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

231–240 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#231

Post by bushido »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #180
bushido wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those two statements from a legal (writing) perspective are mutually exclusive, sort of. One is a Right and the other is a law. But both need to exist is some form to make the other possible. Also, they both require the same technology to be automated and possible. The main constraint for the latter is computational power.

No they aren't. There is a difference between being required to do something by law, and being allowed to do something by law.

I agree they are different and stated that as such.

Yet that regulation cannot exist without this Right.

And the regulation is required to limit the abuse this Right can bestow on users.

This is a tricky one, because the right and the law are both mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#232

Post by KobaQ »

ablesable wrote: post #143
chasing wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure comparing the size of the filing cabinets of the Stasi and the NSA is particularly helpful in understanding the differences between those two organizations.

The only difference is that the Stasi didn't have the tech available to them that the NSA has.

I know we're not historicans here, but I'm German, so I am quite sensitive when it comes to the Stasi: Please be aware of the thousands of people who have been killed, tortured, inprisoned and repressed by the Stasi in the DDR. The Stasi took the freedom of a whole nation. They destroyed so many lives. You can compare the spying techniques but not the wrongdoing (not saying the NSA is free of any wrongdoing). It's another dimension, better, several dimensions.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#234

Post by tracker1 »

dragontamer wrote: post #202
tracker1 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama already has a legacy that we can talk about... Expanding a police surveillance state, and raining hell-fire down upon our "enemies" like no other president before him.

Someone needs to learn American History... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_an... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton When the FBI start assassinating American Citizens in their sleep after an agent drugs their food to silence African American Political movements... THEN we can start talking about…

I'm not forgiving any past sins of the government. As for Hiroshima, that was during an active-combat war with an actual declaration of war that was against a set of countries and their allies not some conceptual enemy whose definition is completely flexible and often distorted.

The surveillance tools being used today far exceed what was used even in the 60's.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#235

Post by bko »

zanny wrote: post #179
bko wrote: post #92

I don't think I fully understand the argument for net neutrality. I try to think about it from a few different perspectives: Broadband intensive services like Netflix: I think a problem that they face is that their connection is often slow, not only intentionally, but also because developing infrastructure is expensive. Why would an ISP bother building out the infrastructure if they can't extract a higher value from…

> Why would an ISP bother building out the infrastructure if they can't extract a higher value from those that it most benefits (Netflix)? Netflix is not getting the benefit, the end user is. That is the demand side of things. They can and do charge more for higher bandwidth, and Netflix will require more than the national average to reliably stream at 1080p. Netflix only exists to fill that need, and the ISP exists…

You make a lot of valid points. I guess in general I don't believe that a government can somehow prevent a certain type of commercial transaction and somehow create value. The obvious counterexample that comes to mind, and that you alluded to, is that of ransom. However, I think that's a bit of a stretch and makes light of actual violence.

One thing that stuck out to me though:

> If it were the case that ISPs were the underdog here, because compelled by legislation to spend their private earnings to build cable that they cannot dictate price on and must lease compulsively, then you would have an argument.

I feel that opinions of issues are heavily influenced by the actors involved. Amazon vs Hachette being a key example. No one likes Comcast, nor do I, but I don't think that choosing sides based on the beneficiaries is the right way to go about things. I don't think you can argue that a person or group (corporation) took a benefit in the past and is now beholden to the person that dispensed that benefit. That's especially true if the decision makers and owners (stockholders) are a dynamic group.

>The downside is you end up with tons of redundant infrastructure investments, and wire itself is mad pricey

I normally discount this argument as it is often used as a justification of centralized control. Besides, one can argue that most commercial activities are redundant; from advertising to the endless variety of consumer goods available to people in the US. I do concede that this likely won't work in a lot of places as the technology currently exists. My hope is that some new technology can come about and change the economics materially. And I think that a light regulatory environment would best help foster this technology and encourage new entrants.

Mesh networks anyone? http://www.wired.com/2014/01/its-time-to-take-mesh-networks-...

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#236

Post by dguaraglia »

couchand wrote: post #27
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…

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".

On the other hand, just think about it: now you have the wedge in, there'll be a massive lobby (Hollywood, recording companies, 'big media' if you will) trying to use that wedge to push stronger legislation in. In fact, the government itself (NSA, FBI) will think 'hey, now that we have this, we might as well use it to Protect Our Children (tm)'.

On the other hand, besides the ACLU and maybe a few people organizing over the internet, there will be no money spent in lobbying to tighten up definitions and improve privacy.

So there, it's a 'pretty massive stretch' but by no means it's an unexpected thing.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#237

Post by AndrewHampton »

warfangle wrote: post #136
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,…

I hope you're correct and deep packet inspection is prohibited. The language being used still concerns me though.

> If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it.

This implies that ISPs would be permitted to block illegal content. How can they know traffic is legal without some form of traffic monitoring/inspection?

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#239

Post by legohead »

bko wrote: post #92

I don't think I fully understand the argument for net neutrality. I try to think about it from a few different perspectives: Broadband intensive services like Netflix: I think a problem that they face is that their connection is often slow, not only intentionally, but also because developing infrastructure is expensive. Why would an ISP bother building out the infrastructure if they can't extract a higher value from…

Netflix pays for its bandwidth, like any internet service.

If Netflix were to offer some ridiculous streaming option like 50k video, customers simply wouldn't be able to stream it because the customer is only paying its ISP for 10mbit or whatever. If the customer really wants this 50k video, it will have to pay the ISP to upgrade.

In this way, the ISP is making its money off of Netflix already.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#240

Post by jflatow »

There's a lot of confusion about net neutrality and regulation of the internet at large.

I'd love to see a poll of the HN community to see the distribution of support, amongst what should be a relatively knowledgable group of people. Unfortunately I don't have enough karma to create it myself.

Post reply on HN