The regulatory branches of government is where the rubber meets the road, as it were. These agencies and departments have to take the laws as passed and turn them into functional operations.
What that usually means is explaining the methods by which someone complies with the law, setting the standard for things like record keeping, documentation, and the like.
Those agencies aren't suppose to make new law. They are suppose to apply existing law, and provide the guidance and procedures needed to make it happen.
This is why the FCC under Wheeler has to put the internet companies under Title II. Unless they were in this title, the Net Neutrality rules could not be applied, because under Title I the FCC didn't have the power to regulate in this manner.
It's a bit of a "by the back door" way of doing things. The FCC could not regulate the internet as it was, but they did have the power (by court decision) to reclassify it. Wheeler used that to pull the internet into an area where congress has granted the power to regulate.
The flip side of this, of course, is that the FCC has the power to reclassify, and if you feel Wheeler was within his power to put things into Title II, then you have to agree that Pai has the power to put them back to Title I (where they belong).
What Wheeler's FCC did was end run the process, using the powers granted narrowly to do X and the powers granted narrowly to do Y, and combine them to be able to create a whole set of regulations for an area that has never been specifically set up as regulated by congress.
Re: Re: Re: Pai is intentionally impeding an active criminal investigation...
"Oh absolutely, nothing at all."
If it was any other subject, you guys would be going on about uppity state AGs sticking their noses into something that isn't there responsibility. In this case, because you like what they are looking into, you are all supportive. But really, is there anything going on here?
"So long as you ignore the widespread, fraudulent submission of comments submitted to a government agency for public input using people's names to submit comments without their knowledge or consent, and/or despite the fact that some of the one's who were submitting comments were dead at the time."
At this point, there is nothing to suggest it's anything more than a Boaty Mc Boatface style prank. It was done so blatantly and with so little concern for getting caught, that it has to make you wonder.
"I'd like to say that I'm surprised that you are still trying to drag 230 into this"
I am not still trying to drag it in, it's the first time I mention it. The FCC isn't any more liable for comments on their website than Techdirt, by local standards. The fraud you allude to isn't done by the FCC, but by a third party. They are your rules, apply them.
Posts here are not anonymous. Techdirt (and their various partners) log IP addresses and other information with every visit and every post. That information is used to assign you your special snow flake next to your posts. As an example, I know you made this post and the one above it (same snowflake). In a truly anonymous system, there would be no way to know that.
I also feel confident that, if someone tried to go after my posts via Techdirt that Mike and all of his legal friends would scream "section 230!" and block every attempt possible to reveal any information about me, because that is how they roll (or at least, how they expect everyone else to roll!).
Re: Pai is intentionally impeding an active criminal investigation...
Except that, beyond some arm waving by state AGs, there isn't much going on here. I don't even think they have found an actual crime to charge anyone with.
Let's also go section 230 on this. The FCC website is just an innocent provider, they didn't write the comments and are not liable for them. If you want to charge someone, go after the publisher.
Re: Re: Re: Another Nail in the "FTC Will Save Us" Coffin
My point is only that this has turned into a partisan issue. McSweeney is part of the "Obama Gang" that supported NN from the start, so I don't expect her to say anything that would support it being abolished.
That's not really true. It has some things like Title II, but Wheeler had to do some wholesale crossing out of provisions to try to make it fit. It's like making an oversized show fit yoru foot by stuffing the toes and wearing 5 pairs of socks. You can get it to stay on, but it's not really right.
The FCC needs an "internet Title", and they need congress to pass it into law. They need to do it at the same time that they simplify things so that new competition can come into the market place, so that new last mile competition can flourish, so that NN isn't the only thing keeping the US internet from doom.
"Why would the distribution company be held responsible rather than the creator of the magazine?"
It's not either / or. In the real world, the distributor would face criminal responsibility for their part of the process, and the publisher their part.
"Plus, one of the very simple concepts you remain wilfully ignorant of is very simple - a physical publication has an editorial staff who choose which content goes into the paper, leading to a final product which is approved by said staff. An online platform does not. "
Why not? Seems like an abdication of responsibility.
"Do you understand yet, or do I need to keep to single syllable words for your thick skull to accept the knowledge?"
I understand you perfectly. You keep saying over and over again "because the internet". Yet you still have failed to explain why the internet distributor should have a different level of liability from one in the real world.
"Ads for the rest of your bullshit, you're actually whining that sites like Wordpress won't just hand over your personal information to anyone who asks for it?"
Not whining. I am pointing out the legal process. You said it's bullshit that you would go broke just trying to sue someone, and I showed you how it happens. You asked, I answered. No whining.
"Explain to me the magic that gets it to anyone ho walks off the street into a brick & mortar premises. I doesn't, you need to have to have law enforcement and a warrant at the very least in most circumstances. Depending on where you live, that might even still be breaking data protection rules until certain procedures are followed.."
You are correct, but you magically skipped a whole bunch of things. The business will generally know their customer. They will at least see their face, they might have a video recording. if the person paid with a credit card, that record exists. if they asked for a delivery, and so on.
If someone came to you with a business proposal to distribute their magazine in your store, you would ask who they are, you would sign a contract or make an agreement, you would know how you are dealing with. In the case of an illegal act, a warrant could be issued and that information collected. If you had none (ie, cash deal) it would look very bad for you, as it would suggest you knew that you were getting into something illegal.
"You, again, are making shit up and basing your comments on a fever dream."
I keep answering your questions, and you keep ignoring the answers. I keep asking your the simple question why you think online distributors should have MORE protections than real world ones, and you keep not answering.
It's always the same with you. You can't accept that you are wrong.
The existence of fake comments is almost inevitable. Nobody debates that there are fakes - on both sides of the debate.
The question is who and why.
I think the 2 million or so comments were spammed very intentionally to be caught. They are way too obvious. They look like someone wanted to be sure that they would be noticed, reported, and derided in places like this.
Unless you figure out the source, pointing out that there are fake comments isn't really useful. Cross them off the list, and move on.
For what it's worth, I consider "form mail" stuff to be equally useless. It should be reported as a single message with a list of signatories, so as not to bury the comments of people who took the time to actually write from their hearts and not doing a copy pasta job.
Comcast is a perfect example. They are investing mightily in their network. It looks like they are really investing in the internet!
Wrong.
Comcast is rolling out their X1 Boxes. Essentially, Comcast is trying to get away from traditional cable TV delivery (which is really still just TV channel width transmissions) and to move to an IP based system. It's more secure, it's more personal, and would allow them to deliver a near infinite amount of channels and on demand options to consumers.
To do it, they need to upgrade their IP network. But it isn't to make the internet faster (it might happen in passing) but instead to make it so their boxes work so they can sell more pay per view and such.
Comcast has a fairly long roll out on this, they started 3 years ago and I think they have a few more years left yet. So you will see all sorts of "IP Network" investments, but it isn't really about the internet.
it's easy to make the mistake that their investment is in internet service. It's all about their private IP network that will absorb almost all of the network improvements!
What it means is generally they are not suppose to be able to offer in house video or music streaming products that didn't count against network access datacaps.
AT&T and Verizon are both doing it, Wheeler was trying to get it shut down but after he was removed from the job, Pai pretty much shut the investigations down.
"All it means is they wouldn't be allowed to favour one streaming service over another because they didn't pay them enough does it now?"
Actually, NN was suppose to be about the point where an ISP connects to the outside world. It said that everything coming in had to be treated in the same manner, and that no special deals could be made with individual suppliers.
In house offerings don't use these gateways, and AT&T and Verizon basically went ahead with cap exempt products. Wheeler hated it, Pai shrugged.
Except they aren't rid of the FCC, and the same regulations could get reimposed if things get stupid.
My guess is anyone straying out of line will encourage congress to actually get off their collective, Luddite asses and do something about it for good.
It's an interesting question, but one that resolves itself fairly well. The difficulty to build new blocks is based in no small part on the amount of mining going on. There is a target goal for new blocks of 600 seconds, and every 2016 blocks the system compares it's previous choice of difficulty and the amount of mining power at the time with the results of the previous 2016 blocks and the current mining availability.
Bitcoin rewards will drop (in about 2 years) by half, and then half again a year or two later. As the reward level drops, the income from mining drops, and thus fewer people mine. There is a point where it's not financial viable to mine.
So today's billions of giga hashes pretty much all disappear where people can no longer afford to do it.
Now interesting, if they power drops too much, the cost per transaction may go up. The "gas" as it were would become the prime source of income, and as such, would have to be adjusted to a level that keeps enough miners in the game to process transactions.
Mining has to continue for transactions to happen, even through they will no longer be mining for very much.
All of this of course assumes that consumers are not going to raise a fuss and that absolutely nothing will come of any type of blocking that you seem to feel will occur.
Let's flash back to each and every one of the issues that NN supports point to (all of which happened before 2015, where there were no actual "rules"). Each and every one of them without exception was resolved because there was no way that they would be tolerated.
Everything got resolved in the past without NN rules. That is the empirical proof.
Remember, Pai isn't so much trying to repeal the Net Neutrality rules as much as just pulling the Title II classification. It's a bit like the Republican trick of defunding things that they cannot get repealed (like Obamacare).
With Title II reversed, the NN rules aren't even really on the table anymore, the courts have already ruled that without Title II status, NN style rules cannot be applied.
Pai can easily make the case that Title II isn't appropriate for information services, that there is really no specific title that does apply, and as such, it would be more appropriate to have them back under the general title I until such time as the critters get off the lazy butts and actually regulate. The whole specific question of NN is then sidestepped.
"Exactly. They don't have responsibility for things they did not do! Why is that such a problem for you?"
They are still part of the process of publishing and distributing it. The website is, even in the extreme, the equivalent of the van delivering the newspapers. While you might not be responsible for every word in the paper, you would be responsible if it was the "paedo Dating weekly".
Why does an online distribution company get a pass when the real world one would not?
For that matter, in the real world you would never widely distribute something given to you anonymously every week. You would want to know where it comes from, who is sending it, and the like. You might have to file an W8 or whatever with them to justify taxable income.
Why would you be able to do it online when you cannot do it in the real world?
"Yes. So, why are you demanding that platforms get made responsible for things that other people did? "
In part because they are doing it together. It's symbiotic. Youtube without videos would be as useful as videos without youtube. I don't want them to be liable for what other people do - I just want them to be liable for their part of the process. Is it too much to ask them to "know their customer"?
"Absolute, verifiable bullshit. Yet again, you don't get a simply thing like reality get in the way of your arguments."
Really? If I want to sue someone writing on a hosted blog at wordpress, I have to go through significant extra steps in order to even bring the suit. I have to first ask wordpress for customer info. They will of course decline, until I file suit. So I will have to get a lawyer and file a "doe" suit and once filed, I will have to petition the court to force Wordpress to produce their customer information. They will potentially fight it, and I may have to go through the entire process of proving the libel / slander / what have you in order for the court to finally force them to produce.
When they do, they will produce a name, an email address, and possibly the IP address that was used to sign up.
The name? Junk. The email address? Ahh, let's go chase your tail again. Now I have to go back to the court and petition so that hotmail will produce records related to the customer who controls that address. However, since all they have is another email address (gmail) I am back in court again for another petition. On and on it goes. At the end of the process, all I have in hand is a series of dead end email addresses and a list of TOR exit nodes.
So I made any number of motions to the court, I have had to potentitally make and re-make the case for each step along the way if each company decides to fight the information request. At the end, I have nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
The one company (the free host) that publishes everything on their domain is free and clear because of section 230. As an offended party, I would have absolutely no recourse.
So now you can explain why it's bullshit. Explain to me carefully the magic that somehow manages to get you the name, address, and other personal information of someone writing a free hosted blog.
(this should be entertaining)
I am guessing your answer will be "but it's anonymous", which is true. If the distributor cannot produce the writer, should they not be liable for it at some point? Is there any real proof that it's not the distributor themselves that wrote it?
On the post: Why Must The FCC Insult Everyone's Intelligence By Misrepresenting Broadband Investment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What that usually means is explaining the methods by which someone complies with the law, setting the standard for things like record keeping, documentation, and the like.
Those agencies aren't suppose to make new law. They are suppose to apply existing law, and provide the guidance and procedures needed to make it happen.
This is why the FCC under Wheeler has to put the internet companies under Title II. Unless they were in this title, the Net Neutrality rules could not be applied, because under Title I the FCC didn't have the power to regulate in this manner.
It's a bit of a "by the back door" way of doing things. The FCC could not regulate the internet as it was, but they did have the power (by court decision) to reclassify it. Wheeler used that to pull the internet into an area where congress has granted the power to regulate.
The flip side of this, of course, is that the FCC has the power to reclassify, and if you feel Wheeler was within his power to put things into Title II, then you have to agree that Pai has the power to put them back to Title I (where they belong).
What Wheeler's FCC did was end run the process, using the powers granted narrowly to do X and the powers granted narrowly to do Y, and combine them to be able to create a whole set of regulations for an area that has never been specifically set up as regulated by congress.
On the post: NY Attorney General Finds 2 Million Fake FCC Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re: Re: Pai is intentionally impeding an active criminal investigation...
If it was any other subject, you guys would be going on about uppity state AGs sticking their noses into something that isn't there responsibility. In this case, because you like what they are looking into, you are all supportive. But really, is there anything going on here?
"So long as you ignore the widespread, fraudulent submission of comments submitted to a government agency for public input using people's names to submit comments without their knowledge or consent, and/or despite the fact that some of the one's who were submitting comments were dead at the time."
At this point, there is nothing to suggest it's anything more than a Boaty Mc Boatface style prank. It was done so blatantly and with so little concern for getting caught, that it has to make you wonder.
"I'd like to say that I'm surprised that you are still trying to drag 230 into this"
I am not still trying to drag it in, it's the first time I mention it. The FCC isn't any more liable for comments on their website than Techdirt, by local standards. The fraud you allude to isn't done by the FCC, but by a third party. They are your rules, apply them.
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
I also feel confident that, if someone tried to go after my posts via Techdirt that Mike and all of his legal friends would scream "section 230!" and block every attempt possible to reveal any information about me, because that is how they roll (or at least, how they expect everyone else to roll!).
On the post: NY Attorney General Finds 2 Million Fake FCC Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Pai is intentionally impeding an active criminal investigation...
Let's also go section 230 on this. The FCC website is just an innocent provider, they didn't write the comments and are not liable for them. If you want to charge someone, go after the publisher.
See how much that sucks?
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: Re: Re: Another Nail in the "FTC Will Save Us" Coffin
On the post: Comic Con Verdict: Salt Lake Comic Con Loses The Battle, Now Seeks To Win The War
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The FCC needs an "internet Title", and they need congress to pass it into law. They need to do it at the same time that they simplify things so that new competition can come into the market place, so that new last mile competition can flourish, so that NN isn't the only thing keeping the US internet from doom.
NN is dead. The internet is doomed. DOOMED!
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: Re: Re: Nice story
It's not either / or. In the real world, the distributor would face criminal responsibility for their part of the process, and the publisher their part.
"Plus, one of the very simple concepts you remain wilfully ignorant of is very simple - a physical publication has an editorial staff who choose which content goes into the paper, leading to a final product which is approved by said staff. An online platform does not. "
Why not? Seems like an abdication of responsibility.
"Do you understand yet, or do I need to keep to single syllable words for your thick skull to accept the knowledge?"
I understand you perfectly. You keep saying over and over again "because the internet". Yet you still have failed to explain why the internet distributor should have a different level of liability from one in the real world.
"Ads for the rest of your bullshit, you're actually whining that sites like Wordpress won't just hand over your personal information to anyone who asks for it?"
Not whining. I am pointing out the legal process. You said it's bullshit that you would go broke just trying to sue someone, and I showed you how it happens. You asked, I answered. No whining.
"Explain to me the magic that gets it to anyone ho walks off the street into a brick & mortar premises. I doesn't, you need to have to have law enforcement and a warrant at the very least in most circumstances. Depending on where you live, that might even still be breaking data protection rules until certain procedures are followed.."
You are correct, but you magically skipped a whole bunch of things. The business will generally know their customer. They will at least see their face, they might have a video recording. if the person paid with a credit card, that record exists. if they asked for a delivery, and so on.
If someone came to you with a business proposal to distribute their magazine in your store, you would ask who they are, you would sign a contract or make an agreement, you would know how you are dealing with. In the case of an illegal act, a warrant could be issued and that information collected. If you had none (ie, cash deal) it would look very bad for you, as it would suggest you knew that you were getting into something illegal.
"You, again, are making shit up and basing your comments on a fever dream."
I keep answering your questions, and you keep ignoring the answers. I keep asking your the simple question why you think online distributors should have MORE protections than real world ones, and you keep not answering.
It's always the same with you. You can't accept that you are wrong.
On the post: Two Separate Studies Show That The Vast Majority Of People Who Said They Support Ajit Pai's Plan... Were Fake
The question is who and why.
I think the 2 million or so comments were spammed very intentionally to be caught. They are way too obvious. They look like someone wanted to be sure that they would be noticed, reported, and derided in places like this.
Unless you figure out the source, pointing out that there are fake comments isn't really useful. Cross them off the list, and move on.
For what it's worth, I consider "form mail" stuff to be equally useless. It should be reported as a single message with a list of signatories, so as not to bury the comments of people who took the time to actually write from their hearts and not doing a copy pasta job.
On the post: Why Must The FCC Insult Everyone's Intelligence By Misrepresenting Broadband Investment?
Comcast is a perfect example. They are investing mightily in their network. It looks like they are really investing in the internet!
Wrong.
Comcast is rolling out their X1 Boxes. Essentially, Comcast is trying to get away from traditional cable TV delivery (which is really still just TV channel width transmissions) and to move to an IP based system. It's more secure, it's more personal, and would allow them to deliver a near infinite amount of channels and on demand options to consumers.
To do it, they need to upgrade their IP network. But it isn't to make the internet faster (it might happen in passing) but instead to make it so their boxes work so they can sell more pay per view and such.
Comcast has a fairly long roll out on this, they started 3 years ago and I think they have a few more years left yet. So you will see all sorts of "IP Network" investments, but it isn't really about the internet.
it's easy to make the mistake that their investment is in internet service. It's all about their private IP network that will absorb almost all of the network improvements!
On the post: FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Hurts Small ISPs, But The FCC's Own Data Proves Otherwise
Re: Re: Of Course They Do
AT&T and Verizon are both doing it, Wheeler was trying to get it shut down but after he was removed from the job, Pai pretty much shut the investigations down.
"All it means is they wouldn't be allowed to favour one streaming service over another because they didn't pay them enough does it now?"
Actually, NN was suppose to be about the point where an ISP connects to the outside world. It said that everything coming in had to be treated in the same manner, and that no special deals could be made with individual suppliers.
In house offerings don't use these gateways, and AT&T and Verizon basically went ahead with cap exempt products. Wheeler hated it, Pai shrugged.
On the post: Leaked E-mail Shows Even The FCC's Own CTO Thinks Gutting Net Neutrality Harms The Public
Re: Re: all of this...
My guess is anyone straying out of line will encourage congress to actually get off their collective, Luddite asses and do something about it for good.
On the post: If You Are Going To Worry About Bitcoin's Energy Consumption, Worry About Server Farms Too -- For More Than One Reason
Re: Re:
Bitcoin rewards will drop (in about 2 years) by half, and then half again a year or two later. As the reward level drops, the income from mining drops, and thus fewer people mine. There is a point where it's not financial viable to mine.
So today's billions of giga hashes pretty much all disappear where people can no longer afford to do it.
Now interesting, if they power drops too much, the cost per transaction may go up. The "gas" as it were would become the prime source of income, and as such, would have to be adjusted to a level that keeps enough miners in the game to process transactions.
Mining has to continue for transactions to happen, even through they will no longer be mining for very much.
On the post: Leaked E-mail Shows Even The FCC's Own CTO Thinks Gutting Net Neutrality Harms The Public
all of this...
Let's flash back to each and every one of the issues that NN supports point to (all of which happened before 2015, where there were no actual "rules"). Each and every one of them without exception was resolved because there was no way that they would be tolerated.
Everything got resolved in the past without NN rules. That is the empirical proof.
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, Pai isn't so much trying to repeal the Net Neutrality rules as much as just pulling the Title II classification. It's a bit like the Republican trick of defunding things that they cannot get repealed (like Obamacare).
With Title II reversed, the NN rules aren't even really on the table anymore, the courts have already ruled that without Title II status, NN style rules cannot be applied.
Pai can easily make the case that Title II isn't appropriate for information services, that there is really no specific title that does apply, and as such, it would be more appropriate to have them back under the general title I until such time as the critters get off the lazy butts and actually regulate. The whole specific question of NN is then sidestepped.
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
They are still part of the process of publishing and distributing it. The website is, even in the extreme, the equivalent of the van delivering the newspapers. While you might not be responsible for every word in the paper, you would be responsible if it was the "paedo Dating weekly".
Why does an online distribution company get a pass when the real world one would not?
For that matter, in the real world you would never widely distribute something given to you anonymously every week. You would want to know where it comes from, who is sending it, and the like. You might have to file an W8 or whatever with them to justify taxable income.
Why would you be able to do it online when you cannot do it in the real world?
"Yes. So, why are you demanding that platforms get made responsible for things that other people did? "
In part because they are doing it together. It's symbiotic. Youtube without videos would be as useful as videos without youtube. I don't want them to be liable for what other people do - I just want them to be liable for their part of the process. Is it too much to ask them to "know their customer"?
"Absolute, verifiable bullshit. Yet again, you don't get a simply thing like reality get in the way of your arguments."
Really? If I want to sue someone writing on a hosted blog at wordpress, I have to go through significant extra steps in order to even bring the suit. I have to first ask wordpress for customer info. They will of course decline, until I file suit. So I will have to get a lawyer and file a "doe" suit and once filed, I will have to petition the court to force Wordpress to produce their customer information. They will potentially fight it, and I may have to go through the entire process of proving the libel / slander / what have you in order for the court to finally force them to produce.
When they do, they will produce a name, an email address, and possibly the IP address that was used to sign up.
The name? Junk. The email address? Ahh, let's go chase your tail again. Now I have to go back to the court and petition so that hotmail will produce records related to the customer who controls that address. However, since all they have is another email address (gmail) I am back in court again for another petition. On and on it goes. At the end of the process, all I have in hand is a series of dead end email addresses and a list of TOR exit nodes.
So I made any number of motions to the court, I have had to potentitally make and re-make the case for each step along the way if each company decides to fight the information request. At the end, I have nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
The one company (the free host) that publishes everything on their domain is free and clear because of section 230. As an offended party, I would have absolutely no recourse.
So now you can explain why it's bullshit. Explain to me carefully the magic that somehow manages to get you the name, address, and other personal information of someone writing a free hosted blog.
(this should be entertaining)
I am guessing your answer will be "but it's anonymous", which is true. If the distributor cannot produce the writer, should they not be liable for it at some point? Is there any real proof that it's not the distributor themselves that wrote it?
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: Re: Re: Nice story
Do it in the real world, you get arrested.
Do it online, you get a pass because of section 230.
Why?
On the post: Smart Handgun Safe Not Smart Enough Not To Let Basically Anyone Break Into It
Re: Re:
:)
On the post: If You Are Going To Worry About Bitcoin's Energy Consumption, Worry About Server Farms Too -- For More Than One Reason
Re:
this game is fun.
On the post: Comic Con Verdict: Salt Lake Comic Con Loses The Battle, Now Seeks To Win The War
Re: Re:
There are options...
Next >>