The FCC Doesn't Care That Somebody's Spamming Its Net Neutrality Proceeding With Fraudulent Comments
from the turning-a-big-blind-eye dept
As we recently noted, more than 40% of the 2.5 million comments filed with the FCC on net neutrality are entirely fake. The comments, which oppose net neutrality, have been posted using a bot that's pulling the names used from a hacked database of some kind. When the people that own the actual names behind these comments have been contacted by the media, many have stated they didn't make the comments, and/or have no idea what net neutrality even is.
In an ideal world, the FCC would easily parse out these obviously fraudulent, duplicate comments and shore up the abuse of its API. But because these comments support the current FCC's belief that meaningful net neutrality protections are somehow an assault on "American freedom," the FCC appears poised to completely disregard the fact that a malicious actor is manipulating the FCC's systems. The FCC isn't candidly admitting this, but FCC boss Ajit Pai's non-statements and statements alike so far indicate he's inclined to include the obviously fraudulent comments:
"The FCC didn’t respond to repeated requests to specifically say whether it would filter out the astroturfed comments. Speaking to reporters after announcing a step toward rolling back existing net neutrality protections, FCC Chair Ajit Pai admitted “a tension between having an open process where it’s easy to comment and preventing questionable comments from being filed.” “Generally speaking, this agency has erred on the side of openness,” he said."
When pushed, FCC officials have said they'll purge comments made under obviously phony names, but isn't willing to comment further on the obvious blind eye to manipulation of the comment system:
"Pai said the agency wouldn’t consider comments with obviously fake names, like Wonder Woman and Joseph Stalin, but declined to go further. Reached for comment after Pai’s statement, an FCC official declined to comment specifically on astroturfed comments. "You heard his answer on erring on the side of inclusion," the official said.
And again, the FCC is turning a blind eye to this fraudulent behavior because actual humans overwhelmingly oppose what Pai and friends are up to. Recent analysis of the comments made so far to the FCC indicate the vast, vast majority of consumers -- across all political ideologies -- don't want the agency gutting meaningful oversight of the already uncompetitive broadband sector. That could be problematic later this year, when Pai faces inevitable lawsuits over his rush to kill the protections despite no corresponding market necessity, and the broad public support for the rules.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fake comments, fcc, net neutrality, trolls
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's little doubt that the bot spamming FCC is violating the law and could be prosecuted under something for it (not just CFAA).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(Not that there are not racist (sexist, otherwise bigoted) people with left-leaning politics. In no way do i imply that whatsoever.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
RE: the article, I'm not surprised, as it seems to serve their purposes. What's the betting they created the bot themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your conclusion is a bit flimsy as it lacks any support and is quite silly. MrEmail does not have a leg to stand on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He doesn't need a leg to stand on. Just enough money to prolong the process beyond TD's means. THAT he does have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.facebook.com/FCC/posts/10154836457744671
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for the goose, good for the gander
I wonder what there response would be to a bot-driven comment torrent that opposed rolling back net neutrality? I suspect they would immediately say that those comments have to be ignored...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Techdirt gets Leigh to fake my comments to make me look like an idiot
It's cute that you think you need any intervention to do so.
Trying for "funniest post" again this week, are we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Something tells me you don't need any help there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Incessantly whining and lying about people, while ignoring the clearly available remedies to your self-inflicted situation, only add the icing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How naive of you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How naive of you
See this played out on a daily basis at local levels. they have their town hall where speakers are heavily controlled and limited by content and time. Not sure why anyone even bothers with it other than to get on the news. The politicians have already made their deci$ion$ and look down upon any who speak against their plans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How naive of you
And as was said in a previous TD article, while we may not be able to change Pai's mind or the FCC's current lumbering course, these comments are important to prove that the majority of Americans support Net Neutrality when this is brought in front of a court where Pai has to argue for why he's changing the rules again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How naive of you
As I understand it, Wheeler was considered suspect at first because of his past history, and worries that he'd focus more on serving former employers over the public. As time passed his actions did away with most of those concerns as he demonstrated that he did actually want to serve the public(even if I feel he didn't go far enough at times).
Pai on the other hand has made it very clear with his current actions exactly who he's interested in serving, and it most certainly isn't the general public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How naive of you
In some cases it is an advantage, like with Tom Wheeler who is 69 years old and doesn't have a future in the private sector to consider. This is what made him change; he wanted a legacy so that people would remember him as a good guy and not the guy he used to be which was a bought bastard that would say anything for money.
It is also why Pai is going to keep screwing us over... he doesn't care about the public or even the country. All he can see is the cushy extremely well-paid private sector job that awaits him, whether he is fired in disgrace or goes on to when the time comes and he just quits. There is no punishment awaiting him or banishment from that future no matter how much he screws up his current job, as long as he keeps doing what his corporate "sponsors" want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How naive of you
The problem with that attitude is that you end up supporting the younger luddites, while ignoring the people who invented the very technology you're using. To use names off the top of my head - Tim Berners-Lee is 61. Vint Cerf is 73. Ted Cruz is 46. By your standard, you'd rather have Cruz in charge than the guys who invented the web and TCP/IP. No thanks.
There are older people who are clueless about technology. There are others who know more than you do. If you use age as the only defining factor, it will lead you into serious trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How naive of you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How naive of you
The people you mention are among many others that I look up to, who has contributed and been a great part in tech innovation.
I guess that I cannot really accurately describe a certain part of the population that I am against running tech regulations... maybe because that is stereotyping which is never accurate. I hate the stereotyping of anyone so I will gladly admit that I fell for it myself and was stupid for doing so.
The problem is not, and have never, been any particular generation. It is the money, party-line politics, and ignorance that poison everything. There will always be ignorance, but the first two, money and party-line politics, creates a lot more ignorance and while we have so much of those, we can never gain a strong foothold. At best we can go back and forth depending on the people in power, at worst regulations will be made so they cannot be changed.
I just hope we can make enough noise to make NN too hot to touch for a little while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you spend your time building a machine that can be used to blow you up, you have little to bitch about when someone makes it go "pop" in your face.
It's funny that people understand why it is dangerous for back-doors to exist in computing but support the "social" backdoor that industry uses to corrupt their elected officials.
You guys are clearly not the sharpest tools in the shed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I did not vote for this shit and yet you claim I did, who should be believed - you or me?
Social backdoor, that is a new one - is that the new talking point dujour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But he's definitely a tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...how in the world does THIS logic follow? Do I also have little to bitch about if I get punched in the face because, hey, it's my fault for having a face?
You don't even qualify that it's a machine that -only- can be used to blow you up. Try detonating some warheads on a military base and then telling them "your fault for making warheads that could explode on your base," see how well that goes for ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No kidding; it's a dumb analogy even by his dumb-ass standards. I own a pressure cooker and a gas heater; if one of them were to blow up, I would be pretty upset about that. I own a car, too, which is more than capable of maiming or killing me in a variety of nasty ways, but if it does it's because it's not functioning as intended. If my car explodes, is it my fault for being stupid enough to drive a car? Is it the manufacturer's fault for being stupid enough to build a car? Or is it not the concept of the car that was the problem, but some kind of implementation detail?
If only there were some way to make sure that auto manufacturers followed some kind of safety standards. Perhaps a system whereby there were a list of such standards that they were required to comply with, under penalty of law. And some kind of body that were tasked with assuring compliance, and able to impose fines on manufacturers that did not comply, or ban them from selling cars that did not meet required safety standards.
But nah, that'd never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Huh!
Who would'a thunk?
I, for one, had absolutely no idea that Roger Ailes posts on Techdirt.
That's pretty good detective work -- how did you identify him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They've already made their decision and just going through the motions and doing kabuki theater until they can finalize it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pai said the agency wouldn’t consider comments with obviously fake names, like Wonder Woman and Joseph Stalin
According to online databases of questionable accuracy, there are anywhere between 0 and 20 people in the US with the name Joseph Stalin. Furthermore, there is one extremely famous (infamous?) person with that name who lived outside the US, suggesting that said name is not actually fake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, did you just point out that this is the name of an extremely infamous historical figure, and is shared by less than 0.000006% of the US population, and argue that these facts are evidence in favor of the premise that whoever posted that comment was actually named Joseph Stalin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From anywhere outside the FCC that is.
These fake comments were entirely in-house generated by bunches of employees pulled off other work.
They got caught.
Then the FCC says they're going to honor the fake comments anyway because OF COURSE THEY ARE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assumptions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assumptions
Karl, aren't you assuming that Pai did not orchestrate the fake astroturfing campaign? What makes you reach that assumption? I think there is every reason to believe he condones it, and very likely helped implement it.
That's not happening. There are enough problems in the world without making up bullshit conspiracy theories. As much as we disagree with Pai, there's no way that he has anything to do with faking comments. That's not even within the realm of possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Assumptions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Assumptions
You're asking him to prove a negative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Assumptions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Assumptions
Got it. 100% impossible that a stupid, corrupt scab would behave corruptly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Assumptions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assumptions
"I think there is every reason to believe he condones it, and very likely helped implement it."
I doubt he's very concerned about it, but there's zero reason to believe Pai had anything to do with it. It's a stupidly hamfisted approach that everyone can see right through, and whatever you think of him he's nowhere near that dumb.
You're making a wild conspiracy claim here so you'll need to actually provide some of those reasons and some evidence to back them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Ideal world"
Karl, why does your idea of an ideal world include fraud and abuse? (Nevermind that we wouldn't be arguing about net neutrality in the first place.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments go bad just like cheese.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Improvement incentives
How ever little control we feel we have over ISPs, we have even less control over the FCC.
Government net neutrality is utter foolishness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"So long as the bot agrees with what we've decided..."
And yet, I can't help but suspect that were the bot-made comments pro-net neutrality they'd be throwing a fit, claiming that it undermined any support for the rules because it was so difficult to parse out bot-made comments and legitimate ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "So long as the bot agrees with what we've decided..."
... they'd just borrow and adapt one of the computer scripts that the RIAA or MPAA uses for identifying on-line copyright infringements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "So long as the bot agrees with what we've decided..."
That would just flag all the comments, including the ones they approve of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://twitter.com/bennjordan/status/867160916646920193
Loving this new @XFINITY feature where @comcast files anti-net neutrality comments to the FCC using your name and last service address.
Below is an image of the comment credited to the person who posted the tweet, who submitted no such comment.
It has the same BS letter we've seen flooding the site.
Perhaps its time to investigate corporations gaming the system to line their own pockets at the detriment of citizens. I wonder if the people contacted earlier who said they submitted no comments or knew nothing about net neutrality ever used Comcast. And a bungled roll out of a astroturf bot would explain the "DDOS" attack from misconfigured bots using commercial cloud services.
Its bad enough we have to pretend our leaders aren't being outright bought, but for corporations to invent support for consumer screwing policies by stuffing the public ballot box with their bullshit using citizen names should be criminal.
Corporations aren't people, and their best interests should take a back seat to the public good. Of course this might mean ending corporate handouts of citizens tax money for programs that never do what they are supposed to, and reminding them of what an actual free market looks like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's New?
We get the government we deserve. Scroll through some of the comments, and tell me what you think we deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]