OT: Net Neutrality maybe in Jeopardy

[MixxSRC]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve neither.

[Double Helix]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve neither.

Spoken like a true libertarian.

We've progressed beyond the law of the jungle and only the strongest survive mentalities because we've created rules and implemented order and protected the most vulnerable among us from the nastiest and worst among us.

[makeready]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve neither.

Spoken like a true libertarian.

We've progressed beyond the law of the jungle and only the strongest survive mentalities because we've created rules and implemented order and protected the most vulnerable among us from the nastiest and worst among us.

only a libertarian would trust an oligopoly of private actors to build benevolent systems and achieve that protection.

as with all things, the farther you swing towards the market, the better off you are if you have money, and the worse off you are if you don't.

[Mikistan]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve neither.

Spoken like a true libertarian.

We've progressed beyond the law of the jungle and only the strongest survive mentalities because we've created rules and implemented order and protected the most vulnerable among us from the nastiest and worst among us.

Rules and order are bunk, try telling a bike messenger/uber e-biker to get off the sidewalk, you'll get in a fist fight.

Everyone breaks the rules however they want, and the poor and unlucky get punished consistently.

[alienchild]

Of course this comes out of the Trump FCC. It's the best way for dictators to control information dissemination. Combine this with the Justice dept suing AT&T to divest CNN, get ready for an unfettered FOX news and Breitbart internet. Take choice away to control the sheeple.

[mrdressup]

"Net neutrality" has only been in effect for a couple years. So the end of "net neutrality" won't be some huge change.
The internet did fine before government meddling.
It will continue to do fine after the government stops meddling.

The government paid for the development of the internet with public money and resources. It cost society many billions in dollar to the military and via research grants to places like MIT . As often happens with things that are developed in the private sector, government delivered a profitable opportunity to the private sector because of a widespread ideological belief that the private sector can do it better (extract money from people without having it be seen as the evil government doing it). Government could have built the infrastructure itself and managed it as a public asset, with no profit motive whatsoever. Where exactly this profit ends up is what we ought to be worried about when we empower the private sector more.

[simmons21]

My point is that because people seem to care more about being able to stream a TV show that they want then they do about updating and improving law enforcement's abilities to keep up with online crimes occurring and those yet to occur that likely will become worse if left unchecked, something like net neutrality,and all of the motivations many of you have for supporting it related to money, will get morphed and ear marked into privacy protections that will ultimately make it harder in the future for us as society to stay ahead of the worst among us targeting the most vulnerable among us. People care more about being able to stream something for free then they do about a future society that they signed off on where law enforcement and the intelligence communities are ill equipped to handle or prosecute increased organized crime online against minors, rape, terror recruitment, terror planning, etc because people want to turn every battle between business coalitions and the internet into an opportunity to limit control over all aspects of the internet. Thus making it the wild west and a place where predators, organized crime, and their legal defence teams will have more abilities in the future and victims, their families, and the prosecution will have less admissible evidence to connect organizations, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something was intended, or secure a guilty verdict for those who are guilty and may hurt others again. "I know my internet rights! You got nothing!"

We are entering uncharted waters with every new precedent set that we are comfortable deregulating and limiting control of all kinds on the internet in the name of lower internet bills or out of privacy fear. 1984-style explorations on the dangers of big brother, and horrible countries with weaker democracies than ours which do exploit and overreach, have occupied our minds and fears longer than the similarly dystopian online criminal wastelands we'll be unwittingly enabling in their place if we aren't careful but they aren't any less scary and, IMO, are more likely to impact us, our children and their children than the alternative. Especially as life in general moves more and more online and becomes more virtual and our homes become smarter and more connected. When television for example was first created it was immediately and wisely seen as a game-changing form of connectivity and education and propaganda and fraud weapon. It was immediately regulated for the public. Not anybody could just create their own station and hop on the air and explain to teens that they were needed in a coming war and give them instructions on how to build bombs. Peds couldn't just acquire child exploitation video by flipping through the channels because that kind of content wasn't legal and purchasing it was rightfully illegal too. Organized crime, gang rapists, and terror cells couldn't just purchase ads and tell people where to come find them. We knew not to allow those things to happen. Heck, even news had rules. Channels had to originally air an even amount of political propaganda from one party as they did they other. You couldn't out-buy the other side. For 50 years we worked through issues like this and tried to balance fairness, reason, and free speech from hate speech, and the impact of sex and violence on children with the public's desire to have more access to sex and violence. We should have been more ready for the internet and used that knowledge to shape it collectively and work through new challenges and develop checks and balances.

In our pursuit of the ideal free and uncontrolled internet we may be creating an environment akin to the very beginnings of our species. We're better than that and fear from both extremes is necessary in order for us to find actual balance between oversight and control and overreach and manipulation. The privacy side shouts louder, has the hacking community, the terror communities, the pedophile community, organized crime, and more on their side and they want every grassroots movement related to the internet to scale back control. I'm just trying to be the guy in a room that's outnumbered asking the unpopular question of "What happens if we go too far the other way?" And it is an unpopular question to ask but I feel it needs to be asked and by more people.

What in the hell are you rambling on about? No-one in their right mind would disagree with you that crime should be enforced and that law enforcement should have the appropriate tools to deal with it. But giving the skeleton key to telecoms is not the solution to those problems and never will be.

That's not what the Net Neutrality fight is even about anyways. It's about wanting to create "digital fast lanes" for high paying customers. And the telecom's right to force people away from legitimate, LEGAL products and services, or to sell it to them for a extra fee. That's not so bad if consumers had a choice of what telecom to go with, but that's rarely the case. Corporations that are against net neutrality are doing so to make it profit. It's not about crime.

I get the sense that you work for a telecom?

[MixxSRC]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve neither.

Spoken like a true libertarian.

We've progressed beyond the law of the jungle and only the strongest survive mentalities because we've created rules and implemented order and protected the most vulnerable among us from the nastiest and worst among us.

Classical fearmongering

[VinBaker6]

Now y’all know why Elliot teamed up with the Dark Army.

Damn when's stage 2 happening to us

[Double Helix]

My point is that because people seem to care more about being able to stream a TV show that they want then they do about updating and improving law enforcement's abilities to keep up with online crimes occurring and those yet to occur that likely will become worse if left unchecked, something like net neutrality,and all of the motivations many of you have for supporting it related to money, will get morphed and ear marked into privacy protections that will ultimately make it harder in the future for us as society to stay ahead of the worst among us targeting the most vulnerable among us. People care more about being able to stream something for free then they do about a future society that they signed off on where law enforcement and the intelligence communities are ill equipped to handle or prosecute increased organized crime online against minors, rape, terror recruitment, terror planning, etc because people want to turn every battle between business coalitions and the internet into an opportunity to limit control over all aspects of the internet. Thus making it the wild west and a place where predators, organized crime, and their legal defence teams will have more abilities in the future and victims, their families, and the prosecution will have less admissible evidence to connect organizations, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something was intended, or secure a guilty verdict for those who are guilty and may hurt others again. "I know my internet rights! You got nothing!"

We are entering uncharted waters with every new precedent set that we are comfortable deregulating and limiting control of all kinds on the internet in the name of lower internet bills or out of privacy fear. 1984-style explorations on the dangers of big brother, and horrible countries with weaker democracies than ours which do exploit and overreach, have occupied our minds and fears longer than the similarly dystopian online criminal wastelands we'll be unwittingly enabling in their place if we aren't careful but they aren't any less scary and, IMO, are more likely to impact us, our children and their children than the alternative. Especially as life in general moves more and more online and becomes more virtual and our homes become smarter and more connected. When television for example was first created it was immediately and wisely seen as a game-changing form of connectivity and education and propaganda and fraud weapon. It was immediately regulated for the public. Not anybody could just create their own station and hop on the air and explain to teens that they were needed in a coming war and give them instructions on how to build bombs. Peds couldn't just acquire child exploitation video by flipping through the channels because that kind of content wasn't legal and purchasing it was rightfully illegal too. Organized crime, gang rapists, and terror cells couldn't just purchase ads and tell people where to come find them. We knew not to allow those things to happen. Heck, even news had rules. Channels had to originally air an even amount of political propaganda from one party as they did they other. You couldn't out-buy the other side. For 50 years we worked through issues like this and tried to balance fairness, reason, and free speech from hate speech, and the impact of sex and violence on children with the public's desire to have more access to sex and violence. We should have been more ready for the internet and used that knowledge to shape it collectively and work through new challenges and develop checks and balances.

In our pursuit of the ideal free and uncontrolled internet we may be creating an environment akin to the very beginnings of our species. We're better than that and fear from both extremes is necessary in order for us to find actual balance between oversight and control and overreach and manipulation. The privacy side shouts louder, has the hacking community, the terror communities, the pedophile community, organized crime, and more on their side and they want every grassroots movement related to the internet to scale back control. I'm just trying to be the guy in a room that's outnumbered asking the unpopular question of "What happens if we go too far the other way?" And it is an unpopular question to ask but I feel it needs to be asked and by more people.

What in the hell are you rambling on about? No-one in their right mind would disagree with you that crime should be enforced and that law enforcement should have the appropriate tools to deal with it. But giving the skeleton key to telecoms is not the solution to those problems and never will be.

That's not what the Net Neutrality fight is even about anyways. It's about wanting to create "digital fast lanes" for high paying customers. And the telecom's right to force people away from legitimate, LEGAL products and services, or to sell it to them for a extra fee. That's not so bad if consumers had a choice of what telecom to go with, but that's rarely the case. Corporations that are against net neutrality are doing so to make it profit. It's not about crime.

I get the sense that you work for a telecom?

Keep up with the conversation as it has evolved. We already dove into what net neutrality is really about on page 1. We're way beyond that now. I'm talking about how that very legitimate concern is being co-opted yet again by privacy fanatics in the attempts to earmark privacy-related concerns into the net neutrality agenda, and because of the money behind the net neutrality movement from the dot coms this message has been given a megaspeaker with very little counter-arguments from the other side related to privacy because the Telecoms are more concerned about fighting the primary issue you outlined and we all discussed on page 1.

Sites like this:
https://www.epic.org/privacy/netneutrality/

and plenty others are attempting to hijack net neutrality's movement and continue the pursuit of an internet existence well-suited to criminals with law enforcement on the sidelines going, "Our hands are now tied" and lawyers revealing, "We can't use any of this." Cybercriminals exploit privacy rights gained online.

Epic (among others) are actively targeting this on the backs of net neutrality:
https://www.fcc.gov/public-safety-and-homeland-security/policy-and-licensing-division/general/communications-assistance

And they and other privacy fanatics are doing it because they know net neutrality is gaining ground with consumers mostly concerned about bills because they know that consumers motivated by pocketbook issues will be motivated to push politicans to act on things that go beyond pocketbook issues. Including limiting law enforcement's ability to adapt and keep up with things predators and criminals are doing online specifically to better recruit, organize or avoid capture or prosecution.

The concern is more about where we are headed than where things are currently at but as the privacy fanatics shout louder and louder about total anonymity and how nothing should allowed to be tracked, piggybacking on top of things like this, and lobbying, our society becomes more ripe for exploit in the future. I know it's not cool or popular to talk about the other side of privacy and law enforcement online but we should really be looking at both sides and seeking balance here.

[MikeM]

Ya man, the security benefits are really worth it. Just like how the TSA was really worth it. After all, only 95% of harmful objects get through the screenings. Definitely worth it.

[Pooh_Jeter]

So if Net Neutrality is upheld suddenly the entire internet turns into the Dark Web? It exists right now and will continue to exist even if Net Neutrality ends. It's obvious the drawbacks of allowing billion dollar corporations to control data/content/speed. Not every person who wants to maintain Net Neutrality is in line with the most ardent privacy advocate. I think it's safe to assume that wanting privacy and freedom on the net doesn't mean people want to give pedophiles a pass.

[Double Helix]

Ya man, the security benefits are really worth it. Just like how the TSA was really worth it. After all, only 95% of harmful objects get through the screenings. Definitely worth it.

Sometimes the perception of law and order is enough to dissuade. Not everyone but some and if that helps reduce violence then I can live with some inconvenience. How many violent plane take-overs have there been in North America following the procedures implemented by many after 911? We've seen several thwarted attempts.

Look... I don't expect a message asking us to question how far we ultimately cower to privacy concerns and asking how those choices and will impact law enforcement and the intelligence communities to better combat challenges that didn't even exist 20 years ago is going to be an And1 type of popular message on a site with the demographics of a largely young, male Toronto Raptors message board community who uses IP blockers frequently and who may very well have reasons to hate law enforcement for issues witnessed in their lifetimes. I'm still going to present the other side of this when I can because as unpopular as it is to consider the other side... I feel like I don't hear it enough and I'd rather put it out there and be unpopular in a thread or a discussion than only hear the privacy fanatic perspective and only that.

The real net neutrality issue we discussed is pretty clean cut but I felt it was important to point out how the momentum of it (because it's clean cut) is leading to the message being co-opted by the privacy fanatics who are seeking out things that I have issues and concerns with because I think a dark web type of future should be avoided if possible where possible by giving law enforcement and the intelligence communities sufficient tools to combat any serious crime occurring within it. I'm not worried about copyright. I'm worried about actual people being hurt in really damaging ways at increased levels of frequency into the future and with fewer convictions occurring afterward due to law enforcement, the intelligence community, and the courts being unable to work together efficiently to combat developments online.

[makeready]

at the same time as this, they're cutting a program that helps low income families pay for internet access. this will ensure that those families will only to be able to access lower tiers of service in the new internet.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/360818-fcc-moves-to-limit-program-funding-internet-access-for-low-income

DH, i think you're sidestepping the obvious dimension here - this isn't primarily about security vs privacy, it's about access to resources and public space.

[Pooh_Jeter]

Ya man, the security benefits are really worth it. Just like how the TSA was really worth it. After all, only 95% of harmful objects get through the screenings. Definitely worth it.

Sometimes the perception of law and order is enough to dissuade. Not everyone but some and if that helps reduce violence then I can live with some inconvenience. How many violent plane take-overs have there been in North America following the procedures implemented by many after 911? We've seen several thwarted attempts.

Look... I don't expect a message asking us to question how far we ultimately cower to privacy concerns and asking how those choices and will impact law enforcement and the intelligence communities to better combat challenges that didn't even exist 20 years ago is going to be an And1 type of popular message on a site with the demographics of a largely young, male Toronto Raptors message board community who uses IP blockers frequently and who may very well have reasons to hate law enforcement for issues witnessed in their lifetimes. I'm still going to present the other side of this when I can because as unpopular as it is to consider the other side... I feel like I don't hear it enough and I'd rather put it out there and be unpopular in a thread or a discussion than only hear the privacy fanatic perspective and only that.

The real net neutrality issue we discussed is pretty clean cut but I felt it was important to point out how the momentum of it (because it's clean cut) is leading to the message being co-opted by the privacy fanatics who are seeking out things that I have issues and concerns with because I think a dark web type of future should be avoided if possible where possible by giving law enforcement and the intelligence communities sufficient tools to combat any serious crime occurring within it. I'm not worried about copyright. I'm worried about actual people being hurt in really damaging ways at increased levels of frequency and with fewer convictions due to law enforcement and intelligence eventually being limited to such a degree so as to be obsolete.

And there is a counter to your counter argument.

The NSA was spying on US citizens and didn't disclose it. This was under the guise of national security, but not only did it not result in the prevention of any terrorist plots, it actually made their job more difficult. Instead of focusing on known threats and following them up suddenly you have to sift through endless amounts of material hoping to find something. Don't think we need to get into the ethics of what Snowden did and how he has been treated by the government and large portions of the public in this thread.

There is no person who advocates for Net Neutrality and wants freedom and anonymity on the internet who is cool with pedophile rings running on the net. It's a completely ridiculous argument. Law enforcement and the government have proven they will illegally collect information and spy on their citizens regardless of what laws and norms exist. Not only do you want it easier for them to control what is happening on the internet you want billion dollar corporations to exert more control? These are not benevolent forces. Time after time they have shown they are not going to use these powers in good faith.

[Double Helix]

Ya man, the security benefits are really worth it. Just like how the TSA was really worth it. After all, only 95% of harmful objects get through the screenings. Definitely worth it.

Sometimes the perception of law and order is enough to dissuade. Not everyone but some and if that helps reduce violence then I can live with some inconvenience. How many violent plane take-overs have there been in North America following the procedures implemented by many after 911? We've seen several thwarted attempts.

Look... I don't expect a message asking us to question how far we ultimately cower to privacy concerns and asking how those choices and will impact law enforcement and the intelligence communities to better combat challenges that didn't even exist 20 years ago is going to be an And1 type of popular message on a site with the demographics of a largely young, male Toronto Raptors message board community who uses IP blockers frequently and who may very well have reasons to hate law enforcement for issues witnessed in their lifetimes. I'm still going to present the other side of this when I can because as unpopular as it is to consider the other side... I feel like I don't hear it enough and I'd rather put it out there and be unpopular in a thread or a discussion than only hear the privacy fanatic perspective and only that.

The real net neutrality issue we discussed is pretty clean cut but I felt it was important to point out how the momentum of it (because it's clean cut) is leading to the message being co-opted by the privacy fanatics who are seeking out things that I have issues and concerns with because I think a dark web type of future should be avoided if possible where possible by giving law enforcement and the intelligence communities sufficient tools to combat any serious crime occurring within it. I'm not worried about copyright. I'm worried about actual people being hurt in really damaging ways at increased levels of frequency and with fewer convictions due to law enforcement and intelligence eventually being limited to such a degree so as to be obsolete.

And there is a counter to your counter argument.

The NSA was spying on US citizens and didn't disclose it. This was under the guise of national security, but not only did it not result in the prevention of any terrorist plots, it actually made their job more difficult. Instead of focusing on known threats and following them up suddenly you have to sift through endless amounts of material hoping to find something. Don't think we need to get into the ethics of what Snowden did and how he has been treated by the government and large portions of the public in this thread.

There is no person who advocates for Net Neutrality and wants freedom and anonymity on the internet who is cool with pedophile rings running on the net. It's a completely ridiculous argument. Law enforcement and the government have proven they will illegally collect information and spy on their citizens regardless of what laws and norms exist. Not only do you want it easier for them to control what is happening on the internet you want billion dollar corporations to exert more control? These are not benevolent forces. Time after time they have shown they are not going to use these powers in good faith.

Not wanting to be on the same side of a group of criminals you might despise while supporting measures that would make it easier for them sounds an awful lot like a guns rights advocate stating that they’re obviously not in favor of mass shootings but don’t support common sense changes to something they’re equally passionate about.

Law and order allowed us to build this incredible progressive society we’ve built that’s far removed from the anarchy we began with as a species.

With sufficient oversight and reviews, the need to supply a judge with enough to warrant increased surveillance and common sense laws around surveillance that strike a balance between privacy concerns and security updates to new threats I believe we can continue to use the internet as a force for good and minimize its potential as a force for serious crime. Balance is needed.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[MikeM]

I can't get on board with the thinking that "law and order" advances a society more than the freedom to communicate. Believe it or not but there will be factions of society that won't be able to afford the truth that the internet provides. They're going to get all their education from the corporately owned CBS or whatever of the new internet. That's a step back for society. A big one.

Imagine foxnews.com is free but you gotta pay $10 a month for something else. RIP America.

[Double Helix]

I can't get on board with the thinking that "law and order" advances a society more than the freedom to communicate. Believe it or not but there will be factions of society that won't be able to afford the truth that the internet provides. They're going to get all their education from the corporately owned CBS or whatever of the new internet. That's a step back for society. A big one.

Imagine foxnews.com is free but you gotta pay $10 a month for something else. RIP America.

If you doubt the concept that society starts with law and order first protecting its most vulnerable people in a centralized way from its most aggressive, abusive and violent and that everything else that’s also crucial to society that we take for granted stems from accomplishing that first then I would encourage you to visit Somalia or the Sahara and see what true libertarianism and anarchy and everyone for themselves really looks like. Added bonus for some (not you obviously): No pesky rules or government surveillance, or privacy concerns or tax. So particularly strong or especially violent individuals can probably get away with all that their cruel hearts want.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[MikeM]

Maybe Orwell's society of Oceania truly was the most advanced. The pinnacle of human society. Can't wait to get there. Just gotta ban cars, smoking, sugar, guns, boats, airplanes, knives, even toasters?

[Double Helix]

Anyway, this is the Raptors board and I like a lot of you dudes as fellow Raptors fans who disagreed with me and that’s fair. That’s how I’m hoping we ultimately find balance within society. Just getting everyone talking about all aspects of these issues and thinking big picture about real concerns and threats now and into the future.

I don’t dislike or resent any of uou for feeling the way you do about what you do and I’ll continue to remain open-minded to the biggest concerns within the privacy community. And I hope many of you feel the same way about security and surveillance and don’t dislike or resent me as a Raptors fan simply because I’ve revealed that I’m a socially progressive person that just so happens to respect the ideal concepts of law and order and has concerns about where we are headed if the dark web goes mainstream with law enforcement powerless in the future.