PDA

View Full Version : The Fate of the Internet. Decided in a Back Room.




bobbyw24
06-23-2010, 11:15 AM
By Tim Karr, June 22, 2010

The Wall Street Journal just reported that the Federal Communications Commission is holding "closed-door meetings"with industry to broker a deal on Net Neutrality – the rule that lets users determine their own Internet experience.

Given that the corporations at the table all profit from gaining control over information, the outcome won't be pretty.

The meetings include a small group of industry lobbyists representing the likes of AT&T, Verizon, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and Google. They reportedly met for two-and-a-half hours on Monday morning and will convene another meeting today. The goal according to insiders is to "reach consensus" on rules of the road for the Internet.

This is what a failed democracy looks like: After years of avid public support for Net Neutrality – involving millions of people from across the political spectrum – the federal regulator quietly huddles with industry lobbyists to eliminate basic protections and serve Wall Street’s bottom line.

We’ve seen government cater to big business in the same ways, prior to the BP oil disaster and the subprime mortgage meltdown.

The Industry's regulatory capture of the Internet is now almost complete. The one agency tasked with oversight of communications now thinks it can wriggle free of its obligation to protect the open Internet, if only it can get industry to agree on a solution.

Congress is holding its own series of "closed-door" meetings and, while they’ve been ambiguous on the details, many remain skeptical on whether the process will lead to an outcome that serves the public interest. After all, this is the same Congress that is bankrolled by the phone and cable lobby in excess of $100 million.

Why is this so startling even for the more cynical among us?

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/06/22/fate-internet-decided-back-room

dannno
06-23-2010, 11:23 AM
My comment:


This is in fact the precise reason why I've been against net neutrality from the beginning. Any legislation the government passes to control the internet will be written by the corporations we are fighting against.

It's time to start believing in freedom again. Stop asking the government to use violent coercion on your behalf. All of these corporations are big now because they have been propped up by government for decades. Just think how much smaller many of these powerful corporations would be if they weren't propped up by our government.

Bring back the Constitution, vote LIBERTARIAN!!

HOLLYWOOD
06-23-2010, 11:27 AM
"closed-door meetings" = SECRET = Conspiring Fraud

Travlyr
06-23-2010, 11:30 AM
And we should use it.

Elwar
06-23-2010, 11:39 AM
The Internet needs to become an ad-hoc wireless network.

sratiug
06-23-2010, 11:41 AM
And we should use it.

Constitutional Amendment?


Congress shall make no law regarding the internet.

heavenlyboy34
06-23-2010, 12:17 PM
I keep warning people about the dangers of the FedGov. Do they listen? noooooooo!! (facepalm@sheeple)

dannno
06-23-2010, 12:22 PM
Constitutional Amendment?

That should be completely unnecessary if people understood the Constitution.. In fact, passing the amendment almost undermines the entire document as intended because it already says Congress Shall Make No Law.

FrankRep
06-23-2010, 12:25 PM
http://www.jbs.org/templates/political/images/jbsheader.jpg (http://www.jbs.org/)


Email Congress!!
http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/JBS/Advocacy/?IssueID=22245&SiteID=-1



Two bills, S. 3480 and S. 773, have been introduced into the Senate that would endanger Internet freedom through extensive new regulations in the name of cybersecurity and would empower the President to limit access to the Internet with a so-called kill-switch.


Preserve Internet Freedom -- Oppose Cybersecurity Legislation (http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6366-preserve-internet-freedom-oppose-cybersecurity-legislation)


Larry Greenley | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
23 June 2010


“To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and other laws to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States.” These are the words used to describe the latest cybersecurity bill, S. 3480 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3480/show) "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010," introduced on June 10 and cosponsored by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.).

Senate Bill 3480 would convert the White House appointed cyber coordinator into the Director of the Office of Cyber Policy. One concession to “transparency” and “accountability” is that the cybersecurity coordinators inside the White House and the Department of Homeland Security -- under a new agency, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) -- would have to be approved by the Senate.

The DHS would compile a list of companies that rely on the Internet, phone system, or any other feature of the U.S. “information infrastructure” to “conduct risk-based assessments” of the system “with respect to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other large-scale disruptions...” According to terms in the bill “information infrastructure” covers the entire Internet and phone system, and these would be subjected to the broad and almost unrestrained authority of the NCCC:

‘‘(18) the term ‘national information infrastructure’ means information infrastructure—
‘‘(A)(i) that is owned, operated, or controlled within or from the United States; or
‘‘(ii) if located outside the United States, the disruption of which could result in national or regional catastrophic damage in the United States; and that is not owned, operated, controlled, or licensed for use by a Federal agency;

The NCCC would be tasked with monitoring the “security status” of private sector websites, broadband providers, etc. A requirement for private sector companies would be participation in “information sharing” with the federal government. They must certify in writing that they have complied with federally approved security measures -- encryption, physical security mechanisms, or other programming methods -- approved by the director. To make this directive more palatable to technology companies, the bill would offer immunity from civil lawsuits to ISP’s who comply with all federal regulations and standards, so that if those companies cause a website to experience a loss of business in downtime or money from a shutdown due to their own mistakes, or if the shutdown was federally mandated, the business or organization would not be able to recoup any losses by suing their ISP or the government.

Not content with establishing a gigantic framework (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html) for the federal government to control private sector Internet companies and those who use the World Wide Web, the new legislation, under the cosponsors’ claims of building a “public/private partnership” to increase “economic security, national security and public safety,” there is a most disturbing allocation of authority to the Executive Branch (http://beforeitsnews.com/news/77/022/New_Bill_Would_Create_Office_of_Cyber_Policy_in_Wh ite_House_to_Protect_Nation_from_Cyber_Terrorism.h tml).

Emergency response authority would be granted to the President to protect critical infrastructure if any level of cyber vulnerability is detected by the federal government. What defines “emergency” for the feds is:

the term ‘national cyber emergency’ means an actual or imminent action by any individual or entity to exploit a cyber vulnerability in a manner that disrupts, attempts to disrupt, or poses a significant risk of disruption to the operation of the information infrastructure essential to the reliable operation of covered critical infrastructure;

Congress is supposed to be notified in advance of the exercise of the emergency powers and any emergency measures are also supposed to be the least disruptive as possible, expiring in 30 days unless re-extended. But a President could in actuality keep extending the measures indefinitely (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/3776-senate-considers-making-the-president-king-of-cyberspace).

There are several acknowledgements given to international partners of the United States, and international agreements as well. If a declaration of emergency is declared by the President, then the Director has the authority to coordinate responses with certain international partners to protect the critical infrastructure, and even international standards may be relied upon for use as cyber guidelines.

The 197-page bill that creates a super-sized bureaucratic agency with incredible power over private enterprise and private information sources and means of communication containing all sorts of hidden dictates is just another in a list of similar bills that keep coming to the fore. The Senate Commerce Committee had previously approved a bill in March cosponsored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine.) that also contained a presidential “kill-switch” provision (http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/lieberman-wants-give-federal-govt-power-over-internet-cybersecurity/2010-06-14). And now Lieberman and Rockefeller have pledged to work together to iron out any differences between the bills so that they can proceed on the path to quick passage for near absolute governmental control of cyberspace. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) indicated that he wants this legislation passed this year as well.

Whether it’s S. 3480, the Lieberman/Collins/Carper caper that gets the nod, or the Rockefeller/Snowe job, S. 773 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/show), the American people need to loudly and strongly voice their opposition to government monitoring and control of Information Technology, whether it’s the Internet, or phone system.

The U.S. already possesses a very healthy and capable private IT security industry. Government interference would only destroy private protection initiatives and efforts, and allow security and intelligence agencies that have very faulty track records to hold sway over the liberties of the people. Help stop this unconstitutional power grab and oppose any government intervention or interference in the private communications network.

Help preserve Internet freedom by contacting your representative and senators (http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/JBS/Advocacy/?IssueID=22245&SiteID=-1) in opposition to the proposed cybersecurity legislation.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6366-preserve-internet-freedom-oppose-cybersecurity-legislation

speciallyblend
06-23-2010, 12:31 PM
My comment:


This is in fact the precise reason why I've been against net neutrality from the beginning. Any legislation the government passes to control the internet will be written by the corporations we are fighting against.

It's time to start believing in freedom again. Stop asking the government to use violent coercion on your behalf. All of these corporations are big now because they have been propped up by government for decades. Just think how much smaller many of these powerful corporations would be if they weren't propped up by our government.

Bring back the Constitution, vote LIBERTARIAN!!

samething with medical marijuana and corporatism! the gov and a few companies get together to corner the market with regulations!! nothing new here, just business as usual backed by the failed gop and dnc! control control control and the companies like google etc look forward to regulations. they embrace it!! f them all ,the health insurance industry is responsible for health insurance regulations!! they are all corporate scammers, if anyone thinks the insurance companies are against single payer or federal mandated insurance your only fooling yourself. america is crashing fast. thank obama/bush and corporations!! danno i agree with you,but my solution is f them all!

Travlyr
06-23-2010, 12:39 PM
That should be completely unnecessary if people understood the Constitution.. In fact, passing the amendment almost undermines the entire document as intended because it already says Congress Shall Make No Law.

I agree. It starts with an understanding of the Constitution. Then general agreement on a plan of action. Then implementation of the plan.

I don't have the answers. But I do know that the "Declaration of Independence" gave us the power to alter or abolish. We can do this peacefully... if we get together and just do it.

As far as I am aware, most everybody is still of the opinion that something can be done by voting for liberty candidates. That will not work. Republicans and Democrats both work for the same master.

Cowlesy
06-23-2010, 12:43 PM
All the big internet companies will work with the FCC to make a rule that works for them, crowds out the smaller guys or makes them obsolete, and is designed so that users won't herd to one service provider or another that offers an edge in regard to whatever the new standard will be.

Travlyr
06-23-2010, 01:31 PM
Constitutional Amendment?

Maybe nullification. I'm getting the book. :cool:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=246602

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-23-2010, 01:55 PM
I agree. It starts with an understanding of the Constitution. Then general agreement on a plan of action. Then implementation of the plan.

I don't have the answers. But I do know that the "Declaration of Independence" gave us the power to alter or abolish. We can do this peacefully... if we get together and just do it.

As far as I am aware, most everybody is still of the opinion that something can be done by voting for liberty candidates. That will not work. Republicans and Democrats both work for the same master.

Secession.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-23-2010, 01:57 PM
All the big internet companies will work with the FCC to make a rule that works for them, crowds out the smaller guys or makes them obsolete, and is designed so that users won't herd to one service provider or another that offers an edge in regard to whatever the new standard will be.

Eh, there really is no small guys when it comes to the internet. It's all ready heavily regulated from all .Gov branches -- State, Municipal, Fed, etc.

Though I agree they will try and benefit this as much as they possibly can. More forced Cartelization ;/

moostraks
06-23-2010, 02:09 PM
I agree. It starts with an understanding of the Constitution. Then general agreement on a plan of action. Then implementation of the plan.

I don't have the answers. But I do know that the "Declaration of Independence" gave us the power to alter or abolish. We can do this peacefully... if we get together and just do it.

As far as I am aware, most everybody is still of the opinion that something can be done by voting for liberty candidates. That will not work. Republicans and Democrats both work for the same master.

You are way more optimistic than I. Peaceful responses will still be considered teroristic threats and have you whisked away for indefinate detainment.

Mattsa
06-23-2010, 02:44 PM
By Tim Karr, June 22, 2010

The Wall Street Journal just reported that the Federal Communications Commission is holding "closed-door meetings"with industry to broker a deal on Net Neutrality – the rule that lets users determine their own Internet experience.

Given that the corporations at the table all profit from gaining control over information, the outcome won't be pretty.

The meetings include a small group of industry lobbyists representing the likes of AT&T, Verizon, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and Google. They reportedly met for two-and-a-half hours on Monday morning and will convene another meeting today. The goal according to insiders is to "reach consensus" on rules of the road for the Internet.

This is what a failed democracy looks like: After years of avid public support for Net Neutrality – involving millions of people from across the political spectrum – the federal regulator quietly huddles with industry lobbyists to eliminate basic protections and serve Wall Street’s bottom line.

We’ve seen government cater to big business in the same ways, prior to the BP oil disaster and the subprime mortgage meltdown.

The Industry's regulatory capture of the Internet is now almost complete. The one agency tasked with oversight of communications now thinks it can wriggle free of its obligation to protect the open Internet, if only it can get industry to agree on a solution.

Congress is holding its own series of "closed-door" meetings and, while they’ve been ambiguous on the details, many remain skeptical on whether the process will lead to an outcome that serves the public interest. After all, this is the same Congress that is bankrolled by the phone and cable lobby in excess of $100 million.

Why is this so startling even for the more cynical among us?

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/06/22/fate-internet-decided-back-room

They are terrified by the internet...............undertstandably so

I have learnt stuff about politics, banking, liberty, socialism, libertarianism, money that I would never have been exposed to without the internet.

Knowledge is power and the ruling elite are terrified at the prospect of millions learning about who really runs this planet and how they dupe billions of people.

It's a big, exclusive club for bankers, industrialists, media people and politicians. WE are not in their club and they wanna keep it that way!

Travlyr
06-23-2010, 02:50 PM
You are way more optimistic than I. Peaceful responses will still be considered teroristic threats and have you whisked away for indefinate detainment.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself!" :D
The people at "Restore America Plan" had the guts to deliver declarations to every Governor in every state and they didn't get whisked away. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=231468

I am optimistic, but it is going to take consensus on the right plan of action. Is secession the right tack to take? Secession did not work during the civil war, can it be completed successfully and peacefully?