Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet United States

US Gov't. Ending Its Hands-Off-the-Internet Stance 452

Posted by kdawson
from the that-was-then-and-this-is-now dept.
Taco Cowboy writes in with a report from The Register about a US policy shift away from keeping hands off the Internet. "According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over. Instead, an 'Internet Policy 3.0' approach will see policy discussions between government agencies, foreign governments, and key Internet constituencies, with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance." Here is the presentation in which Strickling enunciated these changes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Gov't. Ending Its Hands-Off-the-Internet Stance

Comments Filter:
  • Nervous reactions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by N3tRunner (164483) * on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:21AM (#31304994)

    This is all because of their recent failed security simulation where they couldn't repel a cyber attack. Now that they feel vulnerable they have what they think is adequate motivation to screw the rest of us. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out...

    • by BhaKi (1316335) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:27AM (#31305036)
      I think the "simulation" was just a part of a massive drama intended to justify this and future acts.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Aldenissin (976329)

        I didn't vote for Obama, hell I didn't even vote. Crap like this is why. Is this the change that everyone was hoping for? "Yes we can!" - take over your Internets?

        • by ultranova (717540) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @10:36AM (#31305528)

          I didn't vote for Obama, hell I didn't even vote. Crap like this is why.

          You figured Obama would pull some "crap", so you didn't oppose him, despite having a consequence- and cost-free way of doing that? I fail to follow your logic here.

          "Yes we can!" - take over your Internets?

          Well, since it seems that his opponents can't even be bothered to haul their arse a few blocks over to the closest voting place... yeah, I guess he can.

          Let me clarify that. You didn't have to stand against the Persian army with your 299 comrades. You didn't have to engage in sabotage against the Nazi army in occupied France. You didn't have to express a political opinion that could get you fired. All you had to do was haul your ass a few blocks away to cast a vote that could not be traced back to you. But you failed to do even that. And now you complain that the guy you imply to have known to be up to no good but couldn't be bothered to oppose is doing what you feared he would? Sorry, but you aren't getting any sympathy from me.

          A coward I might pity, a greedy miser I might despise, but for you, all I can say is: "WTF?"

        • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @11:25AM (#31305944) Journal

          >>>Is this the change that everyone was hoping for? "Yes we can!" - take over your Internets?

          Well... I hat to bring up Alex Jones because I consider him a nutter, but I did hear him interview Cryptome.com on Friday. The owner of that site said the new government (i.e. Obama's underlings) are basically turning-over the internet to control of the corporations, so they can police it and remove anything they don't like using Copyright claims (DMCA).

          As example he cited Microsoft's takedown of cryptome.com when it published a MS Customer Privacy Policy. Today MS can't get away with that, but in the future Internet 2.0 they will have nothing to stop them because they will BE the police.

          Corporations acting as government. Sounds like something out of science fiction.

          • by moeinvt (851793) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @01:11PM (#31306902)

            "Well... I hat[e] to bring up Alex Jones because I consider him a nutter . . ."

            Well, I hate to bring up the mainstream media, but I consider them perfectly sane ... and perfectly willing to engage in the deliberate spreading of false information and misinformation. I consider Alex Jones's animated rantings every bit as credible as the calmly articulate bull$#!t that Wolf Blitzer(e.g.) espouses on a daily basis.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by inKubus (199753)

            You guys know how the internet works don't you? The only central authority is the IANA [iana.org], and all they really do is make sure people don't reuse the same IP addresses (and assign the more important AS Numbers [iana.org]. When we're IPv6 in under five years (Sorry, but thanks Microsoft), they will be even less important (still important though). Other than that, it's just private organziations agreeing with each other to carry traffic through their routers. At one point this was Ma Bell but now you have radio links,

        • by Velex (120469) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @12:50PM (#31306702) Homepage Journal

          hell I didn't even vote

          Good thing you didn't throw your vote away by voting for a 3rd party that actually stands for smaller government and wins (local) elections already, like the Libertarian party. I'm sure there's someone up there in the government going, "Gosh, look at how many people didn't vote. I feel bad about myself now. We'd better change how we're doing things."

          Keep in mind that the Republicans started out as a 3rd party.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nurb432 (527695)

        Aren't most government sponsored 'crises' that way?

    • by jofny (540291)
      No. 1. That wasnt run by the government and it was a joke - even to the government. 2. Do you think the government changes decades old policy in the space of a week or two with such large implications? Not without a lot more motivation.

      However, the simulation WAS accurate insofar as it portrayed how the gov't deals with the internet...so it's going to be a fun time the more they get involved ;)
    • by geekmux (1040042) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @10:00AM (#31305262)

      This is all because of their recent failed security simulation where they couldn't repel a cyber attack. Now that they feel vulnerable they have what they think is adequate motivation to screw the rest of us. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out...

      Yeah, because God forbid the Government create any sort of secure classified network out there for use in times of national emergency, complete with hardware encryption to ensure privac....Er, oh wait, I forgot. They already have that.

      And as far as "we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out", how has that worked out so far sitting back watching the current Administration? Yeah, I've had just about enough of "wait and see", because that usually turns into "wish we would have done something"...

  • by jeek (37349) <jeek@je[ ]net ['ek.' in gap]> on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:23AM (#31305004) Homepage

    As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being. This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Vahokif (1292866)
      You mean like when DARPA created the Internet?
      • by jeek (37349) <jeek@je[ ]net ['ek.' in gap]> on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:58AM (#31305242) Homepage

        Well, I will admit, DARPA seems to be an exception to the rule. It's an exception to a lot of rules.. like their hiring process completely ignores civil service regulatons... in fact, without actually looking into it, I'd guess the reason DARPA is so useful is because they don't have to play by the normal bureaucracy bulldada.

    • by skine (1524819) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @10:17AM (#31305368)

      I would argue that it's not due to the government being involved that the quality lowers, but rather that the government decides to become involved without raising taxes to fully fund the projects. The reason is that raising taxes kiss of death that is hindering new and current government industries alike.

      One example is Social Security, which has not increased the number of workers since their budget was cut in the Reagan-era. Note that the baby-boomers are now at/approaching retirement age, the prominence of "ambulance chasers" (ever see a lawyer commercial saying they'll get you the cash you deserve? That's them) are both strains on the system.

      Also, NASA.

    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @10:23AM (#31305432) Journal

      As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being. This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.

      Then you either haven't been looking very hard or have no fucking clue of what life was like 100 years ago.

      The government "gets involved" with the quality of your food (FDA), worker safety (OSHA), air travel (NTSB), highway safety (NHTSA), building codes (varies by State), law enforcement and an endless number of other sectors of society.

      Guess what: the end result has been a net positive for society. Thanks to the government, we no longer have the food quality, building standards, security situation, or worker protections (just to list a few examples) of countries like Haiti and Somalia.

      Whenever I hear "the government ruins everything" I know that I'm hearing ideology, not reality.
      The people saying such things take so many of the regulations, which make this country run smoothly, for granted.

      If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public, I'd love to hear why.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sp3d2orbit (81173)

        There is a big difference between regulating an industry and taking over an industry. Take the health care debate, for example. It would cost exactly $0 to pass laws that says "Insurance companies cannot deny you for a preexisting condition". But that doesn't give the government control over the industry, instead they want to spend $800 billion to be an insurance company.

        Regulation is fine. Involvement is not.

        • Take the health care debate, for example. It would cost exactly $0 to pass laws that says "Insurance companies cannot deny you for a preexisting condition". But that doesn't give the government control over the industry, instead they want to spend $800 billion to be an insurance company. Regulation is fine. Involvement is not.

          So, what you're saying is that it takes $0 to put insurance companies out of business and lead us directly to government-provided healthcare?

          Passing that law basically says no one healthy has to buy insurance until they have a reason to use it. Then they can promptly drop it once they get healthy again. Why not? Why keep insurance when you can get it anytime you want?

          While I hate the idea of denying coverage to people, there are only two ways to do the insurance market. Either have the current system of denying coverage, or require / force everyone to be part of the system.

  • by physburn (1095481) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:23AM (#31305010) Homepage Journal
    The internet is too powerful, for governments, to leave alone. This is especially true of governments which would like to control the thoughts of there populus, but even for the most Lazze Faire governments, the chance to control the internet industy must be highly tempting.

    ---

    Privacy vs Sureillance [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jofny (540291)
      You hit it exactly. They're interested because of its ability to affect political power. Everything other reason is just an excuse.
    • by BeanThere (28381) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:37AM (#31305094)

      Not to mention money. So, will the people just roll over as usual and accept this? Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world. Now the article even talks about "aligning" itself with "global trends" towards fascism, even mentioning Italy's latest display of blatant fascism as something to "align" itself with. When communism was a "global trend" the old-style US had the balls to stand out against it. Now they want to hide behind "global trends" to gain more power and money in clamping down on liberty. You can justify anything these days by just saying it's a "global trend".

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by AlamedaStone (114462)

        When communism was a "global trend" the old-style US had the balls to stand out against it.

        Yes, I recall. Thank God for McCarthy and the HUAC, or Communism would have destroyed the Republic.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Enter the 20th century, it was a figment of imagination. There were always inherent limit to freedoms in the US imposed by local politics, and outside the US imposed by US foreign policy. The diffeernce, is that for a time the US looked LESS worst than the other bad guy. But now this is turning around, and the US looks as bad as everybody else, with politics wishing to grab as much power as possible , and keep it, and a certain aprt of the society , the new "aristocracy", enriching itself on the back of the
        • by BeanThere (28381) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @10:45AM (#31305612)

          What's sadder than the steady demise of America as a world 'beacon of freedom' is that there are people who even believe that that 'beacon of freedom' never existed --- it most certainly did (even though it was far from perfect, sure), just crack open a few history books. Come live in a communist or failed state for a while (like myself, where amongst the general collapse of the country and takeover by communists and socialists our people are being slaughtered and the government is complicit in allowing it to happen), and you might get some perspective --- the US most certainly even today still looks nowhere near as bad as half the wretched countries on this planet.

          I know it's fashionable to be anti-American (even in America) and to claim that America is just as 'evil' as all the rest, but such views are simply not based on any reality at all, they're just fashionable memes.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      The internet is too powerful for governments to control.

      Many have tried and ultimately failed. China has had some success, but even there it is slowly helping to disseminate news and information more freely. Perhaps the US thinks it is special because it invented the internet (although not the web) and controls the root DNS servers, but I doubt those things will help it much.

      In a way I actually welcome this move. It will help push us towards mass uptake of anti-censorship technologies, awareness of online p

    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      The internet is too powerful, for governments, to leave alone.

      William Shatner, is that you?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! (70830)

      Err, how are we "leaving the internet alone" now? DMCA, ISP regulations, wiretap laws, computer crime laws, pedophile laws, copyright laws, etc etc etc. The only proof of a "big change" is an NTIA advisory article? What legislation has passed? Looks to me like the regulations are already here in the form of the laws I mentioned earlier and this is a just typical Register-style trolling to get ad impressions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by melikamp (631205)

      They can try to control it all they want. They will especially try to lock down the Web (HTTP part) so that they can control what gets publicized there. It can be done, and probably will be done. But the core ability of the Internet is not in displaying blog pages. It is in allowing any two computers to establish a real-time, peer-to-peer connection. Remove that and you destroy the Internet. IMHO, the chances of anyone tampering with that are zero. We have some difficulty in promptly transitioning to IPv6:

  • by 3seas (184403) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:26AM (#31305028) Journal

    And change their stance on hands off spam.

    • by jamesh (87723) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:42AM (#31305126)

      I like the spam problem as a measuring stick. First go and solve the spam problem without reducing the usefulness of the internet to anyone (except the spammers of course). If you can do that, then we'll talk about some other policing that might be a good idea...

      If they could stop all the child porn and stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it, but only if they can stop _only_ child porn, and _only_ illegal downloads, without any 'collatoral damage' of legal material. And they can't - all recent attempts to do so are proof of that. So in the mean time, keep a better eye on your kids and make it easier for people to buy your stuff than download it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jez9999 (618189)

        stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it

        Not me, and not millions of people who want to see dramatic copyright reform.

      • If they could stop all the child porn and stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it, but only if they can stop _only_ child porn, and _only_ illegal downloads, without any 'collatoral damage' of legal material.

        Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.

        Here's one ugly scenario for effectively blocking copyright-infringing downloads. All material to be made available for download must be registered with a government clearing house[*] before it can be offered for download. Scanning everything for signatures provided by registered copyright owners might introduce a small delay, of course, but that's the cost of making the internet safe from copyright-infringing perverts. Worse, downloads might be legal only if

      • by ultranova (717540) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @12:11PM (#31306306)

        If they could stop all the child porn and stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it, but only if they can stop _only_ child porn, and _only_ illegal downloads, without any 'collatoral damage' of legal material.

        You do realize that the ability to stop "illegal downloads" would basically mean the ability to censor anything, right? The only difference between "illegal" and "legal" download is that someone in authority says one is allowed and one isn't. So I for one will continue doing everything in my power to undermine the ability of any authority to stop free speech.

        As for child porn, that's a subset of "illegal downloads", so the same applies. However, it's worth noting that I haven't seen it, and in fact it has been absent to the point where I'm convinced it's just another idiotic hysteria for mentally unstable parents to angst about. But assuming for the sake of argument that there is a significant amount of the stuff to be found on the Internet... So what? Isn't it better that perverts spend their evenings jacking off to pornography than going out to hunt?

        I am, of course, assuming we're talking about actual child porn here, rather than 17-year olds flashing their tits on a webcam.

  • by durrr (1316311) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:28AM (#31305046)
    Your biometric identification with the Intergovermental Panel of Internet Acess Enforcement have failed.

    Make sure that your webcam is BigBrother-certified and that its view of your face is not obstructed. If the problem persists, please verify that your general acess level is adequate for class 3 content and that you have no active thoughtcrime sanctions.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekmux (1040042)

      Your biometric identification with the Intergovermental Panel of Internet Acess Enforcement have failed. Make sure that your webcam is BigBrother-certified and that its view of your face is not obstructed. If the problem persists, please verify that your general acess level is adequate for class 3 content and that you have no active thoughtcrime sanctions.

      Will we tag this as "Funny" 10 years from now? I certainly hope so, but my doubt grows...

      • by couchslug (175151)

        "Will we tag this as "Funny" 10 years from now? I certainly hope so, but my doubt grows..."

        The prospect of peaceful change for the better is increasingly remote. That's why folks like Joe Stack who lash out are often (now) regarded as heroes, when that would have been almost unthinkable in the past. As provocation increases, the fringe will blow back...first.

  • Hopenchange! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:29AM (#31305050)

    Along with a renewed Patriot Act! [washingtonpost.com]

    Funny, I seem to have missed the Slashdot story of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passing that bill, or the Democrat-controlled Senate passing that bill. Nevermind the Slasdot story about the Democrat President actually signing that Patriot Act extension....

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

    Actually, that's not true. The old bosses at least said they were going to keep Gitmo open, extend that Patriot Act, and leave troops in Iraq. So at least they did what they said. These new bosses are MUCH worse - they LIE and do and say anything to get elected, then keep on with the policies of the past that they LIED about changing.

    And now, these LYING new bosses want us to turn the largest sector of the US economy - health care - over to THEIR control. Because that'll be better for all of us.

    What kind of person could possibly believe that THIS group of egomaniacs getting control of another couple of trillion dollars a year would help anyone?

    • Re:Hopenchange! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekmux (1040042) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:51AM (#31305186)

      Along with a renewed Patriot Act! [washingtonpost.com]

      Funny, I seem to have missed the Slashdot story of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passing that bill, or the Democrat-controlled Senate passing that bill. Nevermind the Slasdot story about the Democrat President actually signing that Patriot Act extension....

      Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

      Actually, that's not true. The old bosses at least said they were going to keep Gitmo open, extend that Patriot Act, and leave troops in Iraq. So at least they did what they said. These new bosses are MUCH worse - they LIE and do and say anything to get elected, then keep on with the policies of the past that they LIED about changing.

      And now, these LYING new bosses want us to turn the largest sector of the US economy - health care - over to THEIR control. Because that'll be better for all of us.

      What kind of person could possibly believe that THIS group of egomaniacs getting control of another couple of trillion dollars a year would help anyone?

      Welcome to the new hopeandchange. You can practically smell the "yeah, what the fuck are you gonna do about it?!" air of ignorance wafting over the entire lot of them, as they pretty much do whatever they want. It smells far worse than ANY other group before them.

      And "what kind of person" you ask? Dunno, there's got to be at least a few million out there that voted FOR this, although you might be hard-pressed these days to find any of them who would admit that NOW.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by TimHunter (174406)
      You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act, don't you? They gave up the fight when the Republicans, as usual, promised to filibuster. Apparently the Republicans don't want any new privacy protections. You should ask them why the "small government" party wants to continue giving the bosses free rein to continue intruding into our private lives.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/ [msn.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act, don't you? They gave up the fight when the Republicans, as usual, promised to filibuster. Apparently the Republicans don't want any new privacy protections. You should ask them why the "small government" party wants to continue giving the bosses free rein to continue intruding into our private lives.

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/ [msn.com]

        "Waah, waah, waah!!!! We'd do it if not for the EVIL RETHUGLICANS!!!"

        BULLSHIT

        George W. Bush's tax cuts passed 51-50 because they required a VP tie-breaker. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts passed a Democrat-controlled House.

        The Dems have clear majorities in the House, the Senate, and own the Presidency. They control the budget process - and have since 2006, which coincidentally is when US budget deficts stopped shrinking and started exploding.

        There's no way in hell Republicans would try to filibuster real privac

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2010 @10:06AM (#31305300)

      In the UK we have the NHS. Lots of people moan about it. It's not perfect. But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.

      In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.

      The US is the home of free speech and a bastion of many personal freedoms, but it is also a place where survival of the fittest takes priority. If you're doing well for youself, then great. Not everyone is.

      Take a step back and start thinking about what other people need for a change. Having a government mandated healthcare system to cater for the bottom fifth of society (which private healthcare would otherwise ignore) ain't so bad an idea.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DustyShadow (691635)

        In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.

        Wrong. The poor in the U.S. have Medicaid. The middle class is the one that gets screwed in the U.S. Those that get sick but can't afford the high insurance costs but make just enough money to not qualify for Medicaid.

        You are from the UK. Stop considering yourself an expert on U.S. health care.

      • by BlueStrat (756137) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @12:04PM (#31306258)

        In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.

        This is utter tripe. It is *not* true.

        I've *been a part* of that 20% for a good while, so I know. You always get care. You are never refused care. You get care on a par with most everyone else. I've always had medications and treatments provided. I've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray, CT, MRI, blood-work, biopsies, etc.

        Yes, they'll send you a bill in the mail. If you're unable to pay, they continue to send bills for a while, then they stop. You are not charged with any crime even if your care has amassed hundreds of thousands in charges. There is Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other programs...some federal, some state, some NGO, some faith-based, some even provided by those *evil* pharma companies that stand ready to act as safety nets.

        It is pure unadulterated political FUD so obviously untrue that even MS would be too ashamed to spread it.

        Strat

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by starblazer (49187)

          In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.

          This is utter tripe. It is *not* true.

          I've *been a part* of that 20% for a good while, so I know. You always get care. You are never refused care. You get care on a par with most everyone else. I've always had medications and treatments provided. I've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray, CT, MRI, blood-work, biopsies, etc.

          You get a lower standard of care. I also, was part of that lower 20%. Most of the time, they will find the first "easy" diagnosis and claim that is what it is.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by http (589131)
          Yes, you get might get care, but just try buying a house after those letters get not dealt with...
        • Sorry but I need to throw in my two cents: as a college student I started to miscarry my baby, so I showed up at the local hospital in Berkeley. I wasn't even allowed in to see a doctor to be stabilized or sent by ambulance to the county hospital in Oakland. They literally couldn't hurry me off their property fast enough. I had to have someone drive me the half hour to Highland. It was shocking and awful.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Sorry but I need to throw in my two cents: as a college student I started to miscarry my baby, so I showed up at the local hospital in Berkeley. I wasn't even allowed in to see a doctor to be stabilized or sent by ambulance to the county hospital in Oakland. They literally couldn't hurry me off their property fast enough. I had to have someone drive me the half hour to Highland. It was shocking and awful.

            Two things:

            1) You can probably sue their socks off for this, since it is quite illegal in the USA.

            2)

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:31AM (#31305062) Homepage

    ...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones. You wouldn't want people to go on doing things without permission, would you? The State knows what's best.

    • by AlamedaStone (114462) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @10:31AM (#31305474)

      ...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones. You wouldn't want people to go on doing things without permission, would you? The State knows what's best.

      Wow. Yeah. You know, not having lead in my food and not having my 10 year old nephew working in a factory - man, those over-regulating bastards. It is exactly the same thing as abridging access and privacy on the internet.

      Exactly the same.

      Awesome show. Great job.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by istewart (463887)

        Yes, and now you have a thoroughly subsidized monocultural food production system which breeds antibiotic-resistant bacteria and outputs decidely non-nutritious food at its most affordable levels; and the abusive working conditions you decry have simply been moved offshore, leaving the corporations who contract for such cheap labor to enforce our enlightened norms, if they feel like it. The moneyed interests which benefit from these arrangements have much more influence over the people in power than do you,

  • Moratorium (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jofny (540291) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:34AM (#31305078) Homepage
    There should be a moratorium on government internet legislation of any kind until the first crop of kids who grew up with it and understand it are in power. The current group doesnt and will do long lasting damage - even if their intentions were/are good.
    • Re:Moratorium (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekmux (1040042) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:46AM (#31305154)

      There should be a moratorium on government internet legislation of any kind until the first crop of kids who grew up with it and understand it are in power. The current group doesnt and will do long lasting damage - even if their intentions were/are good.

      I'm sorry, but the gap between Congress and damn near any kind of technology has been as wide as the Grand Canyon for decades, and it has little to do with generation, but more to do with influence. As long as you allow lobbyists to invade the eyes, ears(and pockets) of those making law, this level if ignorance will continue.

  • Money and Power. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekmux (1040042) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:42AM (#31305124)

    "...covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance."

    In other words, and in summarization, it's all about money and power/control. It's pretty much the only reason the Government gets involved in ANYTHING like this these days.

    We see how well Government-sponsored control programs have worked out for other countries, so expect more of the same here. Billions (or trillions) spent, with little or not real effect(other than sending the country further into bankruptcy).

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:44AM (#31305138) Homepage

    According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over.

    Any time this has happened the past, geeks blaze a trail to another communication medium. While most people were using phones to make phone calls, geeks used it to create a BBS system. Later came the internet, which was a great place until AOL came along. Just seems like when one medium starts becoming crowded and excessively regulated, geeks will find another place.

    Maybe self-discovering mesh networks, something over satellite, not sure what's next. But the more crowded and regulated the internet gets, the more the inner geek will start looking around for a less crowded place.

    • the more crowded and regulated the internet gets, the more the inner geek will start looking around for a less crowded place.

      Maybe some kind of wireless wetware grafted in surgically. Make medical privacy laws work for data privacy?

  • Consumer Monkeys! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Art_Vandelai (596101) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:45AM (#31305144)
    "If you’re a user, you want to know that you can make a transaction online without your credit card information falling into the wrong hands..." Yes, because all "internet users" are supposed to use the internet for is to consume. Feed the beast. If you are a consumer, you can be controlled, and we don't have to worry about you actually doing anything about the predicament this world is in.
  • by kenh (9056) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:47AM (#31305158) Homepage Journal

    privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance

    Privacy - You are allowed to feel like you have privacy, but if we can trump-up a good sounding reason, forget it.

    Child Protection - Now we can go after offending websites, forgetting First Amendment protections, but don't worry, it's all for the sake of protecting the children.

    Cyber-security - We can't out-smart our opponents, so we'll employ brute force and squash anything that even looks dangerous.

    Copyright Protection - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns. (You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?

    Internet Governance - Hey, why should we cede control of something we in America invented?

    There, I hope that helps you understand what is going on.

    • by Ardeaem (625311)

      You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?

      You seem to be implying that the small donations that the Obama campaign claims were from individual Americans was actually from media conglomerates, and that there is intentional deception going on. This is a claim that requires evidence.

    • by SQL Error (16383)

      Copyright Protection - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns. (You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?

      I don't think they raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars at all.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:47AM (#31305162)

    These points (crucial to the argument) strike me as massive FUD:

    "* If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won’t use it.
    * If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.
    * If large enterprises don’t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.
    * If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet."

    - How many users are afraid to use Amazon, eBay, or any other service because of credit card fraud? I would suggest that only terminally ignorant users are afraid of this.
    - Content providers are capable of handling their own protection just fine. See: Steam, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc. What he really means is "old and incompetent" providers.
    - Large enterprises will NOT just disconnect their network for fear of being breached: they will develop better security. Fuck, this is an incredibly stupid argument.
    - WHY would foreign governments ever trust Internet governance unless the internet is completely censored of all objectionable (read: valuable) speech?

    Terrible, terrible, terrible arguments. This needs to be fought vigorously.

  • Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty (championed by Obama) are showing up in various countries.

    Now here comes Obama with a new initiative for the US to regulate the internet and two of it's goals are "copyright protection, and Internet governance".

    Seems a fair guess that one of the first things that will occur is an ACTA style 3 strikes rule that must be enforced by all ISP's.
    Will BitTorrent be banned by those ISP's? It seems likely, since in spite of the

    • acta was being cooked in the last 2 years of bush admn. all the accompanying shit (including this) too. the 'cyberwar' bullshit started back then.

      basically, its the same shitheads trying to cramp down internet now as they were back then.

      yea, however it is obama's fault in a major way ; he didnt replace the bushies in administration rightaway. instead, he tried to be 'bipartisan' and cooperate.

      the most naive act of the last decades by a politician. bushies were of course thrilled, for, see, they were able to

  • Spam,
    Paypal.
    low bandwidth due spam congestion.

    But it will most likely bring about addition taxation for you usage time. (so much for constant connection value)
    And it seems very clear that unknown to you, people will be monitoring and judging you in your use of the internet and this includes all communications you have via the internet and anything connected to teh internet, such as phones that use the internet.

    Hmmm, and that means paypal will remain, so when some government official or someone they know or

  • by Servaas (1050156)
    LEAVE INTERNET ALONE!!
  • Hell, they've already culled off a good portion of the fighting force, now just cull off the free thinkers and the economy will snap right back!
  • Directly from TFA:

    Copyright protection: How do we protect against illegal piracy of copyrighted works and intellectual property on the Internet while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content? NTIA and our sister agency at the Department of Commerce, the US Patent and Trademark Office, are beginning a comprehensive consultation process that will help the Administration develop a forward-looking set of policies to address online copyright infringement in a balanced, Internet-savvy manner.

  • by andydread (758754) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @11:53AM (#31306168)
    This smells a lot like the copyright lobby is behind this. I think Obama made a big mistake choosing Joe Biden as Vice President. Biden is a staunch copyright goon. And I wonder if it was him that influenced Obama to put all those copyright lawyers in the justice department. I would be surprised. Biden stinks.
  • by ciggieposeur (715798) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @12:17PM (#31306374)
    Let's see:
    • Amateur Action BBS trial
    • Phrack E-911 case
    • Phil Zimmerman's trial
    • Clipper Chip
    • DMCA
    • COPA, CRA, and every other attempt to outlaw porn
    • Wiretapping closets in the backbones
    • Sales taxes being collected in all states
    • Software patents
    • Child porn convictions for cartoons

    Since the days of Bill Clinton the federal government's "hand-off" policy has meant Americans had to download encryption code and audio/video codecs from abroad; couldn't use 128-bit encryption to secure financial transactions for several years; could be expedited to the most conservative jurisdiction and jailed for receiving illegal material; could be put on trial for re-publishing publicly-available information; and can now be jailed for drawings.

    Maybe this new policy of "we'll finally start regulating the Internet" means they'll finally stop.

Never buy from a rich salesman. -- Goldenstern

Working...