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

371–380 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#371

Post by smsm42 »

guelo wrote: post #356
smsm42 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government didn't create the internet. At the most, the government gave money to some projects that developed some technologies that were subsequently used to create the internet. Yes, there were a lot of failed attempts at how to handle the informational world - like AOL (which btw is alive and well as a company with multibillion revenues), Compuserve, etc. - but some of these attempts worked. And that what we c…

At least theoretically, the government bureaucrat can be influenced for the general good. The corporate monopoly bureaucrat will fuck everybody over if it serves his interest.

True, but corporation can be influenced for the general good too - by its customers. In fact, you can argue customers have more control than the voters - if the politician has 50%+1 votes in his pocket and appoints the bureaucrat, the opinion of the rest of 50%-1 voters have absolutely no weight to him (unless he is of a special rare breed of saint which is so rare in real politics). However, for the corporation losing 50% of their customers would be a huge blow, which given healthy competitive market would probably kill it, so the control of the customers is greater. Of course, with monopoly it would be different, but if the monopoly is not externally enforced, large reluctance of the customers to deal with it will eventually lead to the competition emerging and thus the monopoly would be lost. If the monopoly is persisted by law or regulation then this may not happen, but then the problem again is in that regulation that essentially now forces almost 50% of people to use service they do not want to use.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#372

Post by roc »

DigitalSea wrote: post #154

As per usual with all politicians, these are just words. Nice words, but until a bill is passed and there is movement in the senate to make something like this closer to a reality, words are meaningless. My question to Obama is: why now? This whole net neutrality debate has been going on long before Obama started his first term of presidency, why wait until you are almost out of the White House to act upon something…

> "My question to Obama is: why now?"

My guess? The FCC is probably close to deciding and Obama knows which way they're leaning. So he wants to build some distance between the DNC and the FCC, before the FCC inevitably announces they're going to let the ISPs do what they will.

If Obama says nothing, Net Neutrality will continue to be a sub-headline issue even if/after the FCC allows it to die. Inasmuch as anyone notices, it will reflect poorly on the DNC in 2016.

If he says something now, the reactionary portion of the GOP will take the opposite position as a knee-jerk response. It will become a larger news item and the GOP will have inherited the fallout. Inasmuch as anyone notices, it will reflect poorly on the GOP in 2016.

That he didn't say anything prior is probably either because the FCC only recently notified him of their position, or he wanted to avoid any blowback on those democrats who were already running tough mid-term re-election races in conservative districts.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#373

Post by smsm42 »

venomsnake wrote: post #354
smsm42 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless, of course, direct encrypted communication is prohibited. Because, you know, Internet is a public utility now, and if you are using public thing, you should abide by public's rules. Like connecting to SSL sites only using approved ISP SSL proxies that allow lawful intercept. After all, you accept that to drive on public roads you need a license. So, to browse on public internet, you need to follow the rules to…

I think that this creates both first and fourth amendment issues.

I don't see 1st amendment issues if this is content-neutral (I don't think the Supreme Court would consider the choice of encryption scheme being speech by itself and thus protected expression) towards underlying data. As for 4th amendment, right now I think the prevailing position is that ability to collect data is not search until the data is actually collected, so providing capability for lawful intercept would not be considered 4th amendment problem. I don't like it too much, but that seems to be the state of affairs now.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#374

Post by sounds »

roc wrote: post #372
DigitalSea wrote: post #154

As per usual with all politicians, these are just words. Nice words, but until a bill is passed and there is movement in the senate to make something like this closer to a reality, words are meaningless. My question to Obama is: why now? This whole net neutrality debate has been going on long before Obama started his first term of presidency, why wait until you are almost out of the White House to act upon something…

> "My question to Obama is: why now?" My guess? The FCC is probably close to deciding and Obama knows which way they're leaning. So he wants to build some distance between the DNC and the FCC, before the FCC inevitably announces they're going to let the ISPs do what they will. If Obama says nothing, Net Neutrality will continue to be a sub-headline issue even if/after the FCC allows it to die. Inasmuch as anyone noti…

This is most likely true.

To all who fight to re-open the free internet -- such as Peter Sunde -- your time is now.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#375

Post by brandonmenc »

Bud wrote: post #367
brandonmenc wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm betting "illegal content" will eventually come to include things like "bullying." Expect a much broader array of takedown notices once the FCC is granted content-level authority over the internet.

Great. Bullying should be illegal already, and internet bullies should be aggressively prosecuted. This is currently a law enforcement blind spot, but that needs to change. BTW, putting quotes around the world "bullying" isn't actually effective in mocking it as something actionable; it just communicates to us that you are perfectly ok with bullying.

The FCC regulates content that it deems "indecent" or "obscene" - legally nebulous terms. "Bullying" could cover incidents like Dan Savage redefining Santorum.

The FCC has been trying to get their hands on the internet for decades, and I see enforced net neutrality as their Trojan horse. It's possible I'm overly paranoid.

fwiw, we probably agree on the actual definition of bullying, and also that it should be illegal. I put it in quotes to indicate I'm using it imprecisely, not because I'm OK with what I believe to be legitimate bullying.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#376

Post by arthurcolle »

emcrazyone wrote: post #270
couchand wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty massive stretch to go from "ISPs are permitted to block illegal traffic" to "ISPs are required to perform deep-packet inspection to ensure the legality of all traffic they carry".

Agree. ISP owner here. Not all web sites or IP addresses contain 100% illegal material. Virtual hosting (hosting more than one web site from same IP address) poses problems as does content among sub-domains. I don't have the resources to monitor and track such things and if I were forced into it, I would either go out of business or try to become a search engine.

I've actually wondered how do you go about providing access to internet? I write a lot of code and spent a good amount of time on the internet and it's always made me wonder how exactly one goes about providing internet to customers. Really curious for any resources to read about this if you have any resources to read or just your personal experience!

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#377

Post by freshflowers »

yc1010 wrote: post #6

I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion) but this is just a bad joke from someone who seems to be an utmost failure. Especially in light of last week FBI/NSA/DHS undermining TOR and killing its utility for any dissidents and free speech in authoritarian states. Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall we should be saying "…

For the rest of the Western world, the Obama administration has been the worst thing to happen to a free and open internet in the past two decades.

I see all kinds of American apologists in this thread, but the fact is that regardless of what it inherited, this particular administration has of its own volition pursued an aggressive anti-freedom and anti-privacy agenda both on behalf of its own intelligence agencies, its tech industry and its copyright exploitation industry.

The fact that this president dares to call for a free and open internet disgusts me.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#378

Post by dguaraglia »

smsm42 wrote: post #297
randomfool wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SSL everything.

Unless, of course, direct encrypted communication is prohibited. Because, you know, Internet is a public utility now, and if you are using public thing, you should abide by public's rules. Like connecting to SSL sites only using approved ISP SSL proxies that allow lawful intercept. After all, you accept that to drive on public roads you need a license. So, to browse on public internet, you need to follow the rules to…

Oh, this is totally coming. If they really manage to pull off the "you can't encrypt your own device because TERRORISM" (what Comey has been asking for) then what guarantee you have that they won't force corporations to stop using encrypted transfer between servers? It's so much easier to force corporations with an NSL than trying to pass legislation violating the rights of individual people.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#379

Post by guelo »

smsm42 wrote: post #371
guelo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least theoretically, the government bureaucrat can be influenced for the general good. The corporate monopoly bureaucrat will fuck everybody over if it serves his interest.

True, but corporation can be influenced for the general good too - by its customers. In fact, you can argue customers have more control than the voters - if the politician has 50%+1 votes in his pocket and appoints the bureaucrat, the opinion of the rest of 50%-1 voters have absolutely no weight to him (unless he is of a special rare breed of saint which is so rare in real politics). However, for the corporation losi…

I always considered the libertarian theory that corporate monopolies are caused by the government as very suspect and entirely unproven.

Natural monopolies are obvious when you think about it a little bit. When your entire ideology depends on them not existing them maybe it's time for a rethink.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#380

Post by dragonwriter »

roc wrote: post #372
DigitalSea wrote: post #154

As per usual with all politicians, these are just words. Nice words, but until a bill is passed and there is movement in the senate to make something like this closer to a reality, words are meaningless. My question to Obama is: why now? This whole net neutrality debate has been going on long before Obama started his first term of presidency, why wait until you are almost out of the White House to act upon something…

> "My question to Obama is: why now?" My guess? The FCC is probably close to deciding and Obama knows which way they're leaning. So he wants to build some distance between the DNC and the FCC, before the FCC inevitably announces they're going to let the ISPs do what they will. If Obama says nothing, Net Neutrality will continue to be a sub-headline issue even if/after the FCC allows it to die. Inasmuch as anyone noti…

> The FCC is probably close to deciding

Given that the FCC Chair, who has repeatedly says he agrees with Obama on the need for neutrality (both before and after the recent statement), and specifically agreed that paid prioritization should be avoided, just announced that the final rules may be delayed into 2015 (he earlier said he wanted to get them out by the end of the year) because of legal work required by the consideration of the hybrid approach (a partial Title II reclassification which would go further than the original proposal and prohibit paid prioritization, which leaked recently as the current preferred approach of the commission) and the full reclassification approach, I suspect both the "the FCC is close to deciding" and "the FCC inevitably announces they're going to let the ISPs do what they will" parts of your prediction are wrong.

Post reply on HN