!
    - macns 12y ago
      I don't think internet is what he provides, as an ISP (Internet services provider). He mentioned virtual hosting, so he's probably offering webhosting services.
    - corobo 12y ago
      Basically it's a reselling system no matter which way you go. You buy access into a bigger ISP's network and then provide services on top of it. If you've got a huge wallet you could run your own physical infrastructure but it would be hugely expensive for anything more than a small userbase [1]. If you went that way you'd make peering agreements with your closest internet backbone providers to hook into the rest of the internet (backbone providers being even bigger ISPs than those mentioned earlier, the ISP's ISP if you like) [1] It has been done in the past: http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/how-to-start-your-own-isp-699959 http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/how-to-start-your-own...
dragonwriter 12y ago
I think the concern is somewhat misplaced, because we've already seen the FCC take multiple stabs at regulations on net neutrality, that have been based on the principle of no or limited interference with lawful content, and they haven't required inspection of traffic. Its not a requirement that ISPs block unlawful content, its a prohibition on blocking lawful content. A strong enough prohibition on blocking lawful content (e.g., one which provides consequences whenever lawful content is blocked, even if the intent was to block unlawful content and the lawful content just got caught up in the net) actually reduces the incentive for ISPs to attempt to identify and block unlawful content, since attempting to do so but making a misidentification in the process can result in penalties. In fact, I'd argue that a no-blocking-lawful-content rule combined with a safe harbor provisions preventing ISPs from being liable for transmission of unlawful content by customers so long as the ISP wasn't actively involved in soliciting or promoting the specific illegal content is probably a good protection against ISP-initiated snooping, since it eliminates any liability-based incentive for it. OTOH, it doesn't stop ISP-snooping-at-behest-of-government, but if you get a mechanism to do that, its going to be outside the context of net neutrality.
- psykovsky 12y ago
  The laws will change a couple times before you see the problem for what it really is.
- AndrewHampton 12y ago
  I agree that my concern may be misplaced and everything could work out fine. I'd categorize myself as "cautiously optimistic" about these laws still, but wanted to bring this up since I don't see much discussion about it. Additionally, I almost brought this up in my original post, but decided against it, but "lawful content" is another phrase I commonly see in the same discussions. IANAL, but my understanding is that unlawful != illegal. "Lawful" means the subject is specifically addressed and permitted by law, and "unlawful" is anything else. So traffic can be legal, but not lawful. My biggest fear is that we in the tech community will rally behind a net neutrality law which sounds good in theory, but ends up a nightmare in practice. Phrases like "ISPs will not be able to filter lawful content" are nowhere close to "ISPs will not be able to filter traffic". I'd much prefer the latter in a net neutrality law.
benmathes 12y ago
At least constitutionally, the 4th amendment (unlawful search) and "innocent until proven guilty" would mean blocking if _known_ illegal traffic. Yes, granted, those rights are often infringed upon, especially in tech.
- lazyant 12y ago
  And police seizures. And airport/border guard.
  - primitivesuave 12y ago
    And the NSA, FISA courts, Patriot Act... the list of 4th amendment infringements goes on and on.
    - droopybuns 12y ago
      I agree so heartily. The tired trope endures: do we really want the innovations of the DMV applied to the Internet? Is there a country that is regulating Internet in existence that is doing anything that we'd consider positive?
      - ArtDev 12y ago
        If electricity, gas and water were not regulated, we would be outraged about that too.
warfangle 12y ago
On the other hand, he's also calling for it to be classified under Title II. Unless Title II is modified, that would prohibit ISPs from deep packet inspection. It would also prohibit ISPs from modifying responses in situ - like inserting tracking beacons gifs into HTML responses or returning a custom search page (with associated ad revenue) when a DNS lookup fails. Edit: So, with the 'if the content is legal' clause, Obama was probably referring to refusal to carry / illegal purpose court decisions. This can be applied only in very, very limited circumstances. A couple court decisions that are relevant: * Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957); carrier suspected caller of using the telephone for illegal gambling transactions and terminated their service. Court ruled that service should be reinstated: the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility." * Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945); "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required." * People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965; "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands."
- AndrewHampton 12y ago
  I hope you're correct and deep packet inspection is prohibited. The language being used still concerns me though. > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. This implies that ISPs would be permitted to block illegal content. How can they know traffic is legal without some form of traffic monitoring/inspection?
  - warfangle 12y ago
    Going from the court decisions, they would know that traffic is illegal if a court tells them it's illegal. Again, refer to People v. Brophy: the common carrier is not "authorized or required" to investigate. Probably meaning they can aid in investigation (e.g., supply information to police) but not perform an investigation (analyze said information themselves). In addition, Title II would probably put internet traffic on the same level as wiretaps in terms of (non-DHS) data snooping. If anything, it would give internet users more protection for this sort of thing than they are granted now.
venomsnake 12y ago
I think that it is preventative of headlines "Obama wants pedophiles to be able to download kiddie porn fast" that the other party pundits are sure to make. Edit: I am not defending any party, just assume that in current poisonous climate ANY action of ANY high position party official of ANY party will be stretched and twisted by the other side. Inspection of traffic with the coming certificate pinning and https implementations will be very hard. And you always have VPN. At worst there will be overnet in which bittorrent will flow.
- dasmithii 12y ago
  Good point. It could be doubly motivated as well, by (1) anticipated twisting of words, and (2) potential censoring of content.
wahsd 12y ago
The problem is that society has been sitting on its laurels and even though the default should have been that the inherent spirit of the Constitution be extended into the digital world, instead, we have allowed and been complicit in allowing government to not only become authoritarian on the internet, but even to subvert and pervert the very fundamental concepts that set parameters on our whole existence. People, the world is cruel, savage, sadistic, perverse, and brutish without social agreement on fundamental principles. If the underlying concepts that the Constitution is based on are eroded further and further the way they have been for years now, we will, with guarantee, find ourselves in the same predicament as all other people who wake up one day and are dominated by a totalitarian regime. Some may see that as hyperbole, but too often humans take privilege, safety, and security for granted and squander away what their ancestors had to pay with their lives and livelihoods for to achieve.
- guelo 12y ago
  The government created the internet. For a while in the early 90s corporations tried to create it, and what they came up with were walled gardens, the open internet blew them away, look up Compuserve, AOL and Prodigy. The internet works because of the underlying open, bidirectional, equally privileged connections. If the corps are starting to change that it must be stopped. The internet is one of humanities greatest achievements and we can't let greedy monopoly beuraucrats kill it.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    The government didn't create the internet. At the most, the government gave money to some projects that developed some technologies that were subsequently used to create the internet. Yes, there were a lot of failed attempts at how to handle the informational world - like AOL (which btw is alive and well as a company with multibillion revenues), Compuserve, etc. - but some of these attempts worked. And that what we call the internet now. Of course, it's not only companies, but NGOs, universities, etc. >>> The internet works because of the underlying open, bidirectional, equally privileged connections. This is very simplistic view which does not match what really happens on the net. There are a lot of barriers, firewalls, routing preferences, private bandwidth exchanges, etc. It still works reasonably well so far. >>> The internet is one of humanities greatest achievements and we can't let greedy monopoly beuraucrats kill it. You realize that "monopoly bureaucrats" is the very definition of the government? If you were ever scared of huge bureaucratic power that would take away the control from you and use it for its own purposes, the US federal government would fit this role ideally.
brandonmenc 12y ago
I'm betting "illegal content" will eventually come to include things like "bullying." Expect a much broader array of takedown notices once the FCC is granted content-level authority over the internet.
- rinon 12y ago
  If such "bullying" is found illegal in court, then I don't see the problem here. Nobody is saying the FCC should be in charge of deciding these things, just that companies are still required to comply with court orders. Speaking of "bullying," assault, "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact," [1] is already illegal. Sounds an awful lot like credible bullying. Why should this be legal online? [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Verbal+assault http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Verbal+assault
- Bud 12y ago
  Great. Bullying should be illegal already, and internet bullies should be aggressively prosecuted. This is currently a law enforcement blind spot, but that needs to change. BTW, putting quotes around the world "bullying" isn't actually effective in mocking it as something actionable; it just communicates to us that you are perfectly ok with bullying.
  - brandonmenc 12y ago
    The FCC regulates content that it deems "indecent" or "obscene" - legally nebulous terms. "Bullying" could cover incidents like Dan Savage redefining Santorum. The FCC has been trying to get their hands on the internet for decades, and I see enforced net neutrality as their Trojan horse. It's possible I'm overly paranoid. fwiw, we probably agree on the actual definition of bullying, and also that it should be illegal. I put it in quotes to indicate I'm using it imprecisely, not because I'm OK with what I believe to be legitimate bullying.
  - thizzbuzz 12y ago
    The worry is that "bullying" can be redefined to mean almost anything. A scathing critique of a bad business or politician could be construed as bullying. We should also be careful about criminalizing bullies, since a large portion of them are young (and quite possibly bullied or abused themselves). It's a problem, and it needs more attention, but rushing to criminalize it seems hasty to me.
lotharbot 12y ago
He's basically saying that this ruling wouldn't override other court orders. That's a perfectly sensible thing to say. (I rarely side with Obama.)
jeangenie 12y ago
I agree that the presence of that single qualifier casts an irrevocably ominous shadow over the entire sentiment. In a purely-hypothetical dystopia it could be the basis of more invasive monitoring and control capabilities over network infrastructure.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Not really. Blocking of illegal content is possible -- and can be (and, at times, has been) encouraged and even mandated by government -- even without protection of legal content. So, while the qualifier might suggest that such practices would not be curtailed by the neutrality, they don't provide the basis for more invasive monitoring and control than the absence of neutrality does, because the basis of that more invasive monitory and control already exists in the illegality of certain content, whether or not there is neutrality for legal content.
  - jeangenie 12y ago
    Why would the statement need to provide any basis? It's merely a carefully worded expression of a decision that's already been made. You will find even recent history rife with examples.
leeber 12y ago
I wouldn't read into it too much. If he didn't put that in there, tons of idiots would go around saying how net neutrality will support all the crooks of the dark web, illegal filesharing websites, etc. Obviously that's ridiculous and not the case, but it would have really given net neutrality a bad image to the average person who probably has no idea what net neutrality is at all. We've already got idiots let Ted Cruz tweeting that net neutrality is the "Obamacare of the internet."
hristov 12y ago
You are reading too much into this. Obama is merely adding this phrase to protect himself from those that will intentionally try to twist his words. When you hear anything Obama says, you must remember that there are literally thousands of hacks and an entire media empire out there carefully examining his words and thinking how they can twist them or misrepresent them to make him look bad. If he did not put that phrase in there, there would be a story on fox news saying "Obama supports child pornography". Regarding having ISPs police users, I do not know why the government would do something like that. The government already tracks internet traffic all over the US thanks to the patriot law and you know how the government hates giving up its functions to private parties.
- alvaromuir 12y ago
  well said.
- efuquen 12y ago
  You were close, "Obamacare for the internet". Edit: Which in retrospect is more likely to outrage the Republican base.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > You are reading too much into this. Obama is merely adding this phrase to protect himself from those that will intentionally try to twist his words. Actually, much the same language has been in both the 2010 FCC Open Internet order and the draft for a new order earlier this year, its not something that was original in Obama's statement.
robomartin 12y ago
No. The part that should bother you has nothing whatsoever to do with this directly. It is found in hundreds and thousands of speeches, press conferences, government meetings and laws. They are called "lies". And, because we keep tolerating them the governing class, itself mostly immune and isolated from the very decisions they make and laws they pass, is emboldened. Every election is full of lies. Party divisions do not matter. They lie to get elected and then do as they please. They lie to pass laws, and then do as they please. Of course, Obamacare is a favorite punching back, and rightly so. The whole business of "an average savings of $2,500 per family", "if you like your plan you can keep it" and "if you like your doctor you can keep'em. Period" should be grounds for millions of people revolting. My family is going to have to pay $14,000 per year next year for health insurance. If we go to the cheapest crap plan we can find that number goes down to $12,000 per year. We were paying $5,000 per year before Obamacare and had fantastic health insurance with great providers. Un-fucking-believable. Someone just sent me this today: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Frare.us%2Fstory%2Fan-obamacare-architect-just-admitted-something-about-the-law-that-will-make-you-sick-to-your-stomach%2F&h=3AQGRZ345 http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Frare.us%2Fstory... So, in a nutshell: Worry about what lies you are being told.

antocv 12y ago

Which is the whole point of net-neutrality, that ISPs must not accountable for what flows through the network, or to block "illegal" messages.

ctdonath 12y ago
Not quite the "whole" point. It's not so much about accountability as not demanding customers pay more based on content; not being accountable for content is a consequence of not analyzing that content for whatever reason. It's about customers getting the bandwidth they pay for by not throttling the content they're requesting.

couchand 12y ago

It's a pretty massive stretch to go from "ISPs are permitted to block illegal traffic" to "ISPs are required to perform deep-packet inspection to ensure the legality of all traffic they carry".

AndrewHampton 12y ago
It is. It's just a concern I have since similar language seems to be everywhere, which makes me think including it is intentional.
- jstalin 12y ago
  You're right to be concerned. If they keep using the same language in these sorts of statements, you better believe it's for a reason. Look for any legislation or regulation to implement such language.
bushido 12y ago
Those two statements from a legal (writing) perspective are mutually exclusive, sort of. One is a Right and the other is a law. But both need to exist is some form to make the other possible. Also, they both require the same technology to be automated and possible. The main constraint for the latter is computational power.
- richardwhiuk 12y ago
  No they aren't. There is a difference between being required to do something by law, and being allowed to do something by law.
  - bushido 12y ago
    I agree they are different and stated that as such. Yet that regulation cannot exist without this Right. And the regulation is required to limit the abuse this Right can bestow on users. This is a tricky one, because the right and the law are both mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive.
dguaraglia 12y ago
On the other hand, just think about it: now you have the wedge in, there'll be a massive lobby (Hollywood, recording companies, 'big media' if you will) trying to use that wedge to push stronger legislation in. In fact, the government itself (NSA, FBI) will think 'hey, now that we have this, we might as well use it to Protect Our Children (tm)'. On the other hand, besides the ACLU and maybe a few people organizing over the internet, there will be no money spent in lobbying to tighten up definitions and improve privacy. So there, it's a 'pretty massive stretch' but by no means it's an unexpected thing.
- randomfool 12y ago
  SSL everything.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    You mean: "TLS Everything" ;-P
  - smsm42 12y ago
    Unless, of course, direct encrypted communication is prohibited. Because, you know, Internet is a public utility now, and if you are using public thing, you should abide by public's rules. Like connecting to SSL sites only using approved ISP SSL proxies that allow lawful intercept. After all, you accept that to drive on public roads you need a license. So, to browse on public internet, you need to follow the rules too. And the rules say law enforcement should be able to see what you are transmitting - given properly signed court order, of course - so that means you can not use non-interceptable encryption. See how this logic works?
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      I think that this creates both first and fourth amendment issues.
      - smsm42 12y ago
        I don't see 1st amendment issues if this is content-neutral (I don't think the Supreme Court would consider the choice of encryption scheme being speech by itself and thus protected expression) towards underlying data. As for 4th amendment, right now I think the prevailing position is that ability to collect data is not search until the data is actually collected, so providing capability for lawful intercept would not be considered 4th amendment problem. I don't like it too much, but that seems to be the state of affairs now.
emcrazyone 12y ago
Agree. ISP owner here. Not all web sites or IP addresses contain 100% illegal material. Virtual hosting (hosting more than one web site from same IP address) poses problems as does content among sub-domains. I don't have the resources to monitor and track such things and if I were forced into it, I would either go out of business or try to become a search engine.
- aragot 12y ago
  I don't see why the good old model of "Someone deposits a complaint against a website at a police station, then the server/website is investigated upon, then the fine is raised against the renter/owner of the server" isn't enough.
- arthurcolle 12y ago
  I've actually wondered how do you go about providing access to internet? I write a lot of code and spent a good amount of time on the internet and it's always made me wonder how exactly one goes about providing internet to customers. Really curious for any resources to read about this if you have any resources to read or just your personal experience!
  - macns 12y ago
    I don't think internet is what he provides, as an ISP (Internet services provider). He mentioned virtual hosting, so he's probably offering webhosting services.
  - corobo 12y ago
    Basically it's a reselling system no matter which way you go. You buy access into a bigger ISP's network and then provide services on top of it. If you've got a huge wallet you could run your own physical infrastructure but it would be hugely expensive for anything more than a small userbase [1]. If you went that way you'd make peering agreements with your closest internet backbone providers to hook into the rest of the internet (backbone providers being even bigger ISPs than those mentioned earlier, the ISP's ISP if you like) [1] It has been done in the past: http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/how-to-start-your-own-isp-699959 http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/how-to-start-your-own...

dragonwriter 12y ago

I think the concern is somewhat misplaced, because we've already seen the FCC take multiple stabs at regulations on net neutrality, that have been based on the principle of no or limited interference with lawful content, and they haven't required inspection of traffic. Its not a requirement that ISPs block unlawful content, its a prohibition on blocking lawful content. A strong enough prohibition on blocking lawful content (e.g., one which provides consequences whenever lawful content is blocked, even if the intent was to block unlawful content and the lawful content just got caught up in the net) actually reduces the incentive for ISPs to attempt to identify and block unlawful content, since attempting to do so but making a misidentification in the process can result in penalties. In fact, I'd argue that a no-blocking-lawful-content rule combined with a safe harbor provisions preventing ISPs from being liable for transmission of unlawful content by customers so long as the ISP wasn't actively involved in soliciting or promoting the specific illegal content is probably a good protection against ISP-initiated snooping, since it eliminates any liability-based incentive for it. OTOH, it doesn't stop ISP-snooping-at-behest-of-government, but if you get a mechanism to do that, its going to be outside the context of net neutrality.

psykovsky 12y ago
The laws will change a couple times before you see the problem for what it really is.
AndrewHampton 12y ago
I agree that my concern may be misplaced and everything could work out fine. I'd categorize myself as "cautiously optimistic" about these laws still, but wanted to bring this up since I don't see much discussion about it. Additionally, I almost brought this up in my original post, but decided against it, but "lawful content" is another phrase I commonly see in the same discussions. IANAL, but my understanding is that unlawful != illegal. "Lawful" means the subject is specifically addressed and permitted by law, and "unlawful" is anything else. So traffic can be legal, but not lawful. My biggest fear is that we in the tech community will rally behind a net neutrality law which sounds good in theory, but ends up a nightmare in practice. Phrases like "ISPs will not be able to filter lawful content" are nowhere close to "ISPs will not be able to filter traffic". I'd much prefer the latter in a net neutrality law.

benmathes 12y ago

At least constitutionally, the 4th amendment (unlawful search) and "innocent until proven guilty" would mean blocking if _known_ illegal traffic. Yes, granted, those rights are often infringed upon, especially in tech.

lazyant 12y ago
And police seizures. And airport/border guard.
- primitivesuave 12y ago
  And the NSA, FISA courts, Patriot Act... the list of 4th amendment infringements goes on and on.
  - droopybuns 12y ago
    I agree so heartily. The tired trope endures: do we really want the innovations of the DMV applied to the Internet? Is there a country that is regulating Internet in existence that is doing anything that we'd consider positive?
    - ArtDev 12y ago
      If electricity, gas and water were not regulated, we would be outraged about that too.

warfangle 12y ago

On the other hand, he's also calling for it to be classified under Title II. Unless Title II is modified, that would prohibit ISPs from deep packet inspection. It would also prohibit ISPs from modifying responses in situ - like inserting tracking beacons gifs into HTML responses or returning a custom search page (with associated ad revenue) when a DNS lookup fails. Edit: So, with the 'if the content is legal' clause, Obama was probably referring to refusal to carry / illegal purpose court decisions. This can be applied only in very, very limited circumstances. A couple court decisions that are relevant: * Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957); carrier suspected caller of using the telephone for illegal gambling transactions and terminated their service. Court ruled that service should be reinstated: the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility." * Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945); "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required." * People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965; "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands."

AndrewHampton 12y ago
I hope you're correct and deep packet inspection is prohibited. The language being used still concerns me though. > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. This implies that ISPs would be permitted to block illegal content. How can they know traffic is legal without some form of traffic monitoring/inspection?
- warfangle 12y ago
  Going from the court decisions, they would know that traffic is illegal if a court tells them it's illegal. Again, refer to People v. Brophy: the common carrier is not "authorized or required" to investigate. Probably meaning they can aid in investigation (e.g., supply information to police) but not perform an investigation (analyze said information themselves). In addition, Title II would probably put internet traffic on the same level as wiretaps in terms of (non-DHS) data snooping. If anything, it would give internet users more protection for this sort of thing than they are granted now.

venomsnake 12y ago

I think that it is preventative of headlines "Obama wants pedophiles to be able to download kiddie porn fast" that the other party pundits are sure to make. Edit: I am not defending any party, just assume that in current poisonous climate ANY action of ANY high position party official of ANY party will be stretched and twisted by the other side. Inspection of traffic with the coming certificate pinning and https implementations will be very hard. And you always have VPN. At worst there will be overnet in which bittorrent will flow.

dasmithii 12y ago
Good point. It could be doubly motivated as well, by (1) anticipated twisting of words, and (2) potential censoring of content.

wahsd 12y ago

The problem is that society has been sitting on its laurels and even though the default should have been that the inherent spirit of the Constitution be extended into the digital world, instead, we have allowed and been complicit in allowing government to not only become authoritarian on the internet, but even to subvert and pervert the very fundamental concepts that set parameters on our whole existence. People, the world is cruel, savage, sadistic, perverse, and brutish without social agreement on fundamental principles. If the underlying concepts that the Constitution is based on are eroded further and further the way they have been for years now, we will, with guarantee, find ourselves in the same predicament as all other people who wake up one day and are dominated by a totalitarian regime. Some may see that as hyperbole, but too often humans take privilege, safety, and security for granted and squander away what their ancestors had to pay with their lives and livelihoods for to achieve.

guelo 12y ago
The government created the internet. For a while in the early 90s corporations tried to create it, and what they came up with were walled gardens, the open internet blew them away, look up Compuserve, AOL and Prodigy. The internet works because of the underlying open, bidirectional, equally privileged connections. If the corps are starting to change that it must be stopped. The internet is one of humanities greatest achievements and we can't let greedy monopoly beuraucrats kill it.
- smsm42 12y ago
  The government didn't create the internet. At the most, the government gave money to some projects that developed some technologies that were subsequently used to create the internet. Yes, there were a lot of failed attempts at how to handle the informational world - like AOL (which btw is alive and well as a company with multibillion revenues), Compuserve, etc. - but some of these attempts worked. And that what we call the internet now. Of course, it's not only companies, but NGOs, universities, etc. >>> The internet works because of the underlying open, bidirectional, equally privileged connections. This is very simplistic view which does not match what really happens on the net. There are a lot of barriers, firewalls, routing preferences, private bandwidth exchanges, etc. It still works reasonably well so far. >>> The internet is one of humanities greatest achievements and we can't let greedy monopoly beuraucrats kill it. You realize that "monopoly bureaucrats" is the very definition of the government? If you were ever scared of huge bureaucratic power that would take away the control from you and use it for its own purposes, the US federal government would fit this role ideally.

brandonmenc 12y ago

I'm betting "illegal content" will eventually come to include things like "bullying." Expect a much broader array of takedown notices once the FCC is granted content-level authority over the internet.

rinon 12y ago
If such "bullying" is found illegal in court, then I don't see the problem here. Nobody is saying the FCC should be in charge of deciding these things, just that companies are still required to comply with court orders. Speaking of "bullying," assault, "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact," [1] is already illegal. Sounds an awful lot like credible bullying. Why should this be legal online? [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Verbal+assault http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Verbal+assault
Bud 12y ago
Great. Bullying should be illegal already, and internet bullies should be aggressively prosecuted. This is currently a law enforcement blind spot, but that needs to change. BTW, putting quotes around the world "bullying" isn't actually effective in mocking it as something actionable; it just communicates to us that you are perfectly ok with bullying.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  The FCC regulates content that it deems "indecent" or "obscene" - legally nebulous terms. "Bullying" could cover incidents like Dan Savage redefining Santorum. The FCC has been trying to get their hands on the internet for decades, and I see enforced net neutrality as their Trojan horse. It's possible I'm overly paranoid. fwiw, we probably agree on the actual definition of bullying, and also that it should be illegal. I put it in quotes to indicate I'm using it imprecisely, not because I'm OK with what I believe to be legitimate bullying.
- thizzbuzz 12y ago
  The worry is that "bullying" can be redefined to mean almost anything. A scathing critique of a bad business or politician could be construed as bullying. We should also be careful about criminalizing bullies, since a large portion of them are young (and quite possibly bullied or abused themselves). It's a problem, and it needs more attention, but rushing to criminalize it seems hasty to me.

lotharbot 12y ago

He's basically saying that this ruling wouldn't override other court orders. That's a perfectly sensible thing to say. (I rarely side with Obama.)

jeangenie 12y ago

I agree that the presence of that single qualifier casts an irrevocably ominous shadow over the entire sentiment. In a purely-hypothetical dystopia it could be the basis of more invasive monitoring and control capabilities over network infrastructure.

dragonwriter 12y ago
Not really. Blocking of illegal content is possible -- and can be (and, at times, has been) encouraged and even mandated by government -- even without protection of legal content. So, while the qualifier might suggest that such practices would not be curtailed by the neutrality, they don't provide the basis for more invasive monitoring and control than the absence of neutrality does, because the basis of that more invasive monitory and control already exists in the illegality of certain content, whether or not there is neutrality for legal content.
- jeangenie 12y ago
  Why would the statement need to provide any basis? It's merely a carefully worded expression of a decision that's already been made. You will find even recent history rife with examples.

leeber 12y ago

I wouldn't read into it too much. If he didn't put that in there, tons of idiots would go around saying how net neutrality will support all the crooks of the dark web, illegal filesharing websites, etc. Obviously that's ridiculous and not the case, but it would have really given net neutrality a bad image to the average person who probably has no idea what net neutrality is at all. We've already got idiots let Ted Cruz tweeting that net neutrality is the "Obamacare of the internet."

hristov 12y ago

You are reading too much into this. Obama is merely adding this phrase to protect himself from those that will intentionally try to twist his words. When you hear anything Obama says, you must remember that there are literally thousands of hacks and an entire media empire out there carefully examining his words and thinking how they can twist them or misrepresent them to make him look bad. If he did not put that phrase in there, there would be a story on fox news saying "Obama supports child pornography". Regarding having ISPs police users, I do not know why the government would do something like that. The government already tracks internet traffic all over the US thanks to the patriot law and you know how the government hates giving up its functions to private parties.

alvaromuir 12y ago
well said.
efuquen 12y ago
You were close, "Obamacare for the internet". Edit: Which in retrospect is more likely to outrage the Republican base.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> You are reading too much into this. Obama is merely adding this phrase to protect himself from those that will intentionally try to twist his words. Actually, much the same language has been in both the 2010 FCC Open Internet order and the draft for a new order earlier this year, its not something that was original in Obama's statement.

robomartin 12y ago

No. The part that should bother you has nothing whatsoever to do with this directly. It is found in hundreds and thousands of speeches, press conferences, government meetings and laws. They are called "lies". And, because we keep tolerating them the governing class, itself mostly immune and isolated from the very decisions they make and laws they pass, is emboldened. Every election is full of lies. Party divisions do not matter. They lie to get elected and then do as they please. They lie to pass laws, and then do as they please. Of course, Obamacare is a favorite punching back, and rightly so. The whole business of "an average savings of $2,500 per family", "if you like your plan you can keep it" and "if you like your doctor you can keep'em. Period" should be grounds for millions of people revolting. My family is going to have to pay $14,000 per year next year for health insurance. If we go to the cheapest crap plan we can find that number goes down to $12,000 per year. We were paying $5,000 per year before Obamacare and had fantastic health insurance with great providers. Un-fucking-believable. Someone just sent me this today: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Frare.us%2Fstory%2Fan-obamacare-architect-just-admitted-something-about-the-law-that-will-make-you-sick-to-your-stomach%2F&h=3AQGRZ345 http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Frare.us%2Fstory... So, in a nutshell: Worry about what lies you are being told.