6 ms·

Warning in advance: The following musings are not positive, you may wish to skip this comment. The last references to the proposed text I read still had "lawfu

Warning in advance: The following musings are not positive, you may wish to skip this comment. The last references to the proposed text I read still had "lawful content" as a phrase, one I consider to be a key phrase. In order to allow lawful content, a definition of lawful (and therefore unlawful) will be required, as well as inspection of content to allow enforcement. I am inquisitive, this leads me to questions: What words will I be disallowed from using to keep a website online? What speech will I need to silence? Will this be similar to free speech zones? Will I be allowed to run a webserver as long as I put up certain warnings/guarantees? Or carry a specific type of rating in a revamped website rating system? This inspection: Will my ISP be required to perform packet reconstruction to analyze my content to decide whether it should be given a pass or not? Should we be looking to products like Comodo's PrivDog as a model of how the government should set this up? Assuming they address the invalid cert part, maybe our government should take over all CAs, to make sure they can read all encrypted communications to confirm they are lawful? I am deeply disappointed that I feel like I can start quoting George Orwell to make my points... On a positive note, with all of this extra traffic and the subsequent requirements, maybe the US will have to invest in faster network infrastructure without having to rely on Google Fiber threatening the local monopolies. And since the FCC is involved, rather than this being a market-driven cost approach, it will likely be more a tragedy of the commons-based cost approach - My fellow tax payers and I will all foot the bill. At least we won't be as likely to notice that it is much more expensive than it needed to be. And it can be passed on to more than one generation. Depending on who I listen to, there are rumoured to be quite a few people out of work who could benefit from more job creation, maybe we will get a new governmental organization, similar to the DHS, to oversee this. There seem to be so many ways this does not end well.

wmf 12y ago
This looks like an example of pretending there's no precedent and using that as an opportunity to invent an arbitrary strawman that supports your hobbyhorse (in this case extreme paranoia). Internet copyright laws (NET, DMCA, etc.) don't work anything like what you've proposed and there's no evidence that the FCC is trying to use net neutrality as a backdoor to reverse that precedent.
- gojomo 12y ago
  The FCC's traditional role as broadcast obscenity-and-violence censor provides evidence that its powers will be used that way. Part of the FCC's traditional regulation of phone networks also included ensuring wiretap-capability. FCC appointees, loyalists to the two national parties, will have new discretionary powers over ISPs' businesses. When the next scare about terror, or child-exploitation, or piracy, or violent/subversive/harassing/offensive media comes along, and DC needs to "do something", will ISPs thumb their noses at their new minders at the FCC, or "go along to get along" as "team players"?
  - tzs 12y ago
    > The FCC's traditional role as broadcast obscenity-and-violence censor provides evidence that its powers will be used that way Congress has explicitly made broadcasting obscene material illegal. This is completely irrelevant to Title II regulation of the internet.
    - warfangle 12y ago
      And, in fact, ISPs being classified as Title II common carriers would actively prevent the FCC (and ISPs) from censoring the internet.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    > The FCC's traditional role as broadcast obscenity-and-violence censor Well... no, their traditional role was the licensing of radio spectrum. > evidence that its powers will be used that way. Title II does not give the FCC the permission to censor the internet; in fact, the portion of the TCA 96 that _did_ require that the FCC censor the internet was struck down by the courts. > When the next scare about terror, or child-exploitation, or piracy, or violent/subversive/harassing/offensive media comes along, and DC needs to "do something", will ISPs thumb their noses at their new minders at the FCC, or "go along to get along" as "team players"? And what, pray tell, would a commission with 1,720 employees and $336m in funding be able to do that the NSA and the FBI aren't already doing?
warfangle 12y ago
>"lawful content" Yeah. It's in there so that courts can order sites blocked... not the FCC. > What words will I be disallowed from using to keep a website online? What speech will I need to silence? This boogieman comes from part of the DMCA '96 that was struck down by the courts. > Will this be similar to free speech zones? Will I be allowed to run a webserver as long as I put up certain warnings/guarantees? Or carry a specific type of rating in a revamped website rating system? Er.. truly doubt it. Do you have to put up certain warnings/guarantees when you make phone calls, or carry a rating on your personal phone number? > Will my ISP be required to perform packet reconstruction to analyze my content to decide whether it should be given a pass or not? In fact, the courts have decided that this is illegal (in the context of the telephone) without a warrant. Phone company thought a customer was doing something shady because of their usage patterns and cut them off. Turns out he wasn't doing anything shady, and the courts ordered his phone service restored. > My fellow tax payers and I will all foot the bill. Hmm.. FCC's budget for FY 2011 was $336.8 million ... FY2011 expenditures for the federal government was $3.603 trillion ... so, you're up in arms about 0.009% of your taxes?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  A prohibition on blocking lawful content doesn't create any new authority for anyone -- courts or FCC -- to order sites/content blocked, it just doesn't take away ISPs ability, which exists in the absence of regulation, to block unlawful content, whether on their own initiative or pursuant to an order from some entity with preexisting authority to order the content blocked.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    > it just doesn't take away ISPs ability, which exists in the absence of regulation, to block unlawful content, whether on their own initiative or pursuant to an order from some entity with preexisting authority to order the content blocked. Their ability to block unlawful content on their own initiative would be restricted as a Title II common carrier. It would have to be ordered by the courts. They can't terminate based on suspicion of unlawful use; there must be evidence: * 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." * 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." They are not authorized to collect said evidence themselves; that lies with law enforcement: * 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."

wmf 12y ago

This looks like an example of pretending there's no precedent and using that as an opportunity to invent an arbitrary strawman that supports your hobbyhorse (in this case extreme paranoia). Internet copyright laws (NET, DMCA, etc.) don't work anything like what you've proposed and there's no evidence that the FCC is trying to use net neutrality as a backdoor to reverse that precedent.

gojomo 12y ago
The FCC's traditional role as broadcast obscenity-and-violence censor provides evidence that its powers will be used that way. Part of the FCC's traditional regulation of phone networks also included ensuring wiretap-capability. FCC appointees, loyalists to the two national parties, will have new discretionary powers over ISPs' businesses. When the next scare about terror, or child-exploitation, or piracy, or violent/subversive/harassing/offensive media comes along, and DC needs to "do something", will ISPs thumb their noses at their new minders at the FCC, or "go along to get along" as "team players"?
- tzs 12y ago
  > The FCC's traditional role as broadcast obscenity-and-violence censor provides evidence that its powers will be used that way Congress has explicitly made broadcasting obscene material illegal. This is completely irrelevant to Title II regulation of the internet.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    And, in fact, ISPs being classified as Title II common carriers would actively prevent the FCC (and ISPs) from censoring the internet.
- warfangle 12y ago
  > The FCC's traditional role as broadcast obscenity-and-violence censor Well... no, their traditional role was the licensing of radio spectrum. > evidence that its powers will be used that way. Title II does not give the FCC the permission to censor the internet; in fact, the portion of the TCA 96 that _did_ require that the FCC censor the internet was struck down by the courts. > When the next scare about terror, or child-exploitation, or piracy, or violent/subversive/harassing/offensive media comes along, and DC needs to "do something", will ISPs thumb their noses at their new minders at the FCC, or "go along to get along" as "team players"? And what, pray tell, would a commission with 1,720 employees and $336m in funding be able to do that the NSA and the FBI aren't already doing?

warfangle 12y ago

>"lawful content" Yeah. It's in there so that courts can order sites blocked... not the FCC. > What words will I be disallowed from using to keep a website online? What speech will I need to silence? This boogieman comes from part of the DMCA '96 that was struck down by the courts. > Will this be similar to free speech zones? Will I be allowed to run a webserver as long as I put up certain warnings/guarantees? Or carry a specific type of rating in a revamped website rating system? Er.. truly doubt it. Do you have to put up certain warnings/guarantees when you make phone calls, or carry a rating on your personal phone number? > Will my ISP be required to perform packet reconstruction to analyze my content to decide whether it should be given a pass or not? In fact, the courts have decided that this is illegal (in the context of the telephone) without a warrant. Phone company thought a customer was doing something shady because of their usage patterns and cut them off. Turns out he wasn't doing anything shady, and the courts ordered his phone service restored. > My fellow tax payers and I will all foot the bill. Hmm.. FCC's budget for FY 2011 was $336.8 million ... FY2011 expenditures for the federal government was $3.603 trillion ... so, you're up in arms about 0.009% of your taxes?

dragonwriter 12y ago
A prohibition on blocking lawful content doesn't create any new authority for anyone -- courts or FCC -- to order sites/content blocked, it just doesn't take away ISPs ability, which exists in the absence of regulation, to block unlawful content, whether on their own initiative or pursuant to an order from some entity with preexisting authority to order the content blocked.
- warfangle 12y ago
  > it just doesn't take away ISPs ability, which exists in the absence of regulation, to block unlawful content, whether on their own initiative or pursuant to an order from some entity with preexisting authority to order the content blocked. Their ability to block unlawful content on their own initiative would be restricted as a Title II common carrier. It would have to be ordered by the courts. They can't terminate based on suspicion of unlawful use; there must be evidence: * 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." * 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." They are not authorized to collect said evidence themselves; that lies with law enforcement: * 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."