PDA

View Full Version : SOPA v.2.0--CISPA



Ghost
Mon Apr 23rd, 2012, 05:30 PM
Since they failed to get SOPA through they're trying another end-around to curtail rights/freedom/privacy with CISPA...



http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/cispa-vote-coming-next-week-how-to-fight-back-now/



The time to fight back against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is now. Here's everything you need to know to get started.
The window to stop the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is closing fast. Starting as early as Monday, the House of Representatives will begin debate on the cybersecurity bill, which many rights advocates believe remains one of the most dangerous piece of legislation on the current congressional agenda. Reports indicate that lawmakers will vote on the bill Wednesday, April 25, or Thursday, April 26. That leaves precious little time to convince Members of the House to vote “nay” on CISPA. Here is a quick guide to get your up to speed on the issues surrounding CISPA, and ways you can help fight back.
Update: The House agenda shows that debate on CISPA will begin Thursday, with a vote no later than 3pm ET Friday.


What CISPA is

CISPA, officially known as H.R. 3523, is a cybersecurity bill currently in the House of Representatives that makes it easier for the government to share classified “cyber threat intelligence” with private companies, and for private companies to share information with the government. Neither side is required to share anything, but the bill makes it legal for them to do so.
The stated goal is to better protect both the government and the private sector from “cyber threats.”
CISPA was co-authored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD). It currently has 112 co-sponsors (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523) in the House.
One of the best things you can do to help fight CISPA is to actually read it; don’t worry, it’s really short. Read all the bills, amendments, and “discussion drafts” of CISPA here (http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-3523-bill-and-amendments).


Talking points

The first key to convincing Congress, or even the people you know, to oppose CISPA is to know what you’re talking about. These are the primary concerns with the bill, which you should include in any letter, email, or phone conversation you have with your representative, or anyone else you want to convert to the anti-CISPA camp:
• CISPA effectively allows the federal government and corporations to “spy” on citizens. One of the main problems with CISPA is that its intentionally broad language gives corporations both the ability and incentive to share almost any type of information they like with the federal government. It also allows the government to use the information in an almost unlimited fashion.
Yes, the bill does contain limitations on the types of information that may be shared (namely: data related to “cyber threats” or “national security”), but the ambiguities of these terms render these limits completely meaningless. Because of this, private communication, like email or messages sent privately through social networks, could be considered fair game. And nothing in the bill requires companies to strip shared information of personally identifiable details — something other cybersecurity bills mandate.
• Information shared under CISPA could be used for almost any purpose. Despite what CISPA supporters want you to believe, the legislation effectively provides no limits for the types of information that may be shared under the bill. As mentioned above, this is because the bill uses overly broad language to define the relevant terms.
• CISPA could put your data in the hands of the military — and out of reach of public oversight. According to the bill, all information will flow into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will then pass on the data to other parts of the government. This could mean organizations like the National Security Agency (NSA), which is a military organization, and thus has practically no civilian oversight. Traditionally, the DHS — a civilian organization that is subject to public oversight — handles the government’s cybersecurity operations. CISPA could change all that.
• If a company mishandles your data, it is nearly impossible to sue them and win. CISPA gives explicit immunity to companies who hand over data to the government, as long as that data is used from some cybersecurity or national security purpose. It also overrides all other laws pertaining to privacy and the sharing of individuals’ information. If, however, you (somehow) discover that your information was shared or used improperly, successfully winning a lawsuit against the company responsible is nearly impossible. That’s because, under CISPA, a company must willfully engage in an “act or omission” that was made:

(I) Intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose;
(II) knowingly without legal or factual justification; and
(III) in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm of the act or omission will outweigh the benefit.

That’s right — the company must meet all of those criteria to be liable, not just one of them.
Update: This language has been removed in the most recent version of CISPA (pdf (http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CPRT-112-HPRT-RU00-HR3523.pdf)), but the concerns with liability remain.

So, these are the primary complaints. But if you want to truly educate yourself on this bill, I suggest checking out all of these links:
• Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) CISPA resource page (https://www.cdt.org/cispa-resource-page)
• Chart comparing CISPA to other cybersecurity legislation (https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/cybersec_chart.pdf) (pdf)
• Electronic Frontier Foundation’s infographic on CISPA (http://cyberspying.eff.org/)
• Groups opposing CISPA (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/voices-against-cispa)
• Groups supporting CISPA (http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-3523-letters-support)



Other CISPA notes:

• Opposing this legislation is not the same thing as opposing greater protections against cyber attacks. The problem with CISPA is how it could be abused or misinterpreted — not necessarily with its stated goal of protecting all of us against cyberattacks. The CDT supports the PRECISE Act (H.R. 3674), an alternative cybersecurity bill, which you can read about here (https://www.cdt.org/blogs/greg-nojeim/22lungren-cybersecurity-bill-takes-careful-balanced-approach). Update: The PRECISE Act now includes privacy stipulations similar to CISPA, so the CDT has abandoned its support for the bill.
• Please, do not compare CISPA to SOPA. These two bills have almost nothing to do with each other, save the fact that they are related to the Internet, and a lot of people are against CISPA , as they were with SOPA. Drawing parallels between CISPA and SOPA only muddles the anti-CISPA message, and gives supporters an entirely irrelevant reason to disregard what you have to say about the bill.



How to fight back

The best case scenario is that CISPA is voted down in the House. And the best way for that to happen is for your representative to know that you oppose the bill. Here are a few ways to do so:
• Find out who your representative is here (https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml).
• Find email for your representatives here (http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm).
• Find phone numbers for your representative here (http://www.house.gov/representatives/).
• Send a automatically-generated tweet to your representative just by typing in your ZIP code here (http://cyberspying.eff.org/).
• Tweet Rep. Rogers and the House Intelligence Committee: @HouseIntelComm (https://twitter.com/#%21/HouseIntelComm) and @RepMikeRogers (https://twitter.com/#%21/RepMikeRogers).
• Email Rep. Rogers directly (https://mikerogersforms.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm).
• Join Fight for the Future’s anti-CISPA Twitter campaign here (http://congresstmi.org/).
• Sign a petition against CISPA: here (http://goo.gl/vx2mo), here (http://www.change.org/petitions/cispa-bill-the-cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-sopa-renamed-help-start-a-movement-to-stop-congress-from-passing-the-cispa-bill), and here (http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa/).



What to expect next

Once CISPA goes before the full House next week, the bill could change substantially. Be sure to keep up with CISPA news next week. I’ll be covering it here at Digital Trends — but the important thing is to stay informed, however you can. If the bill does pass the House — a likely scenario, at the moment, considering it has broad bi-partisan support — it will move to the Senate. The Senate will likely take up CISPA for debate sometime in May, so setting up a Google Alert (http://www.google.com/alerts) on CISPA is probably your best bet, if you want to stay up on the latest news for the long haul.
Remember: Even if CISPA passes the House, the fight is not over. It must be signed by President Obama to become law. So it is important to remain patient and tenacious all the way to the end.


In Case You Missed It:



Stop CISPA? Cybersecurity bill adds six new co-sponsors in two days (http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/stop-cispa-cybersecurity-bill-adds-six-new-co-sponsors-in-two-days/)
CISPA battle heats up, as both sides fight to control the message (http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/cispa-battle-heats-up-as-both-sides-fight-to-control-the-message/)
Facebook defends CISPA support, completely misses the point (http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/facebook-defends-cispa-support-completely-misses-the-point/)
CISPA’s biggest problem: Trust (http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/cispas-biggest-problem-trust/)

#1Townie
Mon Apr 23rd, 2012, 05:48 PM
I think this one is going to make it through. Americans just have to much a d d.

Ghost
Mon Apr 23rd, 2012, 06:11 PM
I think this one is going to make it through. Americans just have to much a d d.


Sadly, I think you're right. And that's probably been the strategy all along--run it enough times and eventually the public will lose interest and it'll pass without notice.

Great times we live in...

#1Townie
Mon Apr 23rd, 2012, 06:38 PM
Yup jist keep repeating and finally the people will forget. I just wonder how far the bar will bend before the people snap and we have total chaos.

Ghost
Mon Apr 23rd, 2012, 09:04 PM
Yup jist keep repeating and finally the people will forget. I just wonder how far the bar will bend before the people snap and we have total chaos.

I don't think there's any will to do anything left in the American public.

So, I doubt there'll ever be a snap or chaos, I think the sheep will just meekly line up and be marched into their pens without any protest...

#1Townie
Mon Apr 23rd, 2012, 09:07 PM
I hope not. With the way people are now days thats a safe assumption.

Ghost
Wed Apr 25th, 2012, 04:33 PM
Obama's threatening to veto.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/cispa-veto-white-house_n_1453511.html


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Wednesday threatened to veto a House bill designed to defend critical U.S. industries and corporate networks from electronic attacks by foreign governments, cybercriminals and terrorist groups, arguing the measure falls short in protecting civil liberties.

"Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive," the administration said in a statement issued just as proponents of the bill made their case for the legislation at a House hearing.


The administration complained that the House bill, which has bipartisan support, would allow sharing of information with the government without requiring industry and the government to minimize and protect personal information.

The statement said that if the bill were presented to the president in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend a veto.

The House is schedule to begin work on the bill on Thursday, with a final vote on Friday. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and the panel's top Democrat, Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, announced changes to the bill on Tuesday to allay concerns of some lawmakers. Republicans said they expect the measure to pass despite the opposition of some lawmakers.

The administration backs a bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, that would give Homeland Security the authority to set security standards. That bill remains stalled in the Senate.
Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said Wednesday he hoped House passage of the bill would pressure the Democratic-controlled Senate to move on its legislation.

#1Townie
Wed Apr 25th, 2012, 06:09 PM
Said the same thing about ndaa didnt he?

Ghost
Wed Apr 25th, 2012, 06:26 PM
Said the same thing about ndaa didnt he?

True.

#1Townie
Wed Apr 25th, 2012, 06:46 PM
I couldnt remember if that was true or a rumor. I hope he does. Then again millions put hope in his change and we see how that has worked. Lol. I keeeeed.

My back hurts
Mon Apr 30th, 2012, 06:59 PM
CISPA passed house
http://www.naturalnews.com/035724_CISPA_Senate_censorship.html

tecknojoe
Mon Apr 30th, 2012, 07:11 PM
Just an FYI, this is who did and did not vote for it from Colorado:

NO D DeGette, Diana CO 1st
NO D Polis, Jared CO 2nd
AYE R Tipton, Scott CO 3rd
AYE R Gardner, Cory CO 4th
AYE R Lamborn, Doug CO 5th
AYE R Coffman, Mike CO 6th
NO D Perlmutter, Ed CO 7th


Thanks team red!




dickheads

Ghost
Mon Apr 30th, 2012, 07:25 PM
CISPA passed house
http://www.naturalnews.com/035724_CISPA_Senate_censorship.html


Just an FYI, this is who did and did not vote for it from Colorado:

NO D DeGette, Diana CO 1st
NO D Polis, Jared CO 2nd
AYE R Tipton, Scott CO 3rd
AYE R Gardner, Cory CO 4th
AYE R Lamborn, Doug CO 5th
AYE R Coffman, Mike CO 6th
NO D Perlmutter, Ed CO 7th


Thanks team red!




dickheads

Awesome. Ancient fucktards who don't even know what the internet is are voting for something to ruin it...

#1Townie
Tue May 1st, 2012, 01:51 AM
Fuck yeah. Who needs the web anymore. No even uses it now days. Right?

salsashark
Tue May 1st, 2012, 10:30 AM
Well this should help the New World Order know who to harvest once FB hands over all of it's data to the .gov

http://www.pcworld.com/article/254771/facebook_wants_you_to_donate_your_organs.html#tk.r ss_news


Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is hoping to use the power of his 900 million member social networking platform and peer pressure to convince people to become registered organ donors. Starting Tuesday, Facebook users living in the U.S. and U.K. can add an organ donor status to their Facebook profile and post it publicly to their Timeline.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-D86PQnf8b0E/SXSt64cND8I/AAAAAAAAL_8/kfML53VAecg/s213/wtf.gif

Ghost
Thu May 24th, 2012, 08:58 PM
Adding to the Brave New (Internet) World:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/york-senate-bill-seeks-end-anonymous-internet-posting-162549128.html



New York Senate bill seeks to end anonymous internet posting

By Tecca (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/author/tecca/;_ylt=A2KLJ6ZL875PdysAHQ0Z2bZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTE1ZnMybG 83BG1pdANCbG9nIEhlYWQEcG9zAzMEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0hl YWQ-;_ylg=X3oDMTJvaTZzbjRoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMGZlODg2OTgtY2ZiMy0zMzkwLWIyNTItMWE4ZjU3M2 IzMmQ1BHBzdGNhdANCbG9ncwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3) | Today in Tech (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/;_ylt=A2KLJ6ZL875PdysAHg0Z2bZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTE1djNvMm NwBG1pdANCbG9nIEhlYWQEcG9zAzQEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0hl YWQ-;_ylg=X3oDMTJvaTZzbjRoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMGZlODg2OTgtY2ZiMy0zMzkwLWIyNTItMWE4ZjU3M2 IzMmQ1BHBzdGNhdANCbG9ncwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3) – 10 hrs ago

If the bill passes, get ready to hand over your full name and home address

Anonymity is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the United States was founded, in part, thanks to Thomas Paine's anonymously written, pro-revolution pamphlet Common Sense (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KLJ6ZL875PdysAbg0Z2bZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTFka3BkYnE 0BG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0JvZ HlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTJvaTZzbjRoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMGZlODg2OTgtY2ZiMy0zMzkwLWIyNTItMWE4ZjU3M2 IzMmQ1BHBzdGNhdANCbG9ncwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=0/SIG=12gi6m51k/EXP=1339123787/**http%3A//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_%2528pamphlet%2529).

On the other hand, 12-year-olds who post anonymously on the internet can be rather unpleasant and cause real problems by cyberbullying (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KLJ6ZL875PdysAbw0Z2bZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTFkZWgzYnZ wBG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzIEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0JvZ HlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTJvaTZzbjRoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMGZlODg2OTgtY2ZiMy0zMzkwLWIyNTItMWE4ZjU3M2 IzMmQ1BHBzdGNhdANCbG9ncwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=0/SIG=12s08bs59/EXP=1339123787/**http%3A//www.tecca.com/columns/how-to-protect-your-kids-from-cyberbullies/). Whether you think the good outweighs the bad, this news is troubling indeed: A far-reaching bill introduced in the New York State Senate could end the practice of posting online once and for all.

Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara / NY SenateIntroduced by New York State Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KLJ6ZL875PdysAcA0Z2bZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTFkNWJ1MDB uBG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzMEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0JvZ HlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTJvaTZzbjRoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMGZlODg2OTgtY2ZiMy0zMzkwLWIyNTItMWE4ZjU3M2 IzMmQ1BHBzdGNhdANCbG9ncwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=0/SIG=123im8top/EXP=1339123787/**http%3A//www.nysenate.gov/senator/thomas-f-omara/) (R—Big Flats), S6779 (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KLJ6ZL875PdysAcQ0Z2bZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTFkMmFzbGI wBG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzQEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0JvZ HlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTJvaTZzbjRoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMGZlODg2OTgtY2ZiMy0zMzkwLWIyNTItMWE4ZjU3M2 IzMmQ1BHBzdGNhdANCbG9ncwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=0/SIG=128js7svc/EXP=1339123787/**http%3A//open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S6779-2011) would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal if the poster refuses to post — and verify — their legal name, their IP address (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KLJ6ZL875PdysAcg0Z2bZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTFkcWhpdTZ uBG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzUEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0JvZ HlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTJvaTZzbjRoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMGZlODg2OTgtY2ZiMy0zMzkwLWIyNTItMWE4ZjU3M2 IzMmQ1BHBzdGNhdANCbG9ncwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=0/SIG=13l3o5t7f/EXP=1339123787/**http%3A//www.tecca.com/news/2011/01/24/the-internets-current-stash-of-ip-addresses-is-almost-empty/), and their home address.

From the (likely well intentioned) bill:
"A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted."

Critics are quick to point out how dangerous and ineffective the anti-privacy bill would be in the off chance that it somehow passes. After all, IP addresses do nothing to verify a person's identity, and including your home address on a controversial internet post could open you up to real-life threats.

In effect, the bill is an online stalker's dream (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KLJ6ZL875PdysAcw0Z2bZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTFkbmlnNzJ jBG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzYEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0JvZ HlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTJvaTZzbjRoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMGZlODg2OTgtY2ZiMy0zMzkwLWIyNTItMWE4ZjU3M2 IzMmQ1BHBzdGNhdANCbG9ncwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=0/SIG=13tcpfu5h/EXP=1339123787/**http%3A//www.tecca.com/news/2011/02/08/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-obtains-restraining-order-against-stalker/). Of course, the most likely result of the bill's passage would just be the full-scale elimination of all comment systems everywhere, because the system is an unworkable burden on both the poster and the "web site administrators" who would need to respond to ludicrous take down requests at all times of the day.

Ghost
Fri Jul 13th, 2012, 01:37 PM
http://truth-out.org/news/item/10310-verizon-wants-the-freedom-to-edit-your-internet



Verizon Wants the "Freedom" to Edit Your Internet

Friday, 13 July 2012 12:37 By Simon Maloy (http://truth-out.org/news/item/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&task=user&id=47480&Itemid=252), Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/09/verizon-wants-the-freedom-to-edit-your-internet/187003) | Report Last week, Verizon filed a brief (http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/verizon-metropcs-net-neutrality-brief-as-filed.pdf) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit laying out their various and sundry complaints against the Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet Order, which put net neutrality regulations in place for Internet service providers. The telecom giant is suing to have the FCC's order thrown out, and one of their legal arguments is raising more than a few eyebrows (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-jarvis/verizon-thinks-the-net-is_b_1650986.html). Verizon, per the court document, considers itself your Internet editor. Or your Internet editor-in-waiting.

It goes like this: the Open Internet Order says that Verizon, as a provider of broadband Internet, can't block or slow access to (legal) online content because they disagree with its message or are being paid by an outside party to do so. This is essentially how the internet has operated since its inception, and the Open Internet Order is intended to prevent ISPs like Verizon from becoming gatekeepers. Verizon, however, argues that it has the constitutionally protected right to decide which content you, as a Verizon customer, can access -- that it is no different from a newspaper editor:
Broadband providers transmit their own speech both by developing their own content and by partnering with other content providers and adopting that speech as their own. For example, they develop video services, which draw information from, and are then made available over, the Internet. Many also select or create content for their own over-the-top video services or offer applications that provide access to particular content. They also transmit the speech of others: each day millions of individuals use the Internet to promote their own opinions and ideas and to explore those of others, and broadband providers convey those communications.
In performing these functions, broadband providers possess "editorial discretion." Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others. Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner, Order ¶ 14 (JA__), they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising.
This argument is fraught with problems (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/fcc-isps-cant-use-first-amendment-as-shield-from-net-neutrality/). Jeff Jarvis observes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-jarvis/verizon-thinks-the-net-is_b_1650986.html) that if Verizon is asserting editorial control over the content that passes over its pipes, then that implies ownership of that content. "Does Verizon really want to be responsible for everything distributed on the net, including libel, theft, and other illegal behavior? I doubt it." Verizon cites as precedent Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=512&page=622) (1994), in which the Supreme Court ruled that cable companies enjoy First Amendment protection because they exercise editorial discretion in transmitting the speech of others, and are not merely neutral pathways over which speech is transmitted without restriction or interference. Internet service providers, per Verizon's reasoning, are no different.

But here's the hitch: it's tough for an ISP to argue that it isn't a neutral pathway when ISPs also benefit from laws that treat them as neutral pathways. For example, if you use your Verizon internet connection to commit copyright infringement, you might end up in a heap of trouble, but Verizon won't. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512) says ISPs can not be held responsible if infringing material merely passes through their network. Indeed, when the Recording Industry Association of America sued Verizon to turn over the name of a subscriber thought to be engaging in copyright infringement, Verizon successfully argued (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15815830240179540527&q=351+F.3d+1229&hl=en&as_sdt=2002) that they were "acting merely as a conduit for an individual using a P2P [person to person] file sharing program to exchange files," and were thus not legally obligated to release the name.

As Penn State law professor Rob Frieden sees it, ISPs like Verizon are playing both sides (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1425138):
ISPs seemingly can turn on and off their speaker status to qualify for two different types of limits on government regulation of the content ISPs deliver. When operating ostensibly as neutral conduits, these episodic advocates of free expression gladly abandon this status for an even more desirable one: qualifying for safe harbor exemptions from tort and copyright infringement liability. Unlike other media, such as cable television, whose operators rejected any parallel to conduit neutrality as anathema to their First Amendment speaker rights, ISPs heretofore have embraced conduit neutrality, which vitiates their expressive freedom, but which qualifies them for insulation from content liability.
But even if you allow that ISPs do have the right to "editorial discretion" when it comes to the content that passes through their networks, that doesn't change the fact that no one is actually forcing Verizon to publish or promote the content or opinions of others. The Open Internet Order mandates equal access to online content (allowing for reasonable discrimination). "Under net neutrality mandated non-discrimination Verizon's packets and speech are just as likely to reach the end user as Netflix's or Google's," writes (http://gigaom.com/2012/07/03/inside-verizons-attack-on-network-neutrality/) GigaOm's Stacy Higginbotham. Verizon is arguing that its freedom of speech requires that it have the power -- a power that, by its own admission, it has never used -- to deny content producers access to consumers, and vice-versa.

Verizon's "editorial discretion" filing was fortuitously timed, in that in coincided with the release of two competing visions for the future of the internet. The "Declaration of Internet Freedom (http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom)," launched by Free Press (http://www.savetheinternet.com/internet-declaration) on July 2 and endorsed by a small army of open-internet advocates, calls for "an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create and innovate." A few days later, the limited-government group Campaign for Liberty unveiled (http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/14524/blog/2012/07/05/c4l-introduces-technology-revolution) their "Technology Revolution" manifesto, which decries "the hammer of government control and regulation" of the internet. The manifesto opposes "any attempt by Government to tax, regulate, monitor, or control the Internet."

The strictly laissez-faire approach advocated by Campaign for Liberty endorses the sort of environment that values the "freedom" of Verizon to assert editorial control over your Internet usage, picking and choosing which content you'll have access to over your own freedom to make these choices for yourself. The alternative is the Internet we have now, in which "broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner," as Verizon's own court filing helpfully puts it.

That's the promise of an open Internet: consumer choice driving innovation online. By holding out for "editorial discretion," Verizon wants to preserve their right to pick favorites, wall off the garden, and start charging for admission.

TransNone13
Fri Jul 13th, 2012, 05:23 PM
These are the kinds of things which put service members in a bind. Fundamental issues like do I even want to protect the status quo? Will my willingness to defend those destroying the intrinsic values I joined to protect impede my ability to carry out my orders? There is already enough bitterness through feelings of actions being for nothing and forgotten.

/Sigh

Ghost
Fri Jul 13th, 2012, 10:07 PM
These are the kinds of things which put service members in a bind. Fundamental issues like do I even want to protect the status quo? Will my willingness to defend those destroying the intrinsic values I joined to protect impede my ability to carry out my orders? There is already enough bitterness through feelings of actions being for nothing and forgotten.

/Sigh

I'm not in your shoes, but I see your point and I clearly don't think it's an enviable position to be in. It reminds me of discussions I've had with the Vietnam vets in my family, and their disenfranchisement over the whole thing...