Congress Pressures FCC Boss Over His Total Failure To Police Net Neutrality Comment Fraud
from the complete-non-transparency dept
By now it's pretty apparent that the FCC doesn't much want to talk about who was behind the numerous bogus comments that flooded the agency's net neutrality repeal proceeding. When I asked the FCC for help after someone lifted my identity to support repealing the rules, the FCC responded with the policy equivalent of a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Similarly, when New York Attorney General Eric Shneiderman approached the FCC looking for help identifying the culprit (9 requests over 5 months, he said in an open letter), the FCC blocked the investigation.
Most analysts believe the effort was a ham-fisted attempt to erode trust in the public comment proceeding in order to downplay massive public opposition to the FCC's plan (a tactic that has mysteriously plagued other government proceedings over the last year). The FCC could pretty quickly clear this all up by providing access to server logs and API key usage details to law enforcement. Its consistent refusal to do so quickly dismantles agency boss Ajit Pai's continued, breathless claims that he's a massive fan of transparency and would run a more transparent operation than his predecessor.
This week, members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to Pai again asking him to explain (pdf) why the FCC ignored the public and sat on its hands as millions of bogus comments (some of them from dead people) piled up. Included in the questions were inquiries regarding how the FCC (which says it ignored comments "devoid of substance") determined what public comments were worth paying attention to, if any:
"How were comments determined to be “devoid of substance”? How were others determined to “bear substantively” on the issue? What were the training methods and guidelines for staff making these determinations? How many staff hours were dedicated to this?"
Pai was also asked why he doesn't think helping law enforcement get to the bottom of the scandal is a good idea:
"Why has the FCC failed to cooperate with the NY attorney general’s investigation into potential identity theft?"
And why didn't the agency implement any kind of screening process to help ferret out bulk, bogus comments (many of which were submitted by a bot in purely alphabetical order):
"Why did the FCC choose to not implement any kind of identity verification in its comment platform? The FCC says it excluded comments that used fake names, but how was it determined which these were? And if it is known which comments used fake names, why were these comments not removed from the docket?
Of course like previous inquiries, Pai isn't likely to respond -- at least not with any answers that provide real meaning. Since ISPs have been obnoxiously successful falsely framing net neutrality as a partisan issue, and the letter sent to Pai consists largely of Democrats, it will be relatively easy to dismiss the inquiry as little more than partisan gamesmanship. You'd just have to ignore the fact that an open, healthy internet free of domination by telecom monopolies benefits everyone, or the fact that polls routinely show net neutrality has broad, bipartisan support.
It's not hard for the FCC to identify who was behind the effort, and given the attack only benefits either the telecom industry or the folks in the Trump administration pushing the repeal, the short list of culprits is arguably tiny. But while Pai apparently has zero interest in helping find out who was behind the disinformation campaign, it's likely additional details will emerge courtesy of the countless lawsuits currently heading the FCC's general direction.
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: ajit pai, congress, eric schneiderman, fake comments, fcc, house energy and commerce committee, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
Sheesh.
Can you truly not find ONE new topic, minion? It's FCC, Verizon, ATT, "cord cutting", and repeat.
BTW: See Musk Broadband-From-Space plan backed by FCC Chair, if want to undermine Pai!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
/massive_sarc_flag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
/massive sarc in case anyone missed it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC, fuck you very much for fining me. Clear Channel's a dear channel, so Howard Stern must go. Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so he's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbaugh
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
"Can you truly not find ONE new topic"
Can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC for proving that free speech just isn't free. Five thousand bucks a fuck, so I'm really out of luck; that's more than Heidi Fleiss was charging me.
Sorry. "Globalists."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC for proving that free speech just isn't free. Five thousand bucks a fuck, so I'm really out of luck; that's more than Heidi Fleiss was charging me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
That's true. I've dissented a few times but I did it respectfully, laying out my reasons with evidence where applicable. What I don't do is spew out histrionic allegations and call people names. I also accept correction when some kind person points out an error instead of digging my heels in and repeating it over and over again. Facts trump opinions, even dearly held ones, where I'm concerned. I'm not aware of any of my posts ever having been hidden and if they ever were I wouldn't complain; it'd mean that at least five people thought I was spamming the thread. I would learn the lesson and move on.
Finally, I use scraptivism here on TD from time to time; the trick is to be seen to be reasonable to avoid alienating potential allies. Blue, you have never been considered by any sane person to be reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
What does Musk's plan have to do with anything? If he is successful it will be a game changer in the ISP industry that may actually force them to play nice and compete or hemorrhage subscribers and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
Clearly you're a troll who either:
1) Knows full well this would never work.
or
2) Are a complete idiot.
For those less educated about the issues with Satellite Internet connection, the big problem is Latency.
You might be able to download a ton of data really fast, but clicking on a link will take you several seconds for the site to load. Things like gaming, or live streaming, are completely impossible with that kind of lag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
The reason for this is the altitude at which these satellites will operate, it's a far lower altitude which means less distance for the data to travel, which means lower latency.
Here's a good link to read up on it: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/spacexs-satellite-broadband-nears-fcc-approva l-and-first-test-launch/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AND back to WHINING about the FCC and his "stolen identity" again! -- FCC comments are no more binding than those at Techdirt! Do you clowns change because of MY dissent? -- NO, you go off on same CRAZY themes OVER AND OVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logs? What logs?
What do you want to bet that such logs have mysteriously vanished?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logs? What logs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logs? What logs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"How could we have Possibly known people might be interested in those?"
Yeah, no bet. That would be like betting whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow. Much like it's possible that the sun might not rise, it's possible that the logs will still be around by the time any legal action reaches the point where they would be compelled to provide them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, the window to kill the administrative state has probably closed, but I for one would love to see a crippled federal government unable to pass or implement complex nanny state laws due to its lack of "expertise".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No thanks. Regulatory agencies serve an important purpose and we would be far worse off without them. Or do you think the CDC shouldn't exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
yes, exactly. FCC is officially independent of Congress and the President in day to day matters and rule making.
Congress specifically designed things that way to enhance the power of independent regulatory agencies.
Amazing that people who vigorously support federal regulation generally -- have no idea how it actually works in practice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
He still doesn't understand law, history, or how the government actually works but you know, that stuff doesn't matter to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
Or are you going to argue that all of the agencies created during the first 100 years of America's existence somehow don't count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
There is absolutely nothing in Section 8 that contradicts the opening declaration of Article I:
"Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
Not nonsense:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
I did read it actually.
Yes, it is vested in Congress but Section 8 allows Congress to pass a law creating a regulatory agency with a specific mandate, leaving the details of the mandate up to the agency. In addition, the agency cannot make any rules or regulations that supersede any laws passed by Congress or other agencies.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it prohibit Congress from delegating minor rule making and regulation to a created agency.
In fact, this was upheld in 1825 in the case of Wayman v. Southard. Also further supporting this is the fact that in the first 100 years of America's existence, multiple agencies were created with rule making and regulatory powers, some on the watch of our founding fathers.
If you don't like it, I suggest you take it up with the founding fathers. Especially since they are the ones who deliberately decided to NOT put in an Amendment to the Constitution that did specifically forbid such agencies. It was originally on the docket and they decided to strike it out.
I believe the founding fathers wisely foresaw that there may come a time when Congress wouldn't be able to handle all the enormous amount of details of regulating a country, nor would they be sufficiently knowledgeable in all areas to make good, informed decisions. As such they included Section 8 to cover anything else that may arise in those scenarios and others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
Why bother with a written constitution -- seem to be no limits on your subjective interpretations of expansive Congressional powers... Congress can just "legislate" whatever it wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
Also, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it could legislate whatever it wants. I said Section 8 gives them a tool to help them fulfill their legislative mandate by creating agencies to manage the details of the legislation they have passed.
For example, one of the FCC's mandates is to make sure that broadband continues to be deployed in a timely manner to the entire US. Congress doesn't know how to do that because they aren't expert matters in that area, but they know it needs to get done. So they create an agency with a general mandate to do it, then let the experts figure out the details. Those details can NEVER conflict with already prescribed law, so the agency and it's regulations are still subordinate to Congress.
Congress hasn't divested itself of anything, it still retains the power and authority to overrule any rule or regulation passed by said agency.
And all of this was put in and designed by the founding fathers and approved by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases in the years since. If you have some facts to contradict mine, by all means bring them and we can discuss them. So far you have brought nothing to the table other than faulty logic and a lack of knowledge of American history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai is INDEPENDENT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FBI has requested information from Pai, he has refused to provide the information or access to allow the FBI to glean the information themselves.
This is obstruction of a Federal investigation.
Pai, and his co-conspirators, should be cooling his heels in prison already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red herring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally asking the right questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red herring.
Don't you just hate it when trying to create a paragraph commits an unfinished comment?
At any rate, isn't it obvious that Pai does not need "finding out" who was behind the disinformation campaign since he likely organized it to start with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red herring.
I really don't understand that theory.
Why would he have done that? To what end? Assuming he organized it, what did he achieve that he would not have achieved if he hadn't?
The "Pai is responsible for organizing the fraud" theory violates Occam's Razor.
He clearly didn't put any effort into stopping it, or investigating it, because doing those things would disadvantage him. But I've seen no evidence that he's the guy who caused it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Red herring.
First off, the FCC repeatedly refused to cooperate with Schneiderman's investigation on not just the original 2 Million Incident, but also the PornHub Discovery. If he's innocent, why's he refusing to cooperate? What's he got to hide?
Second, Jessica Rosenworcel, back in December, revealed that her own boss withheld evidence of fraud in the 2 Million Incident. Again, what's he hiding? Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Third, the so-called DDoS attack last year. I say so-called because I'm of the mind that it never existed. I have proof, not just theories, to back that up.
On Ars Technica articles, FOIA violations and transparency Act violations were filed against him for refusing to turn over documents regarding the "DDoS attack" last summer. They then say that "We don't have any documentation about the attack, we went by only real-time observations".
Come on.
This is the Federal COMMUNICATION Commission we're talking about, and they dare to say that "a DDoS attack" happened on their own website, "coincidentally" during the comment period for the Net Neutrality repeal? They would actually "forgo" or "forget" their own protocols for their own website during a so-called DDoS attack?
If you want to buy that, I've got oceanfront property in the Sahara Desert I want to sell to people. I'll even throw in the Golden Gate Bridge and the London Thames for free.
Come on people, THINK. If you take the time to actually think and remember what common sense is like, you'll realize exactly where all evidence is pointing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Red herring.
None of those things is evidence.
That the vast majority of comments agreeing with him are fraudulent.
That the vast majority of comments agreeing with him are fraudulent.
I agree, but how is lying about a DDoS attack evidence that he orchestrated fraudulent comments?
Again, not one single fact you've cited is evidence that Pai is personally responsible for the fraudulent comments.
It's evidence that he didn't do anything to identify which comments were fraudulent, that he didn't do anything to try and stop them, and he's currently not doing anything to cooperate with government agencies investigating the issue. All that's true.
But to go from there to "he made the comments himself" is a logical leap. It is not supported by the evidence. It is an assumption you are making.
There are other, simpler explanations for why Pai doesn't want to call attention to the fraudulent comments. It undermines his case, and it makes him look bad. That's plenty of motivation for his stonewalling, without having to make up conspiracy theories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Red herring.
The difference between a conspiracy theory and a proven fact is evidence. What the evidence proves and what it merely suggests is possible are different things — that's how you got to that conclusion.
It'd be funny if, later on, an incriminating email or something cropped up to prove you right. We could all have a laugh about it and you would totally be vindicated but until it does all we've got is Pai lying and refusing to cooperate because it suits his current position.
For the moment, LadyElisabeth, let's withhold judgement until all the facts are in. I'm not mad about Pai either but I do believe in due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Red herring.
While researching for a comment I made on this subject over at Ars some time ago, I looked into the way the API system (what was used to post the fake comments en masse) is handled.
Every bulk comment submission (uploading a batch of comments in .csv format to the FCC comment site) requires a government API key from the source.
The government API keys are handed out for free https://api.data.gov/signup/. There are four fields to fill:
I don't see anything the site would do to verify the identity of anyone requesting a key.
So unless the spammers used their real name and contact info in their application, or told Pai that they were going to do this, there's not much information the system has that would tie any comment to who made it, specifically.
However- Unless the fakers registered for and used separate API keys for every bogus comment batch, then multiple batches of fakes would likely have been submitted under the same API key. If you can identify one batch of fake comments, then you can use the API key that sent it to search for other comments using that same key, which would most likely also be fake. While it may not identify spammers, it would be an easy way to verify fairly solidly which comments are fake.
Which is reason enough for Pai to obstruct all attempts at independent and government investigators getting this info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So basically, all his hopes ride on him having created enough of a smoke screen that he can slip out the back door and run away before any of this manages to blow up in his face. Any time spent trying to clear the smoke is time not spent looking into other matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only reason to attend, I suppose, is to stop them from claiming that no one cares because they do not show up to the stupid waste of time Town Hall meetings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a good reason he doesn't care about comment fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a good reason he doesn't care about comment fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
suckers
"Congress Pressures FCC Boss Over His Total Failure To Police
Net Neutrality Comment Fraud"
Congress Failed, and most of you idiots are buying it. Congress creates and uses these agencies to escape culpability. Notice how they are only just now throwing tantrums to trick you sucking into thinking they actually care.
What a bunch of maroons!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: suckers
I don't think anyone here has denied that this is a failure not only on the part of the FCC but also on Congress. Congress was responsible for the CRA that rolled back ISP privacy regulations after all.
In your haste to whine and criticize this site and its readers, you have come up with a big fat nothingburger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: suckers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inspector General investigation
I'm sure a Techdirt post on this is already imminent, but in the meantime:
Ajit Pai faces investigation into moves that benefit Sinclair Broadcasting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now...
And earnest, truthful, group of politicians, AND HIRED regulators..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress has to have the teeth, otherwise it's just a gesture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're mistaken. There are multiple lawsuits lined up against the FCC over its decision to repeal Title II protections; Techdirt has reported on them at length.
There's a whole other branch of government besides the legislative and the executive. That branch has the authority to declare the FCC's decision illegal. Investigations into the FCC's decision-making process bolster that case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]