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

President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#131

Post by binarray2000 »

1. Net neutrality (NN) is of essential importance for the free Internet, now and in the future.

2. Barack Obama (BO) can "call for" many things, but after the latest elections he cannot do much. Even if he, personally and as a POTUS, would want to do something to protect NN.

3. If you hope GOP will do something about it... well, harsh reality is this: Republicans will do what corporate interest wants them to do. Democrats (along with BO) were doing the same. Now that GOP has the majority in both the congress and the senate they MIGHT pay lip service to the issue, but, nothing will change in essence.

4. Maybe you think/hope, people will go out on the streets, write petitions, fight for NN. If recent history teaches us something it's this: Snowden revelations didn't move much US citizens on to the streets. And, compared to NN, it was a larger issue.

(Hope for a better world is something to strive for, but after all these years, I've realized that there is only one reality: Interest. And Big Money has a lot of it to fight NN)

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#133

Post by twoodfin »

techsupporter wrote: post #121
300bps wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress. President Obama was inaugurated January 20, 2009. At that time, his Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress decisively[1]. It was not until 2011 that his party lost the house. And in fact, his party still retains the Senate but will lose it in January 2015. But it is only the Senate that approves…

> The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. No, he doesn't. The Constitution specifically limits the President's ability to make war and wage military campaigns. He has a great deal of authority but even the US' current adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are backed by Congress' approval through passed laws. > At that time, his Democratic party controlled both…

Absolutely none of this has any bearing on whether President Obama could call the NSA director into his office today and order him end all mass surveillance programs. Which he could, and his order would be obeyed. That he chooses not to is a practical political issue, not a legal one.

[EDIT: Well, he couldn't literally call anyone into the Oval Office today, since he's in Beijing, but a phone call would work just as well.]

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#134

Post by fche »

mhluongo wrote: post #115
untog wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume that Libertarians are pro-net neutrality? It's government regulation that limits what ISPs can do - hardly a free market philosophy.

Pro-neutrality libertarian here. I used to think my philosophy precluded net neutrality, then I looked into how these companies became entrenched- and it was by government support. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

two wrongs don't make a right

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#136

Post by warfangle »

AndrewHampton wrote: post #9

Here's the thing that bothers me the most about a lot of the talk about net neutrality by government officials: > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. Specifically "and the content is legal" is what raises a flag for me. I've seen similar phrases in nearly everything I've read coming from any government official regarding net ne…

On the other hand, he's also calling for it to be classified under Title II. Unless Title II is modified, that would prohibit ISPs from deep packet inspection.

It would also prohibit ISPs from modifying responses in situ - like inserting tracking beacons gifs into HTML responses or returning a custom search page (with associated ad revenue) when a DNS lookup fails.

Edit: So, with the 'if the content is legal' clause, Obama was probably referring to refusal to carry / illegal purpose court decisions. This can be applied only in very, very limited circumstances. A couple court decisions that are relevant:

* Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957); carrier suspected caller of using the telephone for illegal gambling transactions and terminated their service. Court ruled that service should be reinstated: the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility."

* Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945); "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required."

* People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965; "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands."

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#138

Post by primitivesuave »

lazyant wrote: post #106
benmathes wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least constitutionally, the 4th amendment (unlawful search) and "innocent until proven guilty" would mean blocking if _known_ illegal traffic. Yes, granted, those rights are often infringed upon, especially in tech.

And police seizures. And airport/border guard.

And the NSA, FISA courts, Patriot Act... the list of 4th amendment infringements goes on and on.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#139

Post by Cr3w »

crackalackin wrote: post #31
diminoten wrote: post #12

I'm glad the president is giving a hoot about this issue, because it's an issue I care deeply about and follow closely. That said, I'm still not convinced a "no slow lanes" policy is possible. Peering is a huge part of the Internet, and without it, the Internet doesn't work. Paid peering is a private network owner's right to ask for, and it's every other person's right to deny.

Really? I wish he'd keep his mouth shut. The moment he makes his position known on anything, the Republican controlled congress makes it their holy crusade to block. Those guys are now in complete control of the legislative body that makes these rules. If he REALLY wanted to help, he'd start supporting the opposite of everything he wants to do. He should be good at that, re: NSA, Drones, Gitmo, etc. "I will close dow…

Great leaders lead. Bad ones complain of opposition.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#140

Post by adventured »

DominikR wrote: post #34

His administration literally started the process that will ultimately be the end of the open internet in the next few years. Now everybody is working on a national/regional "Internet", even the EU is going the first steps into this direction. Him calling for open and free Internet is absolutely bizarre. Who knows, maybe he'll call tomorrow for the end of torture and drone executions without trial.

I never cease to be amazed at the naivety that exists around giving this government more power. This isn't some fluffy nice friendly government that has only our best interests at heart - this is a hyper violent, war mongering, murderous, intrusive, spiteful, extra-legal, Constitution ignoring monster. The military industrial complex has come home to roost - that is what is happening with the spying and police militarization - and now people think it's a great idea to just hand over more power to this government so they can further control the only widely accessible platform left to criticize them.
Post reply on HN