US Gov't. Ending Its Hands-Off-the-Internet Stance 452
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.
Nervous reactions (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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?"
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>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.
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:4, Insightful)
"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)
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,
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:5, Insightful)
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:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:4, Insightful)
"Change" heh.
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:5, Insightful)
You agree w/ the Obama-rant? So this is wrong but the wire taps from the Bush era are okay?
I don't see why being anti-Obama means that you are pro-Bush.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't you get the memo? It's because obama said so. BTW you're a racist, too.
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm anti-Obama, anti-Bush, and anti-Ron Paul. They are an RIAA shill, a military contractor shill, and a general-purpose corporate shill, respectively.
I won't be truly "pro" anyone until we get someone in office who isn't just a shill for big business.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"So this is wrong but the wire taps from the Bush era are okay?"
Criticism of the administration currently in power is not a vindication of the actions of previous policy makers.
That said, if President Obama and his colleagues had any more concern for our pivacy than did the Bush administration, why isn't he exposing and ending all of the Bush era domestic espionage programs? Why isn't he publicly calling for the attorney general and ministry of justice to investigate and prosecute all of the illegal activi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why isn't he publicly calling for the attorney general and ministry of justice to investigate and prosecute all of the illegal activities perpetrated by Bush administration officials?
You, sir, don't understand politics very well.
The simple reason is that once you open that can of worms where investigations are opened against previous administrations by later ones, you'll not only validate nutjob conspiracy theorists, you'll also end up with investigations of even earlier presidents (do we want Clinton-era investigations reopened, especially since President Clinton is now the Secretary of State? Er, I mean his wife?), which won't do your own party any good.
And then, the next time a Repu
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:4, Insightful)
Then your opinion is irrelevant.
Are you a politician?
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:5, Insightful)
Because choosing not to vote between two evils discards your right to an opinion?
I can fully understand the trend where people simply don't care to vote anymore.
Abstination from voting can be an expression of opinion in itself. Hell, it is not uncommon for politicians to abstinate from voting on matters (although for various other reasons also).
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:5, Insightful)
Because choosing not to vote between two evils discards your right to an opinion? I can fully understand the trend where people simply don't care to vote anymore. Abstination from voting can be an expression of opinion in itself. Hell, it is not uncommon for politicians to abstinate from voting on matters (although for various other reasons also).
I'm really sick of this "I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils" crap. If you actually believe there is a lesser of two evils, I'd say it's your duty as an American to vote for it. Abstination from voting is an expression of cynicism...nothing more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering that we've had options other than the lesser of two evils offered up for a while now- and we've viewed them as nutballs and flakes...
We're getting precisely the government we deserve with this.
I used to believe that, but I don't anymore (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm really sick of this "I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils" crap. If you actually believe there is a lesser of two evils, I'd say it's your duty as an American to vote for it. Abstination from voting is an expression of cynicism...nothing more.
I used to be one of those guys that told friends and family "Don't waste your right to vote... people died so that you could keep it". But after years of watching politics, I've come to the conclusion that if you don't give a damn, if you can't even be
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with with the gov't bashing; however
Or, abstaining from voting can also be expressions of apathy or being completely discouraged due to the corruption that goes on, and on, and on, and on in political circles no matter which party is in power.
The point still remains that you could have done something as simple as write in your own name when you vote official positions. By doing nothing you are effectively telling the system, "do as you please, I no longer care."
If everyone who didn't vote (some 70+% of registered voters) actually voted for someone they believed in, even if it was just a self vote, that would be more likely to change the system than abstaining. You can't just bitch about corruption and expect everyone else to take up arms.
"We must become the change we want to see in the world".
---Mohandas Gandhi.
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:5, Insightful)
Abstaining from voting is not an expression of anything but lazyness.
Showing up and handing in unfilled ballot is an expression of opinion - and sends out a message.
The message is to people thinking about running that there is room for new people and to the people in charge that they are not doing a good enough job.
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:5, Insightful)
Then don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Vote for a third-party or independent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What good is having a voice, if everyone's ears are plugged?
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:4, Insightful)
None of the above is still a valid choice in a democratic society. You just can't express it in the US or the UK other than by staying at home*.
His opinion is not irrelevant, except insofar as our crap-arse voting systems have made it irrelevant. Which is no excuse for you to get all high-and-mighty on him.
*In addition, to take the example of the UK, in the last major swing in parliament (1997), 180 seats changed hands out of 659. That means that, assuming people are evenly distributed in constituencies**, 72% of votes made no difference at all to the outcome of the election. So voting in the UK at least is largely a waste of time.
**A bad assumption, especially back in '97 before Scottish devolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>>>hell I didn't even vote
>>
>>>Then your opinion is irrelevant. Please refrain from posting.
Is it? I would argue that anyone who thinks voting matters is living in a state of delusion. I voted for Senator Specter, and what does he do? Switches parties and now votes the complete *opposite* of how he advertised himself during his reelection campaign. (I suspect a lot of Obama and Bush supporters felt similarly betrayed.) Meanwhile I email my Representative
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're mostly right. But, the guy who can't be bothered to vote, won't be bothered to use the various other boxes you mention, either. If/when revolution rolls around, he'll hide in the cellar with the women and children. He is irrelevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep7W89I_V_g# [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yet the majority of the population was for independence
All of the studies I have seen indicate that only a little over a third of the population was for independence. About 1/3 was neutral on the issue of independence and about 1/3 wished to remain associated with the British Empire. However, I have also seen several studies that indicate that 1/3 of the population that strongly desires change is usually sufficient to lead to the overthrow of a government.
Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is voting a prerequisite for having an opinion? If someone is against the current US democratic system in principle, should he still have to vote in order to have an opinion? Saying "I don't care" is itself a perfectly valid political statement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, obviously participation in the Pepsi vs Coke circus that is our "two-party" system is the be-all and end-all qualification for engaging in the political process.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Aren't most government sponsored 'crises' that way?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Nervous reactions (Score:4, Insightful)
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"...
Well, this seems subpar. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:Well, this seems subpar. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"National Weather Service, Nasa, Military...all seem to work pretty darned well."
I'm sure you could find a few heavy drinkers that died of natural causes at a ripe old age. By your reasoning, therefore, alcohol must not cause liver disease and other serious health problems.
Re:Well, this seems subpar. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well, this seems subpar. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Well, this seems subpar. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Internet to Powerful, for governments (Score:3, Interesting)
---
Privacy vs Sureillance [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
That "beacon of freedom" never existed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That "beacon of freedom" never existed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (Score:4, Informative)
Mexicans who's land was invaded and taken
That's hilariously ironic --- you do realise, don't you, that the Spanish conquered and colonised Latin America in much the same way as other Western Europeans did North America? You think Spanish Mexicans were always 'just there'? They did their share of killing the indigenous populations too - why do you single out the US? You seem to have an agenda.
Africans (kidnapping and slavery)
And yet America fought a civil war partly over slavery, emancipating the African Americans, fought to end the Jim Crow era, and ultimately African Americans now enjoy more liberty than the majority of their 'counterparts' living under despotic murderous dictators in various African countries.
Women and their rights, and the list goes on?
What!? The Western world has been BY FAR the world's leaders in the women's rights movements --- most other cultures are only now slowly starting to "catch up". You think the Middle East leads in women's rights? You think China leads in women's rights? You think Africa leads in women's rights? They are all FAR behind the US, my friend!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The internet is too powerful, for governments, to leave alone.
William Shatner, is that you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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:
Maybe they need to set their priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
And change their stance on hands off spam.
Re:Maybe they need to set their priorities (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, you meant that you want to keep downloading stuff for free, just that you want to be immune from negative consequences?
Uhh nnooo I think he said: people who want to see dramatic copyright reform
The "respect" for copyright requires copyright in good faith. If that trust is broken, I have no respect for the law - and neither should you.
Now I think someone could, maybe should, start a campaign of publicized copyright infringement. One person won't do it, but hundreds, or thousands, offering themselves up for arrest would start to make waves.
I don't know, I've been thinking about the best way to do it for a while now. I don't k
Be careful what you wish for... (Score:2)
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
Re:Maybe they need to set their priorities (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment blocked (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
"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)
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)
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)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/ [msn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Stop banging on about healthcare (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Stop banging on about healthcare (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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)
some really do get zero care (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things:
1) You can probably sue their socks off for this, since it is quite illegal in the USA.
2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the new bosses are turning health care over to a Monopoly with a long history of patient abuse for undisclosed sums.
I wish your version was true! We would be better off even in Government hands.
I'm not sure I agree with your first categorization, but you have my full-throated support on your second. A government-run public option would definitely have been better for us. Too bad the Dems are suffering from spinal atrophy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In light of the facts behind how the Government has ran the public option it HAS had (Medicare) which is a source of many of the ills they're trying to fix...you might not want them doing what you think you do.
If I thought that they'd handle it right, I'd be all for the public option. As it stands, they've shown us for years that they CAN'T really handle it in a manner that would help the problems.
Well, government "oversight"... (Score:4, Insightful)
...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.
Re:Well, government "oversight"... (Score:4, Insightful)
...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)
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)
Re:Moratorium (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
"...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).
You forgot taxes . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
. . . the government is always searching for new sources of income. Call me cynical, but I believe that an Internet tax is also on their agenda.
Re:Money and Power. And their Corporate Masters (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason the Government gets involved in anything is when they are paid to do so by their Corporate Masters.
And it is a well known fact that Corporations want to eliminate those pesky Internet freedoms and force us to pay for every click or download.
Luckily for them, Obama's just the man for that job!
Geeks will blaze a new trail (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Let me translate... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars at all.
Actually read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Three Strikes and Obama Says You're Out (Score:2, Insightful)
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
it started before obama. (Score:2)
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
Hopefully this will be the end of ...... (Score:2)
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
I think its time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nerds in concentration camps! (Score:2, Insightful)
Here you go. (Score:2)
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.
Joe Biden's Influence? (Score:3, Interesting)
When have they EVER had their hands off?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)