Sometimes its more like asking the FedEx driver to carry a festering pile of excrement. When does the delivery driver finally say enough?
I mostly agree that infrastructure companies should not be in the business of content moderation. However, like most of these issues, things are not black-and-white but lie within a broad spectrum. Somewhere at the ends of that spectrum, refusal of service should be a viable option.
Population China 1400 million, population US 327 million.
Blocking Huawei in the US might look like a good move in the short term. A better move might be for companies like Cisco to try to be actually competitive in the global market.
Assume for a moment that industry lobbyists are right, and that NN leads to lower investment by ISPs. Why is this a valid argument to remove NN?
EPA pollution rules clearly lead to less investment by auto companies, yet we still have the rules. FDA rules lead to less investment by drug companies, it would obviously be much easier to bring new drugs to the market without all that onerous testing. Building regs probably help to make sure that buildings don't fall down, but they undoubtedly led to higher building costs and lower investment in the industry.
Rules and regulations are not there to boost investment.
Under Australian law, a standard form contract is deemed to hold unfair terms if;
- it would cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising out of the contract
- it is not reasonably necessary in order to protect the legitimate interests of the party who would be advantaged by the term; and
- it would cause detriment (whether financial or otherwise) to a party if it were to be applied or relied on.
Unfair terms in these contracts are deemed to be void.
I suspect that some other countries have similar provisions in contract law (Canada?, France?). I wonder if this will, in the longer terms, influence a move of research to jurisdictions that are more friendly to researcher rights?
Well, kudos to the engineers, technologists, professors etc for trying to inject some reality into this one-sided hijacking.
Still, I feel that they are missing a small but important point. Chairman Pai's attack on Net Neutrality only applies to the USA, but the internet is a bit bigger than that. So it would be more correct to say that "The sort of rapid innovation the Internet has fueled for the past two decades would come to a sudden and disastrous halt" in the USA.
Look for rapid innovation to come from other countries that actually have competition within the ISP sector. Especially if innovation is stifled in the USA.
Perhaps rather than couch the argument against Pai in terms of creating an internet that limits developers and engineers, it would be better to argue that killing net Neutrality would cause the USA to lose its lead in development of new products and internet technology.
On a recent trip, I boarded a flight from Frankfurt International Airport.
After passing through security screening at Frankfurt, I noticed a shop selling nail scissors, clippers, manicure sets, and Swiss Army knives. These were all available to take on board international flights exiting Germany.
I asked the vendor about travel requirements for these items and was told that recent changes to regulations meant that knives with a blade length of under 6cm are now allowed on international flights.
Nice to see some countries toning down the terror-induced hysteria involved in air travel.
On the other hand, it is now quite easy to fly to the USA armed with a few Swiss Army knives. The 9/11 terrorists had carpet cutters. But, after you have hijacked a plane and crashed it into a building somewhere, your phone will be searched.
It is probably time that Google automatically included search results from other popular search engines into its own results. Like DuckDTuckGo and others do.
That way, any court that tries this trick will have to ask all search engines to comply with its order, or go pound sand.
It is obvious that our glorious leaders just don't buy the "it can't be done" argument. Time for a new argument from the tech community.
I suggest this; There is no unbreakable encryption, the problem is encryption that takes 10 billion years to break using current technology. An obvious solution presents itself - make computers 100 billion times faster. Then encryption can be broken in a little over a month.
We need to call on governments to invest billions of dollars in basic research, so that we can make computers faster and fight terrorism!
This would have the advantages that it shifts the narrative into something our glorious leaders can understand ($$) and that more basic research tends to benefit everyone.
Omit to tell them that, when they actually develop the new quantum supercomputer, I will just add a couple of digits to my passwords and they will have to start all over again.
The only way to hurt ISPs is to use tech to bypass them. That is, stop using an entrenched ISP to access the internet and go to a different technology.
That is how Uber upset the taxi cartels, and how AirBnb upset the Hotel industry.
Of course ISPs know this and are very frightened of it. That is why municipal broadband is so difficult to implement. Perhaps satellite internet is becoming a viable means of bypassing your ISP. Watch for laws banning unsightly dishes on rooftops.
Apt analogy?
Asking "the pilot to repair the plane"...
Sometimes its more like asking the FedEx driver to carry a festering pile of excrement. When does the delivery driver finally say enough?
I mostly agree that infrastructure companies should not be in the business of content moderation. However, like most of these issues, things are not black-and-white but lie within a broad spectrum. Somewhere at the ends of that spectrum, refusal of service should be a viable option.
Tangentially
Don't know if it's worth noting at this stage, but Trump has also repeatedly played down the severity of covid-19 using twitter.
Were it not for section 230, I imagine that someone would be holding twitter responsible for 370,000 deaths in the USA.
Let's see where this goes
Could backfire on Cisco
Blocking Huawei in the US might look like a good move in the short term. A better move might be for companies like Cisco to try to be actually competitive in the global market.
(untitled comment)
Why is "investment" even an argument?
EPA pollution rules clearly lead to less investment by auto companies, yet we still have the rules. FDA rules lead to less investment by drug companies, it would obviously be much easier to bring new drugs to the market without all that onerous testing. Building regs probably help to make sure that buildings don't fall down, but they undoubtedly led to higher building costs and lower investment in the industry.
Rules and regulations are not there to boost investment.
We're here already
(untitled comment)
Unfair Contracts?
- it would cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising out of the contract
- it is not reasonably necessary in order to protect the legitimate interests of the party who would be advantaged by the term; and
- it would cause detriment (whether financial or otherwise) to a party if it were to be applied or relied on.
Unfair terms in these contracts are deemed to be void.
I suspect that some other countries have similar provisions in contract law (Canada?, France?). I wonder if this will, in the longer terms, influence a move of research to jurisdictions that are more friendly to researcher rights?
Who's got the best pirates now?
Simple solutions for simple minds
It is, after all, my computer and it is under my control.
The simple solution; if you do not want content to be copied, do not post it on YouTube (or anywhere on the internet).
See how that works for your profits.
Good argument, wrong focus
Still, I feel that they are missing a small but important point. Chairman Pai's attack on Net Neutrality only applies to the USA, but the internet is a bit bigger than that. So it would be more correct to say that "The sort of rapid innovation the Internet has fueled for the past two decades would come to a sudden and disastrous halt" in the USA.
Look for rapid innovation to come from other countries that actually have competition within the ISP sector. Especially if innovation is stifled in the USA.
Perhaps rather than couch the argument against Pai in terms of creating an internet that limits developers and engineers, it would be better to argue that killing net Neutrality would cause the USA to lose its lead in development of new products and internet technology.
Security Theater
After passing through security screening at Frankfurt, I noticed a shop selling nail scissors, clippers, manicure sets, and Swiss Army knives. These were all available to take on board international flights exiting Germany.
I asked the vendor about travel requirements for these items and was told that recent changes to regulations meant that knives with a blade length of under 6cm are now allowed on international flights.
Nice to see some countries toning down the terror-induced hysteria involved in air travel.
On the other hand, it is now quite easy to fly to the USA armed with a few Swiss Army knives. The 9/11 terrorists had carpet cutters. But, after you have hijacked a plane and crashed it into a building somewhere, your phone will be searched.
Making search engines better
That way, any court that tries this trick will have to ask all search engines to comply with its order, or go pound sand.
If only we could go back in time
Ned to try a new narrative
I suggest this; There is no unbreakable encryption, the problem is encryption that takes 10 billion years to break using current technology. An obvious solution presents itself - make computers 100 billion times faster. Then encryption can be broken in a little over a month.
We need to call on governments to invest billions of dollars in basic research, so that we can make computers faster and fight terrorism!
This would have the advantages that it shifts the narrative into something our glorious leaders can understand ($$) and that more basic research tends to benefit everyone.
Omit to tell them that, when they actually develop the new quantum supercomputer, I will just add a couple of digits to my passwords and they will have to start all over again.
About those IP addresses
That means my IP address is shared with around 60,000 other users of that satellite. Troll that!
(untitled comment)
Thanks.
Re: Curious
It is becoming an established principle of governance that the person in charge of regulating X should not have any experience of using X.
Impartiality perhaps?
This is a tech fight, use tech not words
That is how Uber upset the taxi cartels, and how AirBnb upset the Hotel industry.
Of course ISPs know this and are very frightened of it. That is why municipal broadband is so difficult to implement. Perhaps satellite internet is becoming a viable means of bypassing your ISP. Watch for laws banning unsightly dishes on rooftops.
More comments from Ed >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ed.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt