34 replies to this topic

[zalternate]

Just think for a minute. How hard is it to steal all your money in a paperless society?

The main thing about online banking or other payments, is that you need to make sure your computer is clean. No bugs. No virus.
Otherwise every key stroke could be in some peoples computers on the other side of the world, just waiting to make a withdrawal on your accounts.
But too many people have infected systems with all sorts of popups and junk, yet they act like there is no problem, since the computer still can go to places they want, other than their search engine is now some ad portal. And every tenth page click is to a scumware site.
Smileys may be fun, but if they download 3 pieces of spyware, why bother. And some file sharing programs have junk too. But there are clean versions of the program, that the noobs don't know about.

[zalternate]

Oh looky here. A Republican and his puppet masters at the big rich ISP's and "Americans for Prosperity" have a proposed new version of the Net Neutrality bill. Can you say, "F*CK the consumer"? And "No Net Neutrality for anyone".

And I really don't care if it's a Republican puppet or a Democrat puppet. Any politician who gets paid to kill consumerism needs to be sent to scrape oil off of the beach in the Gulf of Mexico. At least they are doing a service to people that way.


http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/05/12-19

Stearns' Internet Bill Would Impose Heavy Regulations, Enable Further Consumer Harm

WASHINGTON - May 12 - On Tuesday, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) introduced a bill that would block the FCC's recent proposal for light touch oversight of Internet providers, a proposal that would protect Internet users and ensure that the agency could carry out key parts of the National Broadband Plan.

Deceptively named "the Internet Investment, Innovation, and Competition Preservation Act," the draft legislation ironically proposes widespread regulation of the Internet, but seeks to delay any FCC action that would ensure consumer protection until significant harm has already occurred.

Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner said:

"It is perfectly reasonable to ask the FCC to identify market failures prior to regulating -- that's the central mission of any regulatory agency. We have already demonstrated many failures in this market, all of which have led to ever higher consumer bills and inadequate infrastructure investment. These examples and other market failures, and the stated intent of ISPs to abuse their market power through discriminatory practices, warrant the FCC stepping in to protect consumers and preserve the open Internet.

"But this bill, which purports to be a bulwark against unnecessary regulation, actually includes a requirement that any future Network Neutrality rule be applied to all websites and Internet content, not just to the physical infrastructure of broadband networks. In other words, with this bill Rep. Stearns literally seeks to create a fairness doctrine for the Internet. It is clear that there is no reason for anyone to take this bill seriously."

Free Press offers three reasons why lawmakers, including those who oppose Internet rules, should steer clear of this bill:

1) At its core, this bill is a political stunt - a legislative vehicle for the agenda of the largest incumbent broadband providers. Its central objective, requiring the FCC to submit a report to Congress, amounts to little more than the analysis the FCC normally would do in the course of applying its rules. The bill would serve no functional purpose other than to create additional bureaucratic hassles before the agency could create policy to protect consumers, competition or innovation. The bill would force the FCC to permit massive consumer harm in the broadband marketplace before taking any form of remedial or preventative action.

2) Although it claims to be a safeguard against unnecessary regulation, this bill includes a dramatic expansion of regulations for web content. The bill proposes that any future Net Neutrality rule be applied to websites and Internet applications. It seeks to apply, for the first time, content regulations to websites and Internet applications.

3) The bill wants "proof" of market failure, although the high prices consumers pay and the slow speeds of our networks relative to global leaders already indicate that broadband access providers possess and abuse market power. The FCC and others have already demonstrated plenty of textbook economic examples of market failure, including duopoly, high entry barriers, externalities, public good attributes, and information asymmetries, just to name a few.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/196167/net_neutrality_wars_entangle_free_speech.html

U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns wants so badly to stop the U.S. Federal Communications Commission from creating network neutrality rules that he appears ready to weaken the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Stearns, a Florida Republican, unveiled legislation Tuesday that would require the FCC, if it passed net neutrality rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content and services, to also enforce the rules on Web application and content providers.

Under a narrow reading of Stearns' legislation, the bill would prohibit search engines from ranking results and would forbid Web content providers, such as video and news sites, from entering into exclusive content-sharing agreements that are now pervasive across the Internet. If the FCC creates net neutrality rules, the bill would require the Wall Street Journal's Web site, for example, to carry news from all news outlets.

Under a bit broader reading of the Internet Investment, Innovation, and Competition Preservation Act, the bill would require Web sites to publish all comments, rants, and half-baked conspiracy theories from all Internet users, if the FCC creates net neutrality rules.

It's hard to see how legislation that would force Web sites to carry other people's content would pass a First Amendment challenge. The language in Stearns' bill is a textbook example of a law that would curtail the freedom of speech and the press.

Stearns announced his legislation at a press conference hosted by Americans for Prosperity (AFP), an antiregulation advocacy group. AFP announced Tuesday that it would launch an advertising campaign opposing FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's plan to reclassify broadband as a regulated service.

Last week, Genachowski announced the plan to reclassify broadband in response to an appeals court decision saying the agency did not have the authority to enforce informal net neutrality principles.

At the press conference Tuesday, Stearns announced that his proposed legislation would require the FCC to issue a detailed report to Congress about market failures in the broadband industry before the agency could reclassify broadband. The bill drew praise from several broadband providers and related trade groups.

Buried in the Stearns bill, however, is a provision on "neutral network neutrality." The provision is squarely aimed at net neutrality backer Google -- some Republican lawmakers, broadband providers and other net neutrality opponents have complained that Google, in providing ranked search results and other services, isn't neutral.

The argument from net neutrality opponents goes like this: If the FCC regulates one part of the Internet, in this case, broadband providers, then it should regulate other parts of the Internet as well.

"If cable and phone can't manage their networks for congestion and quality of service, neither can Google when it comes to their data farms, search results, YouTube, etc.," a spokesman for Stearns said. "If cable and the Bells can't negotiate special deals, neither can Google."

The spokesman seems to be misreading the FCC's net neutrality proposal, at least as it currently stands. The FCC's proposed rules would allow broadband providers to manage their networks.

What the rules wouldn't allow is for broadband providers to selectively discriminate against Internet traffic. However, applying that kind of rule to a search engine or a Web site becomes troublesome, at best.

Here's the language in the Stearns bill: "The Commission shall apply and enforce any regulation governing the rates, terms, conditions, provisioning, or use of an information service ... or an Internet access service on a nondiscriminatory basis between and among broadband network providers, service providers, application providers, and content providers."

There are a lot of problems here, not the least of which is how a search engine or a Web content provider would actually achieve net neutrality.

For some Web applications, there is an expectation of net neutrality. Internet users expect a service like Skype to treat all calls the same. But what the heck would net neutrality look like for a Web content provider? How exactly would a news site achieve net neutrality?

In addition, the bill doesn't define what a "content provider" is. There's no language in the bill limiting the content-sharing rules to commercial content providers. On the Internet, we're all content providers. If the Stearns language becomes law, all Web sites could become, basically, the same collection of stream-of-consciousness rants from any "content provider." There would be little difference between NYTimes.com and 4chan.org.

Stearns didn't invoke the First Amendment at the AFP event, though he should have considered it. Another speaker at the press conference, however, did raise free-speech concerns in a rather creative reading of the First Amendment and the FCC's net neutrality proposal.

At the event, some net neutrality opponents voiced objections that make some sense. Some are concerned that the FCC's efforts to reclassify broadband and create net neutrality rules will create market uncertainty and cause broadband investment to slow.

But conservative antitax activist Grover Norquist took the argument a step further. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, compared the FCC's recent efforts to reclassify broadband as a common-carrier type of service to China's vast censorship efforts.

"The idea of putting policemen and regulators throughout the Internet ought to frighten everybody," he said. Backers of net neutrality rules are "whining that the Chinese are doing exactly what they're advocating we should do here."

In Norquist's mind, this new police regime would apparently decide what people can do on the Internet, never mind that the goal of net neutrality advocates is to give Internet users unfettered free speech. "This is an incredible attack on the First Amendment," he said.

Norquist and others imagine some huge FCC monitoring system to track net neutrality violations. The FCC's move toward broadband reclassification is in its infancy, but no one at the FCC has called for an Internet police force to monitor the activity of broadband providers.

Norquist may not realize this, but in the handful of cases where the FCC has looked into violations of its net neutrality principles, it's been broadband customers who have reported the problems. In a recent Comcast case, which led to the appeals court ruling against the FCC, a customer with a networking background first noticed that some of his applications seemed to be running slower than the others.

Norquist seems to assume that the FCC would have both the technological ability, and the inclination, to monitor a significant amount of Internet traffic. There are no indications it has either.

There are a lot of legitimate concerns about both net neutrality rules and the FCC's efforts to reclassify broadband. Opponents of both efforts, however, do themselves no favors by twisting the First Amendment into knots in their drive to stop the FCC.

[local.peon]

Updated May 14, 2010

Did They Really Think We Wouldn't Fight to Keep the Internet Free?



Do we think the Internet should be designed and managed by Washington bureaucrats? Or do we want to continue with a privately-owned, competitive Internet?

The Obama administration and its friends at the Federal Communications Commission thought they could impose sweeping new Internet regulations without anybody other than far-left, Netroots activists like the fringe group Free Press noticing. They failed.

Americans for Prosperity and many free-market allies have blown the whistle and are now educating the vast majority of Americans -- who are happy with the unregulated Internet as it is -- about the threat posed by regulation.

AFP’s mission is to maximize economic freedom, make government smaller and less intrusive, and make America more prosperous. Free Press’s mission? Let’s start with its founder, Robert McChesney explaining their push for net neutrality:

“At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

And McChesney’s broader agenda? His ultimate endgame? Again, his own words:


“In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”

Yet Free Press claims that their support for sweeping new federal regulation of the Internet is about encouraging investment and free market competition. Somehow, it rings hollow when Free Press puts out a statement saying:

“The Federal Communications Commission is simply pursuing a path that will ensure that the free market works for the American public, something that prior FCCs failed to do.”

So the Internet hasn’t been working for the American public? Really?

How can making the free market “work” mean having sweeping public-utility style regulation, a return to the “golden days” of dial-up Internet or even the old national Ma Bell monopoly? How can competition policy be such a serious error, when, in the words of Free Press ally Public Knowledge’s Communications Director Art Brodsky, the Internet “has been the greatest creator of wealth we have ever seen”?

These regulations would be so crippling to investment that Wall Street analyst Craig Moffett referred to them as the “nuclear option” – not exactly a boon to the free market. Then again, perhaps an organization founded by a Marxist believes the only way to “ensure that the free market works” is to shut it down and replace it with a central economic plan.

Simply exposing Free Press’s ideological roots provokes them to call their critics McCarthyites. They can’t stand having their own words quoted – just like they claimed their former board member, Van Jones, was “smeared” by having video and audio clips of his own statements played on TV. They want people to ignore that McChesney is still on their board of directors and they still promote his policy ideas.

They can’t defend what McChesney has said so Free Press President Josh Silver attacks critics for quoting his own founder:

“McCarthy-esque allegations against our organization, painting our efforts to protect consumers and promote critical journalism as part of a “Marxist” government takeover of the Internet.

“Because nothing Free Press actually says or does remotely reflects their rhetoric, they recycle out-of-context quotes from one of our co-founders. Or they draw up elaborate conspiracy theories. It is the province of liars and scoundrels.”

But it’s not a lie. Free Press is the leading advocate for undoing the past 12 years of history -- since the FCC, under Clinton-appointed Chairman William Kennard, determined that Internet access is an unregulated information service. Reclassification is a government regulatory takeover, good or bad. (And do click through on the quotes from McChesney above to judge for yourself whether they are out of context.)

That’s what’s at stake with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Free Press-inspired proposal to reverse the past 12 years of regulatory policy by reclassifying the Internet as a regulated public utility. That’s a Washington takeover of the Internet. (And, as I’ve explained, Genachowski’s so-called “third way” is still nuclear.)

It’s not, as Free Press’s Megan Tady has asserted, “a crackpot conspiracy” to be concerned that economic regulation could lead to content regulation. It is easy to envision a scenario in which the Internet, transformed into a piece of public utility infrastructure, tightly regulated, and subsidized with billions of taxpayer dollars, would be subject to content restrictions.

Perhaps it will lead to right-wing groups like the Parents Television Council (a Free Press ally in their “Save the Internet” project) decrying indecent material on a public network that taxpayers support and demanding it be blocked.

Perhaps it will lead to left-wing social-justice motivated content regulation. Recent comments from FCC Commissioner Michael Copps suggest this is where regulation could lead:

“Can you tell me that minority and women’s voices on the Internet are getting through to major audiences—really being heard—like the big corporate sites? Should we just take it for granted that the small ‘d’ democratic potential of new information technologies will somehow be magically realized without questions being raised about how they are designed and managed?”

That’s really the central question. Do we think the Internet should be designed and managed by central economic planners to make sure certain voices are heard? By Washington bureaucrats? Or do we want to continue the remarkably successful experiment with a free-market, privately owned, competitive Internet?

To Free Press, private ownership is a problem. Their solution is onerous federal regulation—and, ultimately, “rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.” So when they talk about freedom, they mean freedom from “corporate control,” provided by government.

The vast majority of the American people understand freedom differently and would rather take their chances with private competition then government control. (See, for example, the recent Rasmussen poll that found Americans oppose FCC regulating the Internet 53 % to 27%.)

I would be glad to debate Free Press on the merits of the FCC regulating the Internet. If they are really convinced that the arguments for keeping the Internet unregulated are weak they should welcome the challenge.

By Phil Kerpen - FOXNews.com

Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and director of its www.NoInternetTakeover.com project. He can be reached on Twitter, Facebook, and through www.PhilKerpen.com.

Comments posted to this article:

anamericanmirac
When Osamabama spoke the other day about too much information being a distraction, he was setting the stage for how he is going to solve that problem by limiting information sources to his Orwellian Ministry of Truth. Controlling the internet and taxing the broadcast licenses of non-lamestream media outlets, bot ideas which are under active consideration at his progressive-infested FCC, will go a long way to the denial of the First Amendment which is essential if his regime is to succeed at fundamentally transforming America into just another weak European-style welfare state. Progressives are a serious cancer in America, and November is the cure.

Friday, May 14, 2010 at 5:40 PM
bullet45
Arizona

I can only tell them that when they come to take away my rights and freedoms as US citizen they had better come armed....I AM and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Friday, May 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM
taxslayer
New York

WHEN YOU GET RIGHT TO IT COMMIES AND PROGRESSIVES ARE STUPID AND APPEAL TO EMOTIONAL STUPID PEOPLE.

Friday, May 14, 2010 at 5:04 PM
dillmacl
fishermanpat & anamericanmirac, ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Obama has realized that the majority of Americans are amorphously organizing through the internet and gaining facts /dissenting perspectives through channels that he has not been able to fully control. He knows that Americans will not allow themselves to be subjugated under his Progressive Socia1ist State if he cannot control information. Sadly, an American president faces the same problem as the Chinese Government in controlling free communication on the internet. HOW CAN THIS NOT WORRY YOU???

Friday, May 14, 2010 at 4:53 PM
fishermanpat
anamericanmirac........you are so right. This is just part of the puzzle that this "regime" has woven to install their form of govt and replace all freedoms with their idea of a "society" that would be based on principles heretofore not seen in our society. When you say scary,,,,that is putting it mildly.

Friday, May 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM
anamericanmirac
The ant-free speech people that have infiltrated the FCC under the Obama regime is scary. Progressives are a serious cancer in America, and November is the cure.

Friday, May 14, 2010 at 3:25 PM
SORT: NEWESTSORT: OLDEST

[zalternate]

http://www.commondre...w/2010/05/14-8?

Million-Dollar Ad Blitz to Kill Net Neutrality

by Megan Tady

On Tuesday morning, an AT&T-funded front group, Americans for Prosperity, announced a $1.4 million advertising blitz to try to convince Americans that the FCC is plotting to "take over the Internet."

Last week, the FCC simply proposed to "reclassify" aspects of broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act to better advance its goals of bridging the digital divide and safeguarding the free and open Internet.

But AFP is spinning this into, laughably and somewhat ironically, a "government takeover." During yesterday's press conference, AFP trotted out Grover Norquist, the right-wing hit man perhaps best known for threatening to "drown the government in a bathtub," to put his stamp on their cause.

Looks like they want to drown the Internet, too - along with our democracy.

Hours later, AFP's message came spewing forth from FOX News' Megyn Kelly, who invited Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press (which runs the SavetheInternet.com campaign) on her show to presumably discuss both sides of Net Neutrality, only to shut him out of the conversation.

Of course, this isn't the first time Fox has spread misinformation about Net Neutrality and the FCC's role in protecting the Internet for the public. AFP Vice President Phil Kerpen has repeatedly been a guest on Fox's Glenn Beck program to vilify Net Neutrality as Obama's scheme to take control of all media - a crackpot conspiracy that Beck is always happy to spread.

And now, two top Republican leaders - Reps. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Eric Cantor (R-Va.) -- have inserted these same lies in a letter to President Obama today telling him to tell the FCC to back away.

The "takeover" meme is downright scary - because even though it couldn't be further from the truth, millions of people are watching, and now AT&T and others are spending millions to brand it on our brains. They're hoping that if they say "Internet takeoever" enough, people will start to believe it. After all, from "death tax" to "death panels," it has worked before.

During the Free Press policy summit in D.C. on Tuesday, Sen. Byron Dorgan called the AFP on their "big lie," saying industry lobbyists are trying to stigmatize people who are "trying to make sure the Internet remains open and free ... and is not controlled and managed by increasingly larger corporations." Watch an excerpt of his speech:
Non-discrimination rules need to be brought back.


And FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn also reiterated the FCC's mission to protect the Internet for consumers at the same event, saying, "We are trying to keep the Internet in your hands and not in the hands of industry gatekeepers. The only threatened "takeover" of the Internet is by industry. If they begin to restrict access, prioritize their own offerings, or make other critical changes to the structure of what has been an incredible economic driver as an open platform, then we all should be concerned."

Indeed, we've already experienced what Clyburn warns about - Comcast blocking legal file-sharing traffic, for example - and Internet service providers have made clear their plans to shut down the open nature of the Internet, as corporations have done with every other media platform in history.

Here's the good news about industry's recent actions: They wouldn't be spending $1.4 million if they weren't scared - and they're scared of you, and of us, and of all the tech groups, businesses, advocacy organizations, law professors and lawmakers who have expressed support for Net Neutrality and reclassification.

What's good for the public - and the country - isn't always good for corporations. FCC provisions to protect the open and neutral platform of the Internet run counter to industry's future business model for the Internet (a place where they cash in while controlling what we can and cannot view on the Web), and they're doing whatever they can to keep their plans in place.

We warned that the coming months would bring a tidal wave of opposition from phone and cable company lobbyists - the likes of which we have never seen before - and indeed, it is already happening. Strap on your life jackets, folks. We're going to need you. https://secure.freep...erAction&id=453

[local.peon]

Zalternate and anyone else,

What restrictions do you currently have in the USA on what sites you can go to and what you can write about and post? I have none. That is the case for the internet freedom we currently have. If that is the case, why does Obama and the FCC and crew want so badly to regulate and govern an enterprise that is working very well as is? Obama , this week gave you a hint, when he said there is to much information out there,( meaning the internet). He wants you to agree with everything he says and does and he does not want to hear dissent. That is the way a Dictator thinks and acts. Look at all the other programs his regime is taking control of automotive mfg, banks, wall street, unionization,EPA -more regulations, health insurance, mortgages,and the list goes on.

You are either for limited government involvement in your life, which is a Republic or you are one that wants everything given to and controlled by the government, which is socialism at best and communism at worst. What are you ( not you Zalternate but all of us should be asking this question of ourselves)? If you are for limited gov't then you need to wake up and get active and let DC know you are not going to accept this. Call your congressmen and Senators, write and call the White House, attend rallies, protest.
If you give the White House and FCC control over you, then this kind of discussion and so many more will be limited, censored or banned. Is that what you want?
local.peon

[zalternate]

I guess then the U.S. government should take back that 7 billion dollars they have recently given out for broadband expansion. And the rest of the billions over the years as well. Since without government intervention over the years, the Internet would only be bulletin boards and dialup.

And G.W. Bush tore up the constitution way back when, so why did republican voters not call him a dictator/fascist. With blatant non-regulation and major tax nullifications for massive corporations and watch the economy fail and take it's neighbors with it.

ISP's want to charge Google for traffic the user requests(YouTube especially), so the ISP can get paid twice for the same data stream.

Lets also add that some ISP's in the U.S. are getting special Internet content deals with sports networks. So only the users on a certain ISP can see that Internet show. The answer if you can't see it? Switch ISP's. What a crock.


Canada as a general taste of what happens without neutrality Laws...

* ISP's can use deep packet inspection to then bombard the users with advert's on their screens and hack whitespaces of webpages to insert ad's paid to the ISP for what the user is surfing for..... Thats Rogers Internet in Canada. Hughesnet in the States also has this ability of popping up notices on the users screen.
* An ISP can block all file sharing sites like rapidshare.... Xplornet is already doing that with undocumented heavy throttling. Since blocking the sites completely would be a crime. Support blames the user for the slowness.
* An ISP can block a website. Well until they get caught at it.
* ISP's that have other carriers on their lines, can violate privacy laws and use deep packet inspection and throttle those companies users.... Thats Bell.
* The Canadian equivalent of U.S. websites can continue to block U.S. sites version via redirection. The videos that Canadians are not allowed to see on the U.S. sites eventually get blocked and the webpage becomes open to see all the other content on the pages. It's real fun for people having to use other means to contact a website that you are not allowed to access. DIY network just came to Canada. And we lost access to the U.S. video's on the U.S. site. Meanwhile we get stuck with a few crappy Canadian videos from Peter Fellatio.
* Webpages that are of Canadian content keep having the RCMP(federal police) user agent and IP showing up in their visitor logs. Just in case someone might commit an actual hate crime(telling a lie about someone to cause lots of crazies to then attack that someone) or keep dissing the cops too much, by telling the truth.
* The Canadian police forces want our ISP's to keep two years rolling data of our Internet traffic. And that includes VOIP and emails. Just in case we might want to commit a crime at some point. And that violates our Freedom of Innocence.
* The copyright mafia would like to make spyware legal in Canada, so they can put rootkits in all music and movie and game copies and not be jailed for it. Even though suits don't go to jail anyways. They pay the tiny fine and continue on.



* The CRTC regulator of data transmissions in Canada is a self regulating body. Meaning that it is full of former Rogers and Bell executives. So the consumer automatically loses. And they keep saying they don't regulate the Internet here, yet they do not allow any 'major' complaints against carriers for violating the data rules that already exist. There are rules, but they just need to add "Internet" to the paperwork for complete regulation and enforcing our existing rights. But they can't seem to fathom how the Internet is the same as a phone or TV or snail mail to make the wording addition.
A recent addition is the telecommunications complaint site. http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/en/


How many people know that ISP's mine the users Internet traffic to sell to a third party? 'Opting out' should be a crime. Having to 'opt in' should be the law. Then everyone knows what is happening with their data. Bush's illegal wiretapping as a major example. And the ISP's went along with it, without legal question of an illegal act.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Nobody-Apparently-Likes-Congresss-New-Privacy-Bill-108240

Nobody Apparently Likes Congress's New Privacy Bill
Debating privacy in the age of deep packet inspection
May 05 2010

You might recall how efforts by companies like NebuAD to impose behavioral advertising upon users fell apart -- in part because many ISPs weren't informing users they were collecting information using deep packet inspection (just like they don't inform users they sell clickstream data) http://en.wikipedia....iki/Clickstream . But there's also questions surrounding whether such systems violate privacy and wiretap laws.

With the goal of opening the flood gates to this new, more profitable advertising -- while codifying consumer protections -- Congress has proposed a new, as-yet not-fully-named privacy bill (pdf) http://www.boucher.h..._Draft_5-10.pdf

Bill sponsor Rick Boucher insists the bill strikes a middle ground between privacy concerns (specifically the need to inform consumers how and why data is being collected) and the need to open the door to these new targeted advertising models. Among other things, the bill would set limits on how long user data could be stored (18 months) and would require that companies notify customers precisely what information is being collected about them (online and off).

So far, neither consumer advocates or corporations seem happy with the bill. Privacy groups complained that the bill simply keeps current broken practices in place, like requiring companies to bury user notification in fine print, and putting the onus on the consumer to "opt-out" -- instead of requiring things like behavioral advertising be opt-in. They also are concerned that the bill would bar consumers from suing companies for data collection gaffes, and would also pre-empt a number of tougher state privacy laws.

The long list of corporations eager to profit from technology like behavioral advertising have always insisted they can self-regulate their use of consumer data -- and that new laws aren't necessary. Verizon, for instance, has consistently argued that public shame would keep them honest about privacy concerns. Of course, if an ISP is collecting user data and selling it without a user's knowledge (the sale of clickstream data is exhibit A), and is implementing deep packet inspection technology they aren't willing to talk about (see Windstream's recent DPI snafu as exhibit B http://www.dslreport...shownews/107828 ) it's not clear at what point they'd be informed long enough to shame anybody.

Boucher's bill is pretty clearly not the answer, and like much legislation -- it has the potential to be so watered down by lobbyists before it's finalized, it could easily work to harm -- not help -- consumer privacy.

Edited by zalternate, 14 May 2010 - 07:01 PM.

[tommie gorman]

And G.W. Bush tore up the constitution way back when, so why did republican voters not call him a dictator/fascist. With blatant non-regulation and major tax nullifications for massive corporations and watch the economy fail and take it's neighbors with it.

Only one thing in the USA is better since we got the new chocolate President. Fuel prices went down. But at least with Bush I could afford the over priced fuel. Now I wonder if I will be in the commune under the bridge with the rest.

[zalternate]

Only one thing in the USA is better since we got the new chocolate President. Fuel prices went down.

I guess the Arabs have no need to cut production(they cut half of production since the crash). They need the cash too, from many years of over-indulgence. Cough Dubai cough

And the Euro mess is to blame too.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100514-712533.html?mod=rss_Commodities

[JokeyMcScrotsack]

Only one thing in the USA is better since we got the new chocolate President. Fuel prices went down. But at least with Bush I could afford the over priced fuel. Now I wonder if I will be in the commune under the bridge with the rest.

LMAO. Chocolate president. I pictured you in black face saying that. Out-standing! Should tie in lip size next time or watermelons to finish off the image.

[local.peon]

I thought we were talking about control or no control of the internet, NOT RACIAL SLURS. Not very Christian, which I am. Can we stop the racial comments. THANK YOU.

[tommie gorman]

I thought we were talking about control or no control of the internet, NOT RACIAL SLURS. Not very Christian, which I am. Can we stop the racial comments. THANK YOU.

Your funny. If you'll notice I did not start the chocolate comments of politicians. If you look it was by none other than Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans. So how the heck can that be racist? If you ask me its you that is racist. Much like the Professor that had beer with Obama. better luck with your next stab, but do our homework next time too. Thank you very much. Why did you see racism in it anyway? Just curious.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/17/nagin.city/

Funny how some jump when others did nothing.

LMAO. Chocolate president. I pictured you in black face saying that. Out-standing! Should tie in lip size next time or watermelons to finish off the image.

I'll do my best.

[local.peon]

Tommie,
I won't argue with you about where or who or when it started. It just came off to me that way. I don't want to offend you and I don't want to offend anyone. But Shug7272 picked up on it and added to it and that is the way things get going. I disagree with nearly everything Obama says and stands for, but I draw a line at least for myself when it comes to possible slurs, over which I try not to go nor be involved in. Obama is our President whether we like it or not and does deserve some respect if for nothing else than the office of the President. I know the Left gave President Bush none and I say shame on them.
But enough about this, lets go on to what can happen if we lose control of the internet to the FCC.
Local.peon

[JokeyMcScrotsack]

Your funny. If you'll notice I did not start the chocolate comments of politicians. If you look it was by none other than Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans. So how the heck can that be racist? If you ask me its you that is racist. Much like the Professor that had beer with Obama. better luck with your next stab, but do our homework next time too. Thank you very much. Why did you see racism in it anyway? Just curious.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/17/nagin.city/

Funny how some jump when others did nothing.


I'll do my best.

HEY!! I didnt jump, I laughed alot though.

Tommie,
I won't argue with you about where or who or when it started. It just came off to me that way. I don't want to offend you and I don't want to offend anyone. But Shug7272 picked up on it and added to it and that is the way things get going. I disagree with nearly everything Obama says and stands for, but I draw a line at least for myself when it comes to possible slurs, over which I try not to go nor be involved in. Obama is our President whether we like it or not and does deserve some respect if for nothing else than the office of the President. I know the Left gave President Bush none and I say shame on them.
But enough about this, lets go on to what can happen if we lose control of the internet to the FCC.
Local.peon

How can you comment in a thread about the internet being controlled and then want to control other peoples speech? Popular speech is not all that is protected, it is all speech that is protected, it goes right to the very base meaning of this very thread just depends on verbal control or electronic. Freedom of speech was considered a very important concept for a reason, and I promise you they did not set up freedom of speech to protect your rights to say nice things, very much the opposite. People seem to have lost that idea some where along the way. If you disagree with racist comments fine but you shouldn't tell others how to speak IMO.

My post was not what you took from it but then again I guess thats life.

Edited by Shug7272, 25 May 2010 - 11:24 AM.

[local.peon]

You are right and I was wrong.

[tommie gorman]

Don't take any of it personal. Every one is allowed an opinion. Its what we do here.
I can't count how many times shug attacked GWB. But I am working on a comeback still for that.

Edited by tommie gorman, 25 May 2010 - 07:31 PM.