Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

ag.ny.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 316 posts

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#281

Post by 101011 »

zamnos wrote: post #216
RajT88 wrote: post #110

I remember debating with a guy I know about Net Neutrality leading up to this. He was a sales director at a company that ran network backbone and fiber lines. He was insistent that the Net Neutrality debate was dumb, because it was trying to negate the peering agreements that make the industry run. The way he told it, anyone with a big backbone chooses to invest in peering arrangements with other companies who also m…

Sorta. It's that Netflix didn't want to pay more for something someone else was getting for cheaper. If I sell hot dogs for $3, but charge you $6 because you're you, wouldn't you raise objections? The problem with your friend's reasoning about peering arrangements is that net neutrality is about getting what you paid for. If I go to the store and buy eggs and the farm decides it hasn't gotten enough money for the egg…

What if I charge you $6 because you order so many hot dogs that I have to find another distributor of raw hot dogs and hot dog buns? And charging $3 would mean that I'm taking a loss?

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#282

Post by exabrial »

lost_tourist wrote: post #119
exabrial wrote: post #87

My problem with Net Neutrality is what is its the "wrong way" to deal with a pesky problem: entrenched local monopolies. Net Neutrality is "oking" monopolistic behavior, under a narrow set of stipulations. I don't trust Comcast any farther than I could throw their CEO. I just don't see this ending well. I think the alternatives: expanding access, increasing competition, improving technology and promoting innovation,…

It's a step in the right direction. Enabling localities to set up their own competing internet services would be the logical follow up to that.

That I can absolutely agree with, as long as the taxes are usage based and opt-in only!

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#283

Post by [deleted] »

ShroudedNight wrote: post #201
explorer83 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To overly simplify it I believe we witnessed a battle of big tech vs big ISP. Each had a financial stake. Big ISP didn't want to pay for investments in infrastructure it didn't think would bring a good ROI or the extra costs you mentioned above with having to comply with new government regulations. And Big tech didn't want to pay extra fees for being some of the biggest servers of data on the internet. The fact so ma…

Big tech has large service costs because a large number of little people are requesting data from their networks. Data for which the transit has already been payed for by the requestor. Despite the 'asymmetries' in throughput vectors, the market value equivalent of a Poynting vector is minimized with settlement-free peering. Paid peering is only enforceable because there are few enough retail providers for large segm…

[deleted]

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#284

Post by Mezzie »

p-e-w wrote: post #100

Not being very familiar with US government webdesign, it took a while for me to realize that this is in fact the official website of the NY attorney general, rather than the personal website of an individual. The AG's name is written in huge letters on top, as if it was her, rather than her office, that mattered most. The name appears three times before the first paragraph of the article, and again in large, bold let…

Oh man. I worked with a lot of local and state governmental officials at my last job and some of the websites are bonkers.

I've also done fact checking for academic publishers on topics that required deep diving into a lot of non-Western governmental resources and the web design (where there was a web presence) could get really interesting. I highly recommend going to peruse the websites of governmental entities in countries you don't ever think of - you see some weird/cool stuff.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#285

Post by grayhatter »

frankharv wrote: post #276
eega wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only no jail, but the fine is laughable as well …

Why is it that a STATE AG is pressing for money while US AG does nothing? STATE AG used Federal IG investigation to extract money from these crooks. Why didn't FBI raid these companies? They raided a ex-Presidents private residence for papers. Identity Theft x 1 Million counts

> Why didn't FBI raid these companies?

> They raided a ex-Presidents private residence for papers.

Because that's not really how the FBI works. Recovering classified material from someone not entitled to be in possession of it is totally different. You probably want to read more, you seem to be speaking only at a very surface level, probably more than just Facebook too.

That said, while your rational for why they should be raided by the FBI is insane. I'm with you on the underlying idea. It seems crazy to me too that no federal agency is seeking charges under 18 USC 1001. How'd they avoid that?

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#286

Post by dragonwriter »

hulitu wrote: post #220
dragonwriter wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $615k seems like a slap on the wrist for what they did. It is. But its also state and local officials using state law to try to get any punishment for what is a fairly serious federal crime that, for some reason, the federal government has elected not to prosecute. [0] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

> But its also state and local officials using state law to try to get any punishment for what is a fairly serious federal crime that, for some reason, the federal government has elected not to prosecute. Prosecuting that would have lead to a dangerous precedent for a lot of companies and government agencies involved in propaganda.

> Prosecuting that would have lead to a dangerous precedent for a lot of companies and government agencies involved in propaganda.

Propaganda (a.k.a , advertising/marketing) is broadly legal (though some specific methods and certain actors participating in certain kinds are restricted), deliberately making materially false statements to the government in the course of, and in order to influence, a government proceeding is prohibited. Firmly drawing the line between those things is a good thing.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#287

Post by lubujackson »

nine_k wrote: post #157
Jupe wrote: post #98

> LCX and Lead ID were responsible for many of these fake comments, letters, and petition signatures. Across four advocacy campaigns in 2017 and 2018, LCX fabricated consumer responses used in approximately 900,000 public comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Similarly, in advocacy campaigns between 2017…

This is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is, or not being heard (e.g. because everyone will assume a petition without hard proofs of identity fake). Yes, this is disenfranchising. But not being heard while some company pretends to speak for you is even more disenfranchising.

We don't need an ironclad identity system, we need stronger laws making individuals behind companies like this personally and criminally liable with harsh penalties. That is how scenarios like this can be avoided: destroy the cost/benefit ratio of pursuing it.

Yes, fraud can still happen. But if you fake 100,000 comments eventually you will be discovered and held responsible. What this would reduce is systemic fraud at scale.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#288

Post by citizen_friend »

explorer83 wrote: post #148
citizen_friend wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to speculate: - perhaps it includes auditing and reporting measures to ensure they aren't doing this things. - maybe its really hard to guarantee exactly equal performance for all traffic and they examine the traffic and do different things depending on the domain to balance loads

To overly simplify it I believe we witnessed a battle of big tech vs big ISP. Each had a financial stake. Big ISP didn't want to pay for investments in infrastructure it didn't think would bring a good ROI or the extra costs you mentioned above with having to comply with new government regulations. And Big tech didn't want to pay extra fees for being some of the biggest servers of data on the internet. The fact so ma…

It was obvious from the one sided marketing that the entire story wasn't being told.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#289

Post by lockhouse »

nine_k wrote: post #157
Jupe wrote: post #98

> LCX and Lead ID were responsible for many of these fake comments, letters, and petition signatures. Across four advocacy campaigns in 2017 and 2018, LCX fabricated consumer responses used in approximately 900,000 public comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Similarly, in advocacy campaigns between 2017…

This is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is, or not being heard (e.g. because everyone will assume a petition without hard proofs of identity fake). Yes, this is disenfranchising. But not being heard while some company pretends to speak for you is even more disenfranchising.

Can you even function in modern society without a government issued photo ID? It’s required to drive, collect benefits, fly, purchase alcohol, purchase tobacco, or even purchase Sudafed. I just can’t fathom that there are any actual petitioners or voters that requiring photo ID would disenfranchise.
Post reply on HN