OT: Net Neutrality maybe in Jeopardy

[TorontoRapsFan]

Considering everything said in this thread, the greatest issue I see with what is replacing net neutrality is a legal framework for private censorship of content online. This is not a matter of privacy or security. This is about setting precedent for legal censorship in a democratic society. It adds to the long list of Fd up precedents that US has been setting for the 'free world', such as pre emptive strikes, non war labeled acts of war, imprisonment of enemy combatants, private ownership of personal digital content (gmail), and private right to use data regarding individual's (anonymous or not) behaviours and demographics without consent.

[Raps in 4]

I think there is a lot of misinformation and chicken little posts here.

Let's clear one thing, this was set for the first time by Obama in 2015 in his quest to have government control everything.
At the time it was a big cry against government control.
FCC does what is supposed to do and reason why Trump was elected, to get government to back off and leave things they were they have been from beginning.

that simple.

Obama expressly endorsed net neutrality and classifying internet access as a utility and put pressure on his appointee Wheeler to create regulations that defend that principle, that now Trump appointee Pai is trying to rescind... but blame Obama?

Obama was a communist. The reincarnation of Joseph Stalin. Donald Trump is a modern day Mother Teresa. He's undoing Obama's evil.

[bballsparkin]

I can absolutely understand how my views would be more concerning in nations with weaker democracies than ours and I see America as a particularly flawed democracy to be honest.

However, I faith that the Canadian democratic process has enough media, checks and balances and an appetite for oversight and for non-confidence votes if any major issues were noted, reported and outraged the public.

I'm not sure if I should puke, laugh, or ask to meet your drug dealer?

[Tofubeque]

I'll be interested to see how this plays out. If Americans need a sign that their elected officials don't work for them, this is it. Net neutrality enjoys massive, bipartisan support, from people of all walks of life, and the public's position on it has been clarified several times in the past few years already. But politicians aren't accountable to them, they're accountable to their business donors. And the FCC led by Pai, a lawyer for Verizon, is even further removed from accountability because they're not directly elected.

Even if this measure is shot down, it'll be inexplicably on the table again in a year or so. It doesn't matter how many times we rally around 'save the internet' movements, and it doesn't matter that the people of America don't want it. The telecom board members of America do want it, and they're the ones who pay the reelection bills.

I'm a good ol' Canadian commie so I think this is the natural, logical conclusion of what capitalism has to offer, and 1 of many reasons why it needs to go. But even if you don't buy that, just look at the Citizens United decision. I don't see how average Americans can ever have their interests represented, as long as that precedent is followed. They need election reform in the worst way. Congress has something like a 20% approval rating.

[bballsparkin]

Does anyone else see Double Helix post 8 paragraphs and just skim on past?

[TorontoRapsFan]

I can absolutely understand how my views would be more concerning in nations with weaker democracies than ours and I see America as a particularly flawed democracy to be honest.

However, I faith that the Canadian democratic process has enough media, checks and balances and an appetite for oversight and for non-confidence votes if any major issues were noted, reported and outraged the public.

I'm not sure if I should puke, laugh, or ask to meet your drug dealer?

Care to explain?

[Raps in 4]

I can absolutely understand how my views would be more concerning in nations with weaker democracies than ours and I see America as a particularly flawed democracy to be honest.

However, I faith that the Canadian democratic process has enough media, checks and balances and an appetite for oversight and for non-confidence votes if any major issues were noted, reported and outraged the public.

I'm not sure if I should puke, laugh, or ask to meet your drug dealer?

The US is a weak democracy. They only have two parties (both of them right leaning) and their politics are heavily influences by lobby groups.

[andyhop]

That’s because one of the earlier precedents in Canada involved exactly what I stated.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/report-on-business/net-neutrality-crtc-bans-bell-from-subsidizing-data-usage-for-mobile-tv-app/article22696253/

Bell tried to offer NHL Center ice and other video streaming apps that Bell had investments in for free to their subscribers with none of the data on those apps counting toward their customers data plans. It was something they wanted to do to obviously to gain a competitive edge and is one of the first notable such cases in Canada that I could recall.

Would never have occurred to me that this would be a problem given it is standard here in Australia to provide content to subscribers in this way, with both content that the company has an interest in and third party content being provided in this way.

[Pooh_Jeter]

I know this is veering more off-topic than it already has been, but regarding increased surveillance...

First off, I think where DH has found the most opposition is his belief that we have the proper checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of these powers and I think it has been proven false even in "strong democracies." Look at the scope of illegal surveillance that occurs in Europe as well.

The issue I see is that while in theory increased surveillance does have its benefits, it is a completely reactionary tool. Despite DH's assertions you really aren't preventing crime, you are just in a position to potentially have more information about it. Now, that isn't a bad thing, but I would hope preventing the crime from actually occurring in the first place would be a more pressing matter.

This is where DH gets labelled as a right winger/conservative, etc. etc. Far too often their approach is more cops, more extreme punishment, more surveillance, etc. I think the progressive approach is addressing the underlying socio-economic issues at play. That isn't to say that the crimes themselves shouldn't be a priority or that there shouldn't be a discussion of whether more tools are needed for law enforcement, but from my own personal experience with people from this background there isn't a balance. The response to a rash of crime is always more boots on the street and tougher penalties and it simply doesn't work. I'm from the Vancouver area and there has been a rash of gang violence for years and that approach has done nothing to stem the tide. There have been two high profile cases of mentally deranged individuals committing murders in my town the last 2 years and instead of actually providing more resources and support for mental health, addiction issues and homelessness it instead gets appropriated for a few more cops to be hired.

I don't mean to paint DH in a corner again, but I don't see the balance in your argument regarding law and order. I think you can firmly believe in a more progressive approach to crime and still believe that law enforcement needs to be proactive in dealing with the threats that new technology has brought. In this thread its felt far too much like the talking points of an out of touch conservative than someone with socially progressive leanings. Trying to create a boogeyman that doesn't exist and then providing a solution that doesn't properly address the problem.

Whether you're dealing with net neutrality and the internet, privacy concerns or the needs of law enforcement it's way better to be malleable in your beliefs rather than sticking with the norms of the past.

[OAKLEY_2]

You have to wonder how a body of government can keep pushing for this when the public have made it clear where they stand on the matter. At what point do you wonder why they are pushing for something the people do not want?

Very few people know what net neutrality is. Trump also told them that net neutrality is bad because it's a product of government regulation, and government regulation is bad because it's "socialist".

Well when they have nothing to say of substance, bad gov and the "S" word dumb down nicely on more than a few people.

[Double Helix]

I know this is veering more off-topic than it already has been, but regarding increased surveillance...

First off, I think where DH has found the most opposition is his belief that we have the proper checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of these powers and I think it has been proven false even in "strong democracies." Look at the scope of illegal surveillance that occurs in Europe as well.

The issue I see is that while in theory increased surveillance does have its benefits, it is a completely reactionary tool. Despite DH's assertions you really aren't preventing crime, you are just in a position to potentially have more information about it. Now, that isn't a bad thing, but I would hope preventing the crime from actually occurring in the first place would be a more pressing matter.

This is where DH gets labelled as a right winger/conservative, etc. etc. Far too often their approach is more cops, more extreme punishment, more surveillance, etc. I think the progressive approach is addressing the underlying socio-economic issues at play. That isn't to say that the crimes themselves shouldn't be a priority or that there shouldn't be a discussion of whether more tools are needed for law enforcement, but from my own personal experience with people from this background there isn't a balance. The response to a rash of crime is always more boots on the street and tougher penalties and it simply doesn't work. I'm from the Vancouver area and there has been a rash of gang violence for years and that approach has done nothing to stem the tide. There have been two high profile cases of mentally deranged individuals committing murders in my town the last 2 years and instead of actually providing more resources and support for mental health, addiction issues and homelessness it instead gets appropriated for a few more cops to be hired.

I don't mean to paint DH in a corner again, but I don't see the balance in your argument regarding law and order. I think you can firmly believe in a more progressive approach to crime and still believe that law enforcement needs to be proactive in dealing with the threats that new technology has brought. In this thread its felt far too much like the talking points of an out of touch conservative than someone with socially progressive leanings. Trying to create a boogeyman that doesn't exist and then providing a solution that doesn't properly address the problem.

Whether you're dealing with net neutrality and the internet, privacy concerns or the needs of law enforcement it's way better to be malleable in your beliefs rather than sticking with the norms of the past.

In an earlier response on page 5 of this thread to similar allegations I said this:

Spoiler:

Privacy concerns versus big government/law enforcement isn't really even a Right/Left issue. The Tea Party and Right Wing Libertarians want tiny government and loathe the idea of common sense gun law changes or law enforcement being able to utilize surveillance online for suspects.

And for the record I'm socially progressive and about as anti-Breitbart or Alt Right as they come. I voted for David Miller. I voted for the NDP MP in my area when Jack Layton was leader of the party. I voted for the liberal MP when Justin Trudeau was leader of the Liberal party. I loathe Donald Trump, the Tea Party, and find myself disagreeing with probably 99% of the things that are common among Right Wing thinkers and proponents.

However, I am more concerned about security and law and order than just about every other young-ish socialist I've ever met. I've often felt out on an island for my feelings on these issues. It's also not like it's an area where I side with Conservatives either. I'm not in support of just building a bunch of more prisons. I am in support of progressive ideas aimed at investing in youth and playgrounds and rec centres as a way to help kids find better paths. I don't think being reactionary and being short-sided is a good solution to most problems in this area. I think being progressive and thinking long-term about issues from multiple angles often is. I like ideas on security and law and order that I've heard from all sides of the political spectrum. It's why I was actually pleased that the Trudeau Liberals supported Bill C51 and committed to amending it and improving some of the biggest privacy concerns with it. Support of that concept cost him a lot of NDP votes and a lot of youth votes but I agreed with the general concept that doing nothing to update for new developments related to terror online was insufficient and that keeping the bill exactly as the Conservatives crafted it was dangerous too. I liked that they sought out expert opinion and better defined peaceful protest and ensured oversight on CSIS and that judges would need to give approval for surveillance operations. However, I also liked that CSIS had the ability to be agile and react and monitor suspects and we've already seen some situations in Canada where that allowed them to be in a better position to react to terrorists before or as they intended to act.

If that doesn’t tell you that I’m also with you on many of the things you just wrote (but not necessarily all of them) then I’m not sure what else would.

[Double Helix]

I’m really going to try and ignore this topic after posting this because I don’t have a lot of time today. However, I think it’s important to share that my earlier comparisons to guns rights advocates and privacy advocacy wasn’t just some rude remark I tossed in there out of the blue. There are parallels between the two that may be difficult for the privacy rights advocate to see from their perspective. This is a big part of the reason why I have never seen assessment of crime or the protection of society from it as a truly right or left issue. I firmly believe you can be a Lefty who worries about violent crime and who can reach across the aisle and partner up with a conservative on an idea related to crime if it’s a good one.

The parallels that I see between those opposed to better combating 21st century crime with 21st century tech updates because they’re clinging to privacy rights envisioned before the internet and why I see those opposed to common sense gun law changes because they cling to guns rights envisioned a long time ago is basically this. People who want common sense gun laws:

1) By doing so are more in favor and trust of the democracy we’ve built and the government control we have, and the various checks and balances of that structure, than we are in favor of the concerns of the guns rights advocate’s passion for gun laws as they exist and any criminals who feel similarly alongside them.

2) Are in favor of making a change to update for increased threats that didn’t exist when the original definitions for the right were given. The updates to new and more powerful weaponry might even be less of a true disruption to the status quo than what the internet was to communication in general.

3) Are willing to compromise and sacrifice slightly on a personal freedom in order to help build a safer society for others.

4) Are clearly not on the side of the people exploiting the right for crime or to cause pain to others because of their willingness to sacrifice aspects of their own personal freedom to a gun or to total privacy in the hopes of creating a safer society for others.

5) Are witnessing trends and changes in criminal behavior that’s allowing them to do more harm and be stopped less. This leads them to believe things will only get worse in the years and decades ahead if some change isn’t allowed. They want to get ahead of the slide in society not only because of where things are but where they will continue to head.

6) Growing up in Canada and not being able to walk around with guns from birth up has made what’s possible in the states seem outrageous to us because we have lived good lives without many of us carrying guns where we go. We are proof that sacrificing a little on our rights to guns made us safer than them. If we had grown up in an country that had better anticipated the impact of the internet the way it had similar communications tools we’d feel similar.

I look at each of those 6 points and I can draw a clear parallel between the common sense gun law changes and a common sense supporter of making use of new technology and surveillance to better combat criminals who are making use or technology.

By contrast, the most ardent and rigid of privacy fanatics that I’ve spoken with truly remind me of gun rights fanatics because of these parallels:

1) Extreme fear of collapse of all democratic pillars and checks and balances and of a government take over where the compromise offered was abused in a manner that makes life become a dystopian sci-fi movie. In the case of guns rights advocates it’s that the military enslaves the people. In the case of the privacy rights advocate it’s a 1984 existence where all of us would be jailed for our thoughts. The gun rights advocate and the privacy rights advocate both use fear of a distant dystopian future to combat the fear of present day issues.

2) A belief that government should shrink and have less power. Less power to enact laws to protect the most vulnerable from the worst criminals and predators among us because of a belief that this won’t happen to me or anyone I know. In the case of the guns rights advocate they believe they have the firepower to stop crime themselves. The privacy rights advocate believes they won’t fall victim to crime by sheer odds and that’s good enough for them. In both cases it’s more about the individual and those closest to them directly and less about the people who will be impacted.

3) The guns rights advocate and the privacy rights advocate both often utilize fear hyperbole that hasn’t actually been tabled by proponents of the other side. In the gun rights advocate’s case “Background checks and other common sense adjustments = “They’re stealing our guns!” In the privacy rights advocate’s case “Collection of data that could be shared by companies with law enforcement to prosecute criminals and court ordered surveillance on persons of interest and suspects” = “They’re going to be spying on all of us and monitoring all of our thoughts!”

4) The coalition and organization of the groups pushing back on data collection and surveillance of any kind (with sufficient oversight and court order documentation) and the coalition and organization of the gun lobby are powerful and vocal. There’s not really an organized common sense gun law coalition equivalent. People are afraid to organize against them or make a strong case for a possible reduction of mass shootings if some small changes were made. It’s just a polling topic. We are still in the infancy of security updates related to technology so the organization and loudness of people in favor of some technology updates to better combat serious crimes has been around even less. Both sides vastly outnumbered on the megaphone by the other and only really getting a chance to explore their concepts in the media when something happens that reminds that an update of some kind may be needed.


5) An apathetic belief that crime isn’t too bad in the present, and that the innovation in weapons technology or internet technology to do more is overstated and that the changes suggested won’t help save any lives.

6) The gun rights advocate has grown up around a life where gun laws were always allowed and believe that they’re necessary now to stop the government if need be. The privacy rights advocate in Canada would of course feel similar because we didn’t foresee problems related to the internet and didn’t seek to give law enforcement an updated tool set at that time. If we had we would be living similarly (just as we have without guns) and not feared an update so much.


So, that can be a big difference of opinion obviously and each side feels the way they do for their own reasons. I’m absolutely outnumbered in my belief at present so I don’t think anyone that’s super concerned about government or law enforcement privacy issues has much to worry about for another decade or two when these issues and challenges for law enforcement start becoming more apparent with non-guilty votes in high profile cases and online groups who met online, plotted online, messaged exclusively, and carried out heinous acts on innocent Canadians for reasons other than terror as a group are eventually brought to justice far too late and the details of their online organization come to light in the press. The internet brings like-minded people together and we have yet to see what really happens beyond terror recruitment when all of the pedophiles and rapists and child abductors and killers (and to a less severe extent fraudsters) decide to combine their efforts the way the internet has brought countless other groups together. If we want to keep up to date we are going to need to ensure law enforcement is given an increased set of tools that go beyond gun and badge and photographer and undercover operation because crime will continue to evolve. Just as weapons will. We trust our institutions enough in so many other ways. Not only with the data they already have but with our lives. This study on cameras, which is not really the focus of this thread or post, is pretty interesting and balanced. Similar to any debate though every study that points one way or another is the one most trumpeted by the proponents.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[OAKLEY_2]

I'll be interested to see how this plays out. If Americans need a sign that their elected officials don't work for them, this is it. Net neutrality enjoys massive, bipartisan support, from people of all walks of life, and the public's position on it has been clarified several times in the past few years already. But politicians aren't accountable to them, they're accountable to their business donors. And the FCC led by Pai, a lawyer for Verizon, is even further removed from accountability because they're not directly elected.

Even if this measure is shot down, it'll be inexplicably on the table again in a year or so. It doesn't matter how many times we rally around 'save the internet' movements, and it doesn't matter that the people of America don't want it. The telecom board members of America do want it, and they're the ones who pay the reelection bills.

I'm a good ol' Canadian commie so I think this is the natural, logical conclusion of what capitalism has to offer, and 1 of many reasons why it needs to go. But even if you don't buy that, just look at the Citizens United decision. I don't see how average Americans can ever have their interests represented, as long as that precedent is followed. They need election reform in the worst way. Congress has something like a 20% approval rating.

I totally agree with you. When Jimmy Carter calls America an Oligarchy you know you are not alone in the basement with the tin foil head gear. The mega rich in America don't want to be wealthy they want all the wealth because as resources dwindle they can no longer steal public equity with royalty scams. They must then go after the bank accounts of the lessers and the ungrateful by whatever means necessary. The wealth must flow upward as is the Overlords view of their "free market". By the time the Sheeple figure it all out they will be face to face with the owner class' robot army and they will be deemed "insurgents" who have gone awry with their tragically misguided belief system.

[GSK]

Net Neutrality is just about taking away government regulation over the internet and transferring it to the private or "free market". The fact is there would be no internet without government and there would be no free market without government. The free market doesn't exist out in the wild beyond the reach of civilization. Competition in the wild is a contest for survival in which the largest and strongest typically win. Civilization, by contrast, is defined by rules, rules creates markets and government creates the rules. Those arguing for a free or private market and less government intervention are really arguing for a different government, often one that specifically favours their own interests. Deregulation can be more appropriately described as reregulation. It doesn't mean less rules just a different set of rules created by the largest players in the market to further increase their market share and give them the leverage they need to increase consumer prices.

[bballsparkin]

I can absolutely understand how my views would be more concerning in nations with weaker democracies than ours and I see America as a particularly flawed democracy to be honest.

However, I faith that the Canadian democratic process has enough media, checks and balances and an appetite for oversight and for non-confidence votes if any major issues were noted, reported and outraged the public.

I'm not sure if I should puke, laugh, or ask to meet your drug dealer?

Care to explain?

I do not share his faith. Rogers, Bell etc are no doubt meddlers in our democratic process when it comes to these things. Just reading the deals people get overseas for better service stresses this. And we seem to follow suit with whatever the US does. Just a little later.

But I never even heard of Net Neutrality before reading this thread so what do I know.

[lobosloboslobos]

Spoiler:

I’m really going to try and ignore this topic after posting this because I don’t have a lot of time today. However, I think it’s important to share that my earlier comparisons to guns rights advocates and privacy advocacy wasn’t just some rude remark I tossed in there out of the blue. There are parallels between the two that may be difficult for the privacy rights advocate to see from their perspective. This is a big part of the reason why I have never seen assessment of crime or the protection of society from it as a truly right or left issue. I firmly believe you can be a Lefty who worries about violent crime and who can reach across the aisle and partner up with a conservative on an idea related to crime if it’s a good one.

The parallels that I see between those opposed to better combating 21st century crime with 21st century tech updates because they’re clinging to privacy rights envisioned before the internet and why I see those opposed to common sense gun law changes because they cling to guns rights envisioned a long time ago is basically this. People who want common sense gun laws:

1) By doing so are more in favor and trust of the democracy we’ve built and the government control we have, and the various checks and balances of that structure, than we are in favor of the concerns of the guns rights advocate’s passion for gun laws as they exist and any criminals who feel similarly alongside them.

2) Are in favor of making a change to update for increased threats that didn’t exist when the original definitions for the right were given. The updates to new and more powerful weaponry might even be less of a true disruption to the status quo than what the internet was to communication in general.

3) Are willing to compromise and sacrifice slightly on a personal freedom in order to help build a safer society for others.

4) Are clearly not on the side of the people exploiting the right for crime or to cause pain to others because of their willingness to sacrifice aspects of their own personal freedom to a gun or to total privacy in the hopes of creating a safer society for others.

5) Are witnessing trends and changes in criminal behavior that’s allowing them to do more harm and be stopped less. This leads them to believe things will only get worse in the years and decades ahead if some change isn’t allowed. They want to get ahead of the slide in society not only because of where things are but where they will continue to head.

6) Growing up in Canada and not being able to walk around with guns from birth up has made what’s possible in the states seem outrageous to us because we have lived good lives without many of us carrying guns where we go. We are proof that sacrificing a little on our rights to guns made us safer than them. If we had grown up in an country that had better anticipated the impact of the internet the way it had similar communications tools we’d feel similar.

I look at each of those 6 points and I can draw a clear parallel between the common sense gun law changes and a common sense supporter of making use of new technology and surveillance to better combat criminals who are making use or technology.

By contrast, the most ardent and rigid of privacy fanatics that I’ve spoken with truly remind me of gun rights fanatics because of these parallels:

1) Extreme fear of collapse of all democratic pillars and checks and balances and of a government take over where the compromise offered was abused in a manner that makes life become a dystopian sci-fi movie. In the case of guns rights advocates it’s that the military enslaves the people. In the case of the privacy rights advocate it’s a 1984 existence where all of us would be jailed for our thoughts. The gun rights advocate and the privacy rights advocate both use fear of a distant dystopian future to combat the fear of present day issues.

2) A belief that government should shrink and have less power. Less power to enact laws to protect the most vulnerable from the worst criminals and predators among us because of a belief that this won’t happen to me or anyone I know. In the case of the guns rights advocate they believe they have the firepower to stop crime themselves. The privacy rights advocate believes they won’t fall victim to crime by sheer odds and that’s good enough for them. In both cases it’s more about the individual and those closest to them directly and less about the people who will be impacted.

3) The guns rights advocate and the privacy rights advocate both often utilize fear hyperbole that hasn’t actually been tabled by proponents of the other side. In the gun rights advocate’s case “Background checks and other common sense adjustments = “They’re stealing our guns!” In the privacy rights advocate’s case “Collection of data that could be shared by companies with law enforcement to prosecute criminals and court ordered surveillance on persons of interest and suspects” = “They’re going to be spying on all of us and monitoring all of our thoughts!”

4) The coalition and organization of the groups pushing back on data collection and surveillance of any kind (with sufficient oversight and court order documentation) and the coalition and organization of the gun lobby are powerful and vocal. There’s not really an organized common sense gun law coalition equivalent. People are afraid to organize against them or make a strong case for a possible reduction of mass shootings if some small changes were made. It’s just a polling topic. We are still in the infancy of security updates related to technology so the organization and loudness of people in favor of some technology updates to better combat serious crimes has been around even less. Both sides vastly outnumbered on the megaphone by the other and only really getting a chance to explore their concepts in the media when something happens that reminds that an update of some kind may be needed.


5) An apathetic belief that crime isn’t too bad in the present, and that the innovation in weapons technology or internet technology to do more is overstated and that the changes suggested won’t help save any lives.

6) The gun rights advocate has grown up around a life where gun laws were always allowed and believe that they’re necessary now to stop the government if need be. The privacy rights advocate in Canada would of course feel similar because we didn’t foresee problems related to the internet and didn’t seek to give law enforcement an updated tool set at that time. If we had we would be living similarly (just as we have without guns) and not feared an update so much.


So, that can be a big difference of opinion obviously and each side feels the way they do for their own reasons. I’m absolutely outnumbered in my belief at present so I don’t think anyone that’s super concerned about government or law enforcement privacy issues has much to worry about for another decade or two when these issues and challenges for law enforcement start becoming more apparent with non-guilty votes in high profile cases and online groups who met online, plotted online, messaged exclusively, and carried out heinous acts on innocent Canadians for reasons other than terror as a group are eventually brought to justice far too late and the details of their online organization come to light in the press. The internet brings like-minded people together and we have yet to see what really happens beyond terror recruitment when all of the pedophiles and rapists and child abductors and killers (and to a less severe extent fraudsters) decide to combine their efforts the way the internet has brought countless other groups together. If we want to keep up to date we are going to need to ensure law enforcement is given an increased set of tools that go beyond gun and badge and photographer and undercover operation because crime will continue to evolve. Just as weapons will. We trust our institutions enough in so many other ways. Not only with the data they already have but with our lives. This study on cameras, which is not really the focus of this thread or post, is pretty interesting and balanced. Similar to any debate though every study that points one way or another is the one most trumpeted by the proponents.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

if i thought that at this point any one was reading or believing your illogical extremism I would break down in detail the mountain of logical fallacies you have built up in your latest fake news essay. But since it is clear that not one single person in this entire thread shares ANY of the same concerns as you and that you are completely isolated in your stubborn and mistaken equation of net neutrality with protecting criminals, I won't bother.

I will however point out that you are now clearly implying that everyone in this thread who believes in the importance of net neutrality is "on the side of the people exploiting the right for crime or to cause pain to others" and comparing us to the psychos in the NRA. (Point 4 above) Just thought people should know this.

Is there a useful and necessary conversation to be had about crime enforcement/prevention and technology? Of course. And since you are so desperate to have it, I encourage you to do it, just not in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with that topic. Because in all your thousands and thousands of words of protestation, you have never offered ONE IOTA of evidence or even ANY logical rationale for your argument that sacrificing net neutrality will somehow decrease crime. It's a red herring, for which you're more than willing to sacrifice everyone else's rights and freedoms, while explicitly defending the rights of the big ISPs to gouge us, refusing to acknowledge the vast public record of political and police abuse of authority and deceit that justifies suspicion about handing over precious personal tracking information, and comparing the 76% of citizens who support net neutrality to 'fanatics' like the pro-assault weapon NRA. It's a twisted performance no matter how well meaning you believe it to be.

[pegcity]

You have to be pretty deluded to think that the giant power structures globally care about "predators" on the internet and not controlling the single biggest medium for expression for among other reasons, commerce.

I understand it fully. I'm pointing out the one aspect of this that's been undersold to the public, which is that the movement is largely a consortium of billion dollar tech companies fighting over the competitive advantage of a smaller consortium of trillion dollar tech companies, and sold to the public as you versus them with a lot of fear mongering.

In a truly free tech market, particularly one where things will move more and more away from the costly start-up infrastructure of wired home connections and more to satellites, air and towers, new providers would beat the status quo with superior offerings. If the issue is price fixing then investigate and improve that. If the issue is that there's not enough providers then issue new licenses and implement new restrictions on mergers and acquisitions.

The problem I have with the gigantic eraser that the net neutrality community wants to wield on all of the internet is that in order to appease the Facebooks and Twitters of the world governments will create rules that will inadvertently create sweeping changes that will invite a new wave of net-driven crime impossible for future law enforcement agencies and intelligence communities to keep up with. They'll be neutered in the future if the pendulum swings too far the other way. You're scared about rising internet costs? What about sweeping changes worked into the fine print that make it harder to catch, monitor, or police against a growing movement of pedophiles who meet through the internet and decide to work together as organized crime, hiring lawyers well-versed in these new net neutrality laws who claim the evidence gathered against them is not admissible as a result of net neutrality issues that lead to it being obtained in the first place. Imagine a future society where terror groups are airing their beheadings and rapes and tortures livestreamed or on ads and internet service providers aren't allowed to block that because of net neutrality that went too far the other way. Imagine a murder of someone you care about fully plotted out online and the internet service provider being unable to access that potential evidence in any way, or make it available to police because of some sweeping net neutrality laws.

There's been plenty said about trivial fears related to rising costs and our ability to watch TV shows but what about real, life-changing harm that could be headed our way if in our pursuit of a totally free internet we simply empower predators of all kind to organize and systematically target in ways we currently can't imagine, all the while making it harder than ever before to convict. People are going to exist more and more online. We need more restrictions and policing similar to that which exists in the real world to protect the most vulnerable among us. Not a Wild West "Screw it! Anything goes! Let the strongest among us survive!" approach. That's what I see heading our way if the pendulum on privacy swings too far the other way and that's a far more justifiable fear for the future of society than anything closely related to big brother or 1984. I'm more scared of the people who'd seek to hurt us through any number of acts gaining a massive advantage in recruitment, organization, propaganda, and in combatting legal action against them then I am of Canada becoming China. I have faith in our democratic pillars and our ability to fight possible over-reach if it happens when it happens. I don't have faith that the worst among us in society have made use of the internet to enact pain anywhere near what they'll be able to do in future years so I think it's very important that we do not swing the pendulum too far the other way and completely neuter our ability to police serious crime and evidence online. The day the first organized pedophile crime ring years from now has their lawyer successfully argue in front of the victims' parents that the evidence against them is inadmissible because it violated their clients privacy rights under sweeping net neutrality laws is a day I hope never occurs.

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.

The thing is that these groups you listed already use encrypted traffic to transfer this data through VPN and or other encrypted tunnels so unless they are planning to remove this from the internet(not likely happening due to this is what most corporate networks and remote workers interconnect securely). Most of it is using IPsec or SSL/TLS with high bit encryption rates and as long as they are routing through "safe" locations this communication will continue on. Net Neutrality will only lead to censoring of ideals that do not match those of the corporations that control the networks. Removal Net Neutrality also will not close the Dark/Deep web which is all vpn, proxy and ip based encrypted traffic which is also where all of what you talked about(child exploitation, organized crime, terror communications and any other illegal activity you can think of).

[elmer_yuck]

No one cares about net neutrality.

[Fairview4Life]

Everyone always argues about things they don't care about.

[OAKLEY_2]

One of the serious issues only lightly touched on here except for some references to the state of democratic discourse in America, is how net "control" vs. "neutrality" affects smaller operators of sources of information that are not controlled by commercial conglomerates like Comcast or Time Warner. To the congloms their biggest worry is their bottom line when they provide the avenue for information and people out there then provide popular free content. "Free" isn't conglomerates are about and neither is cheap. They do not even care about their content. They care about what makes them consistent boatloads of money. So the worry in some journalist circles IS censorship, omissions of fact, important information, critique or dissent. The same forces that pushed a whistle blower to seek asylum in Russia also would have the ability to control information they find inconvenient. In other words as the NSA spies on average citizens it would also be able to bring pressure to bear on large commercial enterprises who they would be more than cosy with. Who controls cell use and who is watching cell use. When Julian Assange, love him or hate him, released sensitive cables sent his way, the NSA put enormous pressure on PayPal and Amazon so Wikileaks could not be funded by donors through those channels. The public didn't have time to debate who was in the right or who was in the wrong as Central Intelligence Big Brother brought influence to bear on two high profile private companies without going through the courts. Not having to use due process was the biggest take away of abuse of power and the silencing of democracy in action for dubious and unproven security claims. Debate on the issue was hostile with some calling for people to be shockingly assassinated.

In the future with the press under greater lockdown with net control citizens will find it hard to debate issues as important info is redacted and removed from the public discussion. This becomes an information dictatorship.

https://www.freepress.net/work