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

An Open Letter to the FCC

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 222 posts

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#151

Post by aalleavitch »

rhino369 wrote: post #120
nxc18 wrote: post #28

How is refusing to participate in an identity theft investigation not obstruction of justice? Surely Ajit & co travel to NY from time to time... why isn’t there an arrest warrant? Why are the states being so toothless in responding to rampant criminal behavior? I’d like to see how I would fare if I participated in mass scale identity theft and refused to participate in the subsequent investigation.

Refusing to participate isn't obstruction. It's not obstruction of justice if you refused a cop who came to your office and asked for business records. That's what happened here.

What they need to do is subpoena the FCC.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#152

Post by jedberg »

Azkar wrote: post #148
jedberg wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They dont have to do fuck all for public comments That's not true. As a nonpartisan federal agency, the must show how they accounted for public comment and why the choice they made is either in line with the public comments or why it is justified to not be in line. They have to do more than just accept the comments. But by allowing all the fake comments, they were able to say "see everyone wants this, what we are d…

> They have to do more than just accept the comments. Or what? There's no one enforcing rules in this administration.

That's what the judicial branch is for.

They have to pass the crappy rules first so that someone who was harmed can sue them.

Congress can stop them now, and the judicial can stop them after the fact. Congress is corrupt, but thus far the judicial is not.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#153

Post by paul7986 »

hysan wrote: post #69

I'm one of the people who has had part of their identity used to submit false comments. Found out when a journalist emailed me asking me to do a survey and some additional comments months ago. I proceeded to sign up for an API key[1] to confirm what was being claimed and turns out, it was true. The API is a bit limited, but I was also able to do searches using the falsely submitted comment to find others like it as w…

I believe that there are a lot of fake comments(possibly threads) appearing on Hacker News. I'm sure on Reddit and everywhere on the Internet that influences peoples' oomph to stand up for something like Net Neutrality.

I mean why in the world in 2017 are we so apathetic about something so important? We were up in arms about in 2013 and stopped SOPA then!!!

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#154

Post by paul7986 »

paul7986 wrote: post #153
hysan wrote: post #69

I'm one of the people who has had part of their identity used to submit false comments. Found out when a journalist emailed me asking me to do a survey and some additional comments months ago. I proceeded to sign up for an API key[1] to confirm what was being claimed and turns out, it was true. The API is a bit limited, but I was also able to do searches using the falsely submitted comment to find others like it as w…

I believe that there are a lot of fake comments(possibly threads) appearing on Hacker News. I'm sure on Reddit and everywhere on the Internet that influences peoples' oomph to stand up for something like Net Neutrality. I mean why in the world in 2017 are we so apathetic about something so important? We were up in arms about in 2013 and stopped SOPA then!!!

We need some type of identifying online tool like that blockchain ID tool to proliferate.

It would ensure who you say you are on the Internet. YOu could still comment anonymously, but what you say anonymously wouldn't hold as much weight vs. when you use your real verified identity!

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#155

Post by jessaustin »

jedberg wrote: post #152
Azkar wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have to do more than just accept the comments. Or what? There's no one enforcing rules in this administration.

That's what the judicial branch is for. They have to pass the crappy rules first so that someone who was harmed can sue them. Congress can stop them now, and the judicial can stop them after the fact. Congress is corrupt, but thus far the judicial is not.

The corruption of the judicial branch is more obvious to its victims than it is to the average citizen, but it does quite a bit more direct harm than Congress does. For example, the courts that fund their municipalities on the backs of the poor, all the shady arrangements with the incarceration industry, the seemingly deliberate destruction of families and children perpetrated by the divorce courts, the horrific excess of the Drug War, etc.

Still, the courts might help in this case.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#156

Post by pm90 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #26
pm90 wrote: post #18

Can Congress pass legislation to make net-neutrality something that the FCC cannot touch? If that's the case, it might be possible to pass such a law when(if) dems take over the House/Senate next year right?

> Can Congress pass legislation to make net-neutrality something that the FCC cannot touch? Yes, if they have support of the President or a veto-proof supermajority in both houses. > If that's the case, it might be possible to pass such a law when(if) dems take over the House/Senate next year right? Unlikely, for the reasons stated above, though tying it to something the President isn't willing to veto might work. Or…

Dammit, I had no idea Congress needs 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto. That seems to make it impossible, even if the Democrats do take control of both Houses.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#158

Post by djcrayon »

vvanders wrote: post #123
hysan wrote: post #69

I'm one of the people who has had part of their identity used to submit false comments. Found out when a journalist emailed me asking me to do a survey and some additional comments months ago. I proceeded to sign up for an API key[1] to confirm what was being claimed and turns out, it was true. The API is a bit limited, but I was also able to do searches using the falsely submitted comment to find others like it as w…

Is it worth contacting your local news station? May be a long shot but the more people know about what's actually happening then the more pressure they can put on their congress critter to do something.

Only if it isn't a Sinclair Media station...

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#159

Post by npsimons »

epistasis wrote: post #5

It's been really interesting to see the interplay between State Attorneys General and the federal executive branch over the past decade. I don't know enough legal history to know if this contention is new or has always happened. But the contrast between what happened with regulation of carbon and coal is fairly striking. The federal judicial brach said that it had to be regulated in order to meet the laws that the le…

> This type of regulation, where particular parties are favored, rather than particular principles, is madness.

It's plutocracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy), plain and simple. Some have been pointing out things like this and calling it plutocracy for a long time, but until now it wasn't so blatantly obvious.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#160

Post by aeontech »

ghrifter wrote: post #102
nindalf wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because accepting a job at a firm immediately after shifting government rules in its favour is corruption. Its absurd to claim that the government work was impartial when so many regulators end up taking advantage of the revolving door between government and industry.

Ok, so you lose your job due to your commission expiring, or you get replaced by a new administration. but you cant be a lobbyist so what do you work for? other goverment jobs, or back to the private sector. what if we had a google exec become some internet government position, then went back to google? would there be this public outcry?

Of course there would be a public outcry if during his government appointment he worked to weaken or dismiss regulation that impacts Google directly. It’s the textbook definition of conflict of interest.
Post reply on HN