"My question to you is: How exactly is repealing sec 230 a better idea than leaving it (and all its benefits) in place, while crafting regulations that target the abuse you speak of?"
First off, Section 230 is not being repealed. It will continue to apply to everything except the narrowly defined group of people working to promote sex trafficking.
Nobody will make Reddit responsible for all of their messages every day.
It will, however, make Reddit responsible if they run a group called "paedo paid dating" or "hookers for hire".
See, they wouldn't be responsible for individual messages, rather they would be responsible for supporting sex trafficking.
"I can't imagine that there wouldn't be consensus on allowing intentional criminal/tortious activity to go on in secret."
It's not an either / or choice. The crimes happen today, right now, as I type, in secret. Prostitution is the worlds oldest profession, and forcing girls into that and profiting from it is probably the second. Removing it from the internet (or making it "go dark" won't stop it. That isn't the point. The point is removing easy access to it.
It's the difference (relatively) between getting something at every corner store versus having to go to an abandoned warehouse to the edge of town at the end of a dark alley way. Getting it out of the corner store will most certainly keep casual buyers from the product, and reduce the income for those who sell it.
"The discontinuity is that your reason (valid, sure) doesn't actually address why we need to lose the other benefits of sec 230."
Section 230 is poorly written because it creates a black hole of liability and responsibility. Without a major re-write to address this sort of thing, more and more situations will come up like this, and the congress will move to impose limits on it. This time it's really VERY narrow in scope. The next time could be more general. Unless section 230 by itself is fixed, other laws will "fix it to death". So think of this as the proverbial canary in the coal mine. The time is now to deal with the situation before it chokes you off entirely.
So basically, by hacking it at 5 digits, it was less than 1% of the possible codes. It's a nice proof of concept, but 21 minutes would be much different from 10 seconds.
I enjoy the story, but I sort of laughed when it got to this:
" All that's required to make it work is that the safe have Bluetooth connectivity turned on."
There are a finite number of combinations for the safe. However, the testers (trying to prove their point) choose 5 digit codes rather than 8. If the 5 digit code took 10 seconds to hack, the 6 digit would take 50 seconds (5 times as many numbers), the 7 digit would take 250 seconds, and the 8 digit would take 1250 seconds (or about 21 minutes). Essentially, they choose the sweet spot that would look like they didn't make it too easy, but not too hard either.
If I understand correctly, if you do not use the Bluetooth option (never set a code) then the unit cannot be opened via this method. So part of the question would be how many people use an app rather than just the biometric stuff on the unit itself.
It's a product fail for sure, however. There is no real and valid reason to have bluetooth connectivity to start with. Clearly, their code doesn't have an apple style "5 tries and locked out for 5 minutes" type thing in it, so basically they are just jamming codes at it as a fast as possible until it pops.
As I said in the other thread, I don't expect an appeal by the loser because the settlement amount is much lower than any appeal would cost. They have also obtained pretty much all of the publicity that is possible out of the case, there isn't much meat left on that bone.
They can keep pushing to invalidate the trademark, but at the same time, they can come up with a new moniker for their event and make another big publicity splash about being "not the comic con". They can extract way more than $20,000 worth of marketing value, especially because sites like Techdirt and others will latch onto the story for another round at that point, bemoaning how trademark has hurt the little guy.
This isn't the last you hear of this case, but I suspect it may be the last time you see it in court, unless SDCC decides to appeal.
Small ISPs love net neutrality because it limits the business to only providing a blank, empty line, and offering no additional services ever.
Small ISPs are unlikely to start their own video on demand service, they are unlikely to offer their own music streaming product, and so on. They don't have the money to do it.
Larger ISPs could move into their area, offer internet at a reduced price, and upsell these sorts of services and drive the smaller guys out of business.
When it's just a question of naked internet, they would all have similar cost structures, and as a result, other companies can't come into the small guy's territory and offer more than they already do.
The small guys also can't afford the legal fight. NN puts them in a position where, provided they follow the rules, they cannot get in trouble. They cannot be sued by parties for not providing service as they provide service equally (at whatever level they happen to offer it).
So yeah, no shit. Small ISPs love anything that keeps them in business and keeps them from paying too much to the lawyers.
No, I dislike section 230 because it creates a void of responsibility. The service neither has responsibility for what is posted, nor do they even have to be able to identify who did, nor can they be easily compelled to provide it for legal process. If you want to sue a user/publisher you may as well just flush money down the toilet, you have no chance of finding them before your funds are exhausted. You won't even get to file against them, you will spend all of your time in court with that protected service provider.
For criminal, it's about the same. They dodge, they wiggle, and they avoid both having to know who their customer is, and the avoid liability for what is on their site.
It's not about control of the corporate overlords, it's about personal responsibility.
Very aware. But Congress did not pass any law related to the internet. Title II is used, but as you previously mentioned, most of it is crossed out because it doesn't really apply.
Title II as a way for the FCC to follow with further regulation not defined in law.
"Um. Except the parts where the FCC first reclassified these services from Title II to Title I you mean? Again, your argument totally backfires, because the reclassification went the other way first. All Wheeler did was move these services BACK to their original classification."
Actually, not entirely true. Internet services were generically under Title II only because they were built on existing cableTV and phone cables. Otherwise, there would have been no specific title applied. Title I is essentially the lowest level of control the FCC has. it's more a question of them saying "wait, the internet isn't a common carrier in the same sense as phone service".
Effectively, the FCC never actually placed the services in Title II, they just landed there by default. They didn't "reclassify" them, they finally classified them.
"The FCC can reclassify, but only if it can show that there is underlying fundamental changes that require the reclassification"
I am not debating that at all. What I am saying is that moving it from Title I (ie, just barely under FCC prerogative) to Title II is the wrong move. What should have happened is something similar to Title VI, specifically created to deal with the cable industry. There really should have been a Title VIII specifically to deal with the internet, passed into law by congress.
"Pai is going to have to show that the world changed so dramatically in the past 2 years that it required a new classification."
Not true. Pai will only have to show that the previous choice didn't generate the expected results, and that there is no reason to continue to support rules that have no proven beneficial effects.
"You say stuff like this that makes it obvious that you don't know the first thing about the law on these issues."
I understand it quite well actually. A big part of the ruling was that the rules were quite vague, and ni the end, to resolve the issue, the FCC classified internet as information services so that there was no wiggle room for BrandX (which lost it's case). What the FCC did at that point was apply what the courts had decided, namely that Title II was vague in relation to internet services.
I also understand that the idea of NN was struck down twice by the courts before Wheeler moved internet services into Title II, otherwise the FCC would not have had the power to enact the NN rules.
I also think you need to more clearly read judgements related to Wheeler in court. One of the best is this nugget "Critically, we do not “inquire as to whether the agency’s decision is wise as a policy matter; indeed, we are forbidden from substituting our judgment for that of the agency.”
This is significant. Read straight, it says essentially that the courts should not rule if a policy is intelligent or wise, only that it is within the scope of the rules for the agency as set by congress. Quite simply put, if the FCC can classify something as Title II, then the can rescind that classification, it is within their power.
Pai only has to show that (a) they are allowed to do it, and (b) that it's not unreasonable. There is no need to show it as the single correct choice, only reasonable and within the agency's prerogative. Remember, he isn't trying to enact rules or remove them. He will just reclassify the service out of Title II and thus render the rules moot.
That's a pretty good history there, with plenty of annotated back information. Essentially, many of the arguments shut down by this court can read in support of Pai and the choices of HIS FCC.
The lack of a Title for computer and internet services means that your congress critter buddies have failed you. While 39 of them signed a letter to the FCC, there doesn't appear to have been any move to bring forward laws to regulate the internet as an internet service. Had this been done, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, as it would be codified in law and the FCC would be in the position to enforce it rather than trying to write it.
No, I understand it exactly, and as a result, I know why it's not all most people think it is.
"So, if you recognise this, why do you, without fail, always shill for the businesses that are trying to do just that?"
I don't shill. Stop insulting me.
I am against companies that use section 230 to do online what they could not legally do offline I think it's unfair and represents the over-reach of section 230.
"We keep telling you - whatever planet you keep referring to, that's not Earth and it's not reality. Whatever your prescription is, it needs changing again, the hallucinations have returned..."
Do you have nothing better to do than be personally insulting? You are nothing if you are not predictable.
"Because that is totally what is going to happen if the FCC is defanged or destroyed? T"
I think part of the problem in all of this is that you confused about the FCC's mandate and power.
The FCC is not part of the legislative branch of government. The are administrative. They are suppose to apply and administer the laws as passed by the elected congress and signed by the President.
Can you show us exactly where the congress passed the Title II and Net Neutrality Act of 2015? Oh wait, they didn't. The FCC took it upon itself to create new rules and regulations where none existed, without having them codified into law. So desperate they were that they used Title II and then struck off the parts they didn't like.
It made me think of the M*A*S*H episode where they can get a popcorn machine by striking off "machine gun" on the right form and replacing it with "popcorn machine".
The FCC should never have moved internet services to Title II to start with. That should be something codified in law, not summarily decided by a partisan, unelected officials. What Wheeler did was ignore 20 years of internet growth and instead impose his own will on it.
Getting upset about Pai doing the same is laughable. If you feel Pai shouldn't have the power, then Wheeler should not have been able to do it either.
It gets back to the very simple thing: if you want net neutrality and all sorts of regulation, then you need to get it codified into law. The FCC should enforce the law and not write it.
The Canadian charter also allows for people from Quebec to be forced to go to school in French. The Canadian Charter isn't always that useful or positive.
Nice story, and it points out how incredibly well the internet has done and how much it has grown and become a part of everyday life. All this without a stitch of NN regulation.
Section 230 has been a big part of that, for better or worse. However, some will always seek to take advantage of laws and regulation to further questionable business models, and it's really in everyone's interest to assure that those business models don't destroy the good parts of section 230.
Enjoy your celebration, and then come back down to earth for a reality check.
Impressive piece of writing. Ignore everything said in the last year, and point to statements made BEFORE NN was enacted and Wheeler was actively campaigning to get the FTC to say it couldn't do the job.
Wow.
The FTC has said in the past that it isn't able to deal with individual consumer complaints in regards to information privacy, in part because that is a state level issue. Personal privacy however is not truly related to Net Neutrality.
When it comes to anti-competitive behavior by monopoly players, it's not doubt that it's the FTC's job.
"Or, they know the answer but it's not the one you randomly decided upon in your own head, and you're too dishonest to actually debate with them. That's your problem, you won't listen to the actual opinions of others, only address whatever you'd prefer them to be saying."
Stop trolling and answer the question. A whole paragraph of nothing but insult.
"The same municipal services that American ISPs are pushing to be made illegal, with some success in certain areas?"
No. Muni broadband with very different. Muni broadband is government competing with private industry, having control of all the levers and being able to do things that private companies cannot do. That isn't a positive type of competition.
No, my idea is that the muni actually installs a connection to every taxpayer household, and runs those lines back to common termination points ("sheds") where all ISPs run to. They you choose ISP 1, and muni gives them access to it to make your final mile connection (and collects a fee to maintain it).
So now, as many ISPs as can run network to the shed can offer service to your house. That could be 1, 2, or 10. Who knows? All they need is to get their network that far, and the muni has done the rest.
The muni isn't a competitor, it provides a service, nothing more and nothing less. Further, they could even mandate that the poles or underground routes to the sheds from the various central offices are subject to one touch ready, so that there are no delays in adding new ISPs and lots of connectivity.
Suddenly, multiple gigabit internet offers exist, maybe even multiple cable and entertainment options as well.
"They are saying that they cannot do it by negatively affecting competition or by unfair practice. "
What they do inside their networks (services provided without passing through an internet gateway) should not be subject to NN. NN should apply only to outside services, and to how they treat incoming INTERNET traffic.
"STOP MAKING THINGS UP. Address the actual opinions that people are actually writing."
Paul, with due respect, I ask the question because I already know the answer, but apparently Mike and some of the others around here don't.
Forcing incumbents to share wires isn't always the best way. They have done that in Canada with Bell and other DSL providers, and while it seems better on the surface, the reality is that things are worse for the consumer. Line problem? You call your ISP, who blames Bell. They submit a ticket, Bell gets to it a week or two later, just in time to tell you it's not them, it's your ISP - and they won't send someone out to check it until you unhook all the non-Bell equipment from the line so they can show their line is fine.
Real competition comes when you separate out the final mile from the ISP. Make the copper or preferably fiber into your home into a muni service. Then let all the ISPs in the world compete for the right to light it up and provide service. In a very short time, the US would have huge amounts of competition.
"Nor is it found in private monopolies. So, why do you constantly support them?"
I don't support them. They are an inevitable result of an open market, basically. Even Mike knows that. My point is that after having made the investment in their private networks (that connect users to the internet) it seems odd that a government agency can tell them that they cannot profit from their own service.
I am all for competition, and not monopolies. But trying to fix things by making life more miserable for the monopoly players and easier for services doesn't really address the true issues of a lack of competition.
"So, your example is one in which they can't give their own service an unfair advantage by allowing it to bypass the 'problem' they created? Yes, how terrible that such 'innovation' should be prohibited..."
Except the problem isn't something they have created themselves. Operating within their own network, they are not subject to the costs of peering and obtaining connectivity. Why should they be blocked?
By your mentality, AOL should never of existed, because the bastards use to offer services are part of your membership / access and then limit your internet! Total f--kers! :)
"When a doctor is dealing with a stab wound would you complain that they're wasting all their time staunching the bleeding when the real concern is the cancer that will kill the patient a few years down the line?"
if the stab wound exists only because you are trying to cut the cancer out yourself manually...
"The FTC that noted back in april that if the job is dumped in their laps don't hold your breath because they lack the resources to handle things and can only really hand out fines post-abuse?"
Pointing to one of Karl's yappy dog pieces isn't helping your stand. The FTC much more recently than this pointed out that they are more than willing to take up the charge, especially in the areas where NN is most obvious, such as blocking of competing services. In Karl's story they are talking about personal information, which is something mostly regulated at the state level.
"A well written bill by congress would be a better option"
That is the only option.
However, laws that deal with only NN without dealing with larger issue (the cancer you mentioned earlier) would just be a step backwards. The US is rapidly falling behind much of the world in internet speeds.
Remember too: When I talk about congress and laws, it's what would come if ISPs suddenly started wholesale blocking competitors or charging extra to "access facebook". The ISPs know that they are standing on an island here, and any move off the island feeds them to the sharks. They aren't lining up and being stupid about things.
Outcome 1 isn't the best result, because it would not only not accomplish anything, but it might also embolden sites comparable to Backpage to get even more heavily involved in taking on these paid prostitution ads. After all, if they are not liable, let's go make some money.
The best outcome is the point where companies who would consider profiting more or less directly from sex trafficking decide not to, and that those who do face the full brunt of both the law and their lack of morals.
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: Another Nail in the "FTC Will Save Us" Coffin
If she thinks it would take years for them to get a court order to stop blatant blocking of sites, then she perhaps needs to resign.
On the post: It Was Twenty(-odd) Years Ago Today When The Internet Looked Much Different Than It Does Now
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice story
First off, Section 230 is not being repealed. It will continue to apply to everything except the narrowly defined group of people working to promote sex trafficking.
Nobody will make Reddit responsible for all of their messages every day.
It will, however, make Reddit responsible if they run a group called "paedo paid dating" or "hookers for hire".
See, they wouldn't be responsible for individual messages, rather they would be responsible for supporting sex trafficking.
"I can't imagine that there wouldn't be consensus on allowing intentional criminal/tortious activity to go on in secret."
It's not an either / or choice. The crimes happen today, right now, as I type, in secret. Prostitution is the worlds oldest profession, and forcing girls into that and profiting from it is probably the second. Removing it from the internet (or making it "go dark" won't stop it. That isn't the point. The point is removing easy access to it.
It's the difference (relatively) between getting something at every corner store versus having to go to an abandoned warehouse to the edge of town at the end of a dark alley way. Getting it out of the corner store will most certainly keep casual buyers from the product, and reduce the income for those who sell it.
"The discontinuity is that your reason (valid, sure) doesn't actually address why we need to lose the other benefits of sec 230."
Section 230 is poorly written because it creates a black hole of liability and responsibility. Without a major re-write to address this sort of thing, more and more situations will come up like this, and the congress will move to impose limits on it. This time it's really VERY narrow in scope. The next time could be more general. Unless section 230 by itself is fixed, other laws will "fix it to death". So think of this as the proverbial canary in the coal mine. The time is now to deal with the situation before it chokes you off entirely.
On the post: Smart Handgun Safe Not Smart Enough Not To Let Basically Anyone Break Into It
1 digit: 5 codes
2 digits 25 codes
3 digits 125 codes
4 digits 625 codes
5 digits 3125 codes
6 digits 15,625 codes
7 digits 78,125 codes
8 digits 390,625 codes
So basically, by hacking it at 5 digits, it was less than 1% of the possible codes. It's a nice proof of concept, but 21 minutes would be much different from 10 seconds.
On the post: Smart Handgun Safe Not Smart Enough Not To Let Basically Anyone Break Into It
Neat Story
" All that's required to make it work is that the safe have Bluetooth connectivity turned on."
There are a finite number of combinations for the safe. However, the testers (trying to prove their point) choose 5 digit codes rather than 8. If the 5 digit code took 10 seconds to hack, the 6 digit would take 50 seconds (5 times as many numbers), the 7 digit would take 250 seconds, and the 8 digit would take 1250 seconds (or about 21 minutes). Essentially, they choose the sweet spot that would look like they didn't make it too easy, but not too hard either.
If I understand correctly, if you do not use the Bluetooth option (never set a code) then the unit cannot be opened via this method. So part of the question would be how many people use an app rather than just the biometric stuff on the unit itself.
It's a product fail for sure, however. There is no real and valid reason to have bluetooth connectivity to start with. Clearly, their code doesn't have an apple style "5 tries and locked out for 5 minutes" type thing in it, so basically they are just jamming codes at it as a fast as possible until it pops.
On the post: Comic Con Verdict: Salt Lake Comic Con Loses The Battle, Now Seeks To Win The War
They can keep pushing to invalidate the trademark, but at the same time, they can come up with a new moniker for their event and make another big publicity splash about being "not the comic con". They can extract way more than $20,000 worth of marketing value, especially because sites like Techdirt and others will latch onto the story for another round at that point, bemoaning how trademark has hurt the little guy.
This isn't the last you hear of this case, but I suspect it may be the last time you see it in court, unless SDCC decides to appeal.
On the post: FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Hurts Small ISPs, But The FCC's Own Data Proves Otherwise
Of Course They Do
Small ISPs are unlikely to start their own video on demand service, they are unlikely to offer their own music streaming product, and so on. They don't have the money to do it.
Larger ISPs could move into their area, offer internet at a reduced price, and upsell these sorts of services and drive the smaller guys out of business.
When it's just a question of naked internet, they would all have similar cost structures, and as a result, other companies can't come into the small guy's territory and offer more than they already do.
The small guys also can't afford the legal fight. NN puts them in a position where, provided they follow the rules, they cannot get in trouble. They cannot be sued by parties for not providing service as they provide service equally (at whatever level they happen to offer it).
So yeah, no shit. Small ISPs love anything that keeps them in business and keeps them from paying too much to the lawyers.
On the post: It Was Twenty(-odd) Years Ago Today When The Internet Looked Much Different Than It Does Now
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice story
For criminal, it's about the same. They dodge, they wiggle, and they avoid both having to know who their customer is, and the avoid liability for what is on their site.
It's not about control of the corporate overlords, it's about personal responsibility.
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Very aware. But Congress did not pass any law related to the internet. Title II is used, but as you previously mentioned, most of it is crossed out because it doesn't really apply.
Title II as a way for the FCC to follow with further regulation not defined in law.
"Um. Except the parts where the FCC first reclassified these services from Title II to Title I you mean? Again, your argument totally backfires, because the reclassification went the other way first. All Wheeler did was move these services BACK to their original classification."
Actually, not entirely true. Internet services were generically under Title II only because they were built on existing cableTV and phone cables. Otherwise, there would have been no specific title applied. Title I is essentially the lowest level of control the FCC has. it's more a question of them saying "wait, the internet isn't a common carrier in the same sense as phone service".
Effectively, the FCC never actually placed the services in Title II, they just landed there by default. They didn't "reclassify" them, they finally classified them.
"The FCC can reclassify, but only if it can show that there is underlying fundamental changes that require the reclassification"
I am not debating that at all. What I am saying is that moving it from Title I (ie, just barely under FCC prerogative) to Title II is the wrong move. What should have happened is something similar to Title VI, specifically created to deal with the cable industry. There really should have been a Title VIII specifically to deal with the internet, passed into law by congress.
"Pai is going to have to show that the world changed so dramatically in the past 2 years that it required a new classification."
Not true. Pai will only have to show that the previous choice didn't generate the expected results, and that there is no reason to continue to support rules that have no proven beneficial effects.
"You say stuff like this that makes it obvious that you don't know the first thing about the law on these issues."
I understand it quite well actually. A big part of the ruling was that the rules were quite vague, and ni the end, to resolve the issue, the FCC classified internet as information services so that there was no wiggle room for BrandX (which lost it's case). What the FCC did at that point was apply what the courts had decided, namely that Title II was vague in relation to internet services.
I also understand that the idea of NN was struck down twice by the courts before Wheeler moved internet services into Title II, otherwise the FCC would not have had the power to enact the NN rules.
I also think you need to more clearly read judgements related to Wheeler in court. One of the best is this nugget "Critically, we do not “inquire as to whether the
agency’s decision is wise as a policy matter; indeed, we are forbidden from substituting our judgment for that of the agency.”
This is significant. Read straight, it says essentially that the courts should not rule if a policy is intelligent or wise, only that it is within the scope of the rules for the agency as set by congress. Quite simply put, if the FCC can classify something as Title II, then the can rescind that classification, it is within their power.
Pai only has to show that (a) they are allowed to do it, and (b) that it's not unreasonable. There is no need to show it as the single correct choice, only reasonable and within the agency's prerogative. Remember, he isn't trying to enact rules or remove them. He will just reclassify the service out of Title II and thus render the rules moot.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/net-neutrality-dc-circuit.pdf
That's a pretty good history there, with plenty of annotated back information. Essentially, many of the arguments shut down by this court can read in support of Pai and the choices of HIS FCC.
The lack of a Title for computer and internet services means that your congress critter buddies have failed you. While 39 of them signed a letter to the FCC, there doesn't appear to have been any move to bring forward laws to regulate the internet as an internet service. Had this been done, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, as it would be codified in law and the FCC would be in the position to enforce it rather than trying to write it.
On the post: It Was Twenty(-odd) Years Ago Today When The Internet Looked Much Different Than It Does Now
Re: Re: Nice story
No, I understand it exactly, and as a result, I know why it's not all most people think it is.
"So, if you recognise this, why do you, without fail, always shill for the businesses that are trying to do just that?"
I don't shill. Stop insulting me.
I am against companies that use section 230 to do online what they could not legally do offline I think it's unfair and represents the over-reach of section 230.
"We keep telling you - whatever planet you keep referring to, that's not Earth and it's not reality. Whatever your prescription is, it needs changing again, the hallucinations have returned..."
Do you have nothing better to do than be personally insulting? You are nothing if you are not predictable.
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think part of the problem in all of this is that you confused about the FCC's mandate and power.
The FCC is not part of the legislative branch of government. The are administrative. They are suppose to apply and administer the laws as passed by the elected congress and signed by the President.
Can you show us exactly where the congress passed the Title II and Net Neutrality Act of 2015? Oh wait, they didn't. The FCC took it upon itself to create new rules and regulations where none existed, without having them codified into law. So desperate they were that they used Title II and then struck off the parts they didn't like.
It made me think of the M*A*S*H episode where they can get a popcorn machine by striking off "machine gun" on the right form and replacing it with "popcorn machine".
The FCC should never have moved internet services to Title II to start with. That should be something codified in law, not summarily decided by a partisan, unelected officials. What Wheeler did was ignore 20 years of internet growth and instead impose his own will on it.
Getting upset about Pai doing the same is laughable. If you feel Pai shouldn't have the power, then Wheeler should not have been able to do it either.
It gets back to the very simple thing: if you want net neutrality and all sorts of regulation, then you need to get it codified into law. The FCC should enforce the law and not write it.
On the post: Canadian Supreme Court Says Privacy Protections Apply To Sent Text Messages Obtained From The Recipient
On the post: It Was Twenty(-odd) Years Ago Today When The Internet Looked Much Different Than It Does Now
Nice story
Section 230 has been a big part of that, for better or worse. However, some will always seek to take advantage of laws and regulation to further questionable business models, and it's really in everyone's interest to assure that those business models don't destroy the good parts of section 230.
Enjoy your celebration, and then come back down to earth for a reality check.
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Wow.
The FTC has said in the past that it isn't able to deal with individual consumer complaints in regards to information privacy, in part because that is a state level issue. Personal privacy however is not truly related to Net Neutrality.
When it comes to anti-competitive behavior by monopoly players, it's not doubt that it's the FTC's job.
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a good post, but...
Stop trolling and answer the question. A whole paragraph of nothing but insult.
"The same municipal services that American ISPs are pushing to be made illegal, with some success in certain areas?"
No. Muni broadband with very different. Muni broadband is government competing with private industry, having control of all the levers and being able to do things that private companies cannot do. That isn't a positive type of competition.
No, my idea is that the muni actually installs a connection to every taxpayer household, and runs those lines back to common termination points ("sheds") where all ISPs run to. They you choose ISP 1, and muni gives them access to it to make your final mile connection (and collects a fee to maintain it).
So now, as many ISPs as can run network to the shed can offer service to your house. That could be 1, 2, or 10. Who knows? All they need is to get their network that far, and the muni has done the rest.
The muni isn't a competitor, it provides a service, nothing more and nothing less. Further, they could even mandate that the poles or underground routes to the sheds from the various central offices are subject to one touch ready, so that there are no delays in adding new ISPs and lots of connectivity.
Suddenly, multiple gigabit internet offers exist, maybe even multiple cable and entertainment options as well.
"They are saying that they cannot do it by negatively affecting competition or by unfair practice. "
What they do inside their networks (services provided without passing through an internet gateway) should not be subject to NN. NN should apply only to outside services, and to how they treat incoming INTERNET traffic.
"STOP MAKING THINGS UP. Address the actual opinions that people are actually writing."
Physician, heal thyself.
On the post: Why Does China Love The 'Sharing Economy'? Not Because Of Communism...
Re: Nothing especially sinister here, just a business fad
On the post: Why Does China Love The 'Sharing Economy'? Not Because Of Communism...
Re: Re:
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re: Re: It's a good post, but...
Forcing incumbents to share wires isn't always the best way. They have done that in Canada with Bell and other DSL providers, and while it seems better on the surface, the reality is that things are worse for the consumer. Line problem? You call your ISP, who blames Bell. They submit a ticket, Bell gets to it a week or two later, just in time to tell you it's not them, it's your ISP - and they won't send someone out to check it until you unhook all the non-Bell equipment from the line so they can show their line is fine.
Real competition comes when you separate out the final mile from the ISP. Make the copper or preferably fiber into your home into a muni service. Then let all the ISPs in the world compete for the right to light it up and provide service. In a very short time, the US would have huge amounts of competition.
"Nor is it found in private monopolies. So, why do you constantly support them?"
I don't support them. They are an inevitable result of an open market, basically. Even Mike knows that. My point is that after having made the investment in their private networks (that connect users to the internet) it seems odd that a government agency can tell them that they cannot profit from their own service.
I am all for competition, and not monopolies. But trying to fix things by making life more miserable for the monopoly players and easier for services doesn't really address the true issues of a lack of competition.
On the post: FCC Boss 'Jokes' About Being A 'Verizon Puppet' At Tone Deaf Industry Gala
Re: Verizon and Pai handed every state everything they needed to shut them down, shut them down hard!!!
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a good post, but...
Except the problem isn't something they have created themselves. Operating within their own network, they are not subject to the costs of peering and obtaining connectivity. Why should they be blocked?
By your mentality, AOL should never of existed, because the bastards use to offer services are part of your membership / access and then limit your internet! Total f--kers! :)
"When a doctor is dealing with a stab wound would you complain that they're wasting all their time staunching the bleeding when the real concern is the cancer that will kill the patient a few years down the line?"
if the stab wound exists only because you are trying to cut the cancer out yourself manually...
"The FTC that noted back in april that if the job is dumped in their laps don't hold your breath because they lack the resources to handle things and can only really hand out fines post-abuse?"
Pointing to one of Karl's yappy dog pieces isn't helping your stand. The FTC much more recently than this pointed out that they are more than willing to take up the charge, especially in the areas where NN is most obvious, such as blocking of competing services. In Karl's story they are talking about personal information, which is something mostly regulated at the state level.
"A well written bill by congress would be a better option"
That is the only option.
However, laws that deal with only NN without dealing with larger issue (the cancer you mentioned earlier) would just be a step backwards. The US is rapidly falling behind much of the world in internet speeds.
Remember too: When I talk about congress and laws, it's what would come if ISPs suddenly started wholesale blocking competitors or charging extra to "access facebook". The ISPs know that they are standing on an island here, and any move off the island feeds them to the sharks. They aren't lining up and being stupid about things.
On the post: Congress Fixes More Problems With FOSTA Bill... But It Still Needs Work
The best outcome is the point where companies who would consider profiting more or less directly from sex trafficking decide not to, and that those who do face the full brunt of both the law and their lack of morals.
Next >>