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

341–350 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#341

Post by lotharbot »

dragontamer wrote: post #337
lotharbot wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Someone needs to learn American History" Personal attacks like this add nothing to your comment. It would have been better to leave that sentence out, or replace it with something less personal like "there are examples of worse behavior in American History". ----- "Not the absolute worst US presidential administration of all time" isn't really a compelling argument for why we shouldn't criticize this one.

Oh, he can be critical if he wants. Open Criticism of presidents is what makes Americans strong. But when he says stuff like "like no other president before him" he needs to be ready for a historical counter-argument. I happen to know the history of several presidents ya see, and can see what Obama and Bush have done in context. These recent Presidents are actually quite good historically, despite their disapproval r…

Counter-arguments are great. Personal attacks are not. You can make your point better by not making it about the other person's personal failings.

Notice how I rephrased your point in my previous comment so that it wasn't about him, but was instead completely about history. It makes the point stronger.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#342

Post by dragontamer »

pessimizer wrote: post #248
dragontamer wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Today's laws make such surveillance and wiretapping illegal. Which laws are you referring to here?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802

US Code 50, section 1802. This law was established in the 80s after the Watergate scandal showed US Congress how much police power the Presidents (specifically Nixon) were assuming.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#343

Post by dragonwriter »

foobarqux wrote: post #326
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? Because it will never pass with a Republican majority so he can pretend to take a stand for the public without any actual effect that would upset business interests.

> Because it will never pass with a Republican majority

The FCC has a 3-2 Democratic majority (all current members appointed by Obama, but under law which imposes a limit of 3 members of one party), and is the body through which this needs to pass.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#344

Post by dragontamer »

lotharbot wrote: post #341
dragontamer wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, he can be critical if he wants. Open Criticism of presidents is what makes Americans strong. But when he says stuff like "like no other president before him" he needs to be ready for a historical counter-argument. I happen to know the history of several presidents ya see, and can see what Obama and Bush have done in context. These recent Presidents are actually quite good historically, despite their disapproval r…

Counter-arguments are great. Personal attacks are not. You can make your point better by not making it about the other person's personal failings. Notice how I rephrased your point in my previous comment so that it wasn't about him, but was instead completely about history. It makes the point stronger.

And you can make your points better by attacking my central point. Besides, tracker1 isn't a child. If he is feeling uncomfortable with my prose, he can talk to me directly.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#345

Post by alvaromuir »

hristov wrote: post #324
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…

You are reading too much into this. Obama is merely adding this phrase to protect himself from those that will intentionally try to twist his words. When you hear anything Obama says, you must remember that there are literally thousands of hacks and an entire media empire out there carefully examining his words and thinking how they can twist them or misrepresent them to make him look bad. If he did not put that phra…

well said.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#346

Post by vegedor »

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,…

>public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals

Well of course they are, to a limited degree. They are not the sole carrier - I sometimes find it hard to express or notice the plural distinction - of moral, but neither is the justice system, although it likes to paint itself that way. As can be shown:

  lt. moralis: proper behavior of a person in society
They have to decide a proper course of action for themselves. It would just be nice if it was in accordance with the censorship of the law. OTOH, i find the result proper.

>nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands

Clearly not authorized, but morally, they might be required to regulate, therefore to investigate, if possible without violating privacy rights, which with automation can be ensured to a degree. Even if warranted by a judge, or done by the police, it meant massive overhead for the providers, too. So it would be nice if we can go on without all that hassle. Maybe it would require relaxing some laws, that require those investigations; Or moving on as society, as calling on moral draws in a bag of huge implications.

What if crack junkies buying crack on silkroad steal copper cables from the grid? The Telcos are indirectly affected by that, when the users get unsatisfied and directly they have to pay for replacement.

The users are directly affected and responsible, so in first degree it's their responsibility. (not as implied, the court's or w/e).

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#347

Post by alvaromuir »

tracker1 wrote: post #234
dragontamer wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately they are the tools of warfare used by enimies of the US as well as domestic terrorists as well. The werent used in the 60's simply because they were not available back then.

Oh, but our government had giving small pox blankets to Native Americans, or syphilis to African Americans or rounding up Asians and putting them 'segregated camps'.

That American History class may not be a bad idea. Just sayin.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#348

Post by xtirpation »

rhino369 wrote: post #340
smileysteve wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd only support that if the ISPs started fucking up the internet massively. So, say they propose a fast lane for the internet. Or don't invest in the connections to level 3 to be able to provide Netflix to users.

I don't think a fast lane would necessarily fuck the internet. In fact, with proper management it might actually be beneficial. For example, I'd love it if my work VPN could be prioritized over someones pron torrent during internet rush hour. Net neutrality wouldn't fix the Level3/ Verizon&Comcast issues. Net neutrality doesn't force free peering. When I mean fucking the internet up, I mean significant degrading of s…

>For example, I'd love it if my work VPN could be prioritized over someones pron torrent during internet rush hour.

That would be great for you of course by why should ISPs get to determine whose packets are more important especially if the entry criterion to being important is basically "pay up"? What if the reverse were true and other users' packets were prioritized over your work ones simply because Netflix, YouTube, Valve, etc. could afford it and your company decided not to?

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#349

Post by GhotiFish »

rhino369 wrote: post #340
smileysteve wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd only support that if the ISPs started fucking up the internet massively. So, say they propose a fast lane for the internet. Or don't invest in the connections to level 3 to be able to provide Netflix to users.

I don't think a fast lane would necessarily fuck the internet. In fact, with proper management it might actually be beneficial. For example, I'd love it if my work VPN could be prioritized over someones pron torrent during internet rush hour. Net neutrality wouldn't fix the Level3/ Verizon&Comcast issues. Net neutrality doesn't force free peering. When I mean fucking the internet up, I mean significant degrading of s…

Porn pays bills, the torrent would get the shaft, but the steams wouldn't. they'd take priority over your VPN.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#350

Post by [deleted] »

foobarqux wrote: post #326
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? Because it will never pass with a Republican majority so he can pretend to take a stand for the public without any actual effect that would upset business interests.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN