OT: Net Neutrality maybe in Jeopardy

[Double Helix]

As I said before, I said my piece and I’m pretty much done on the topic.

I support net neutrality. Just about everyone seems to because it’s logical. I just find it funny how so many seem to think of it as David vs Goliath when the consortium of wealthy companies in support of it is absolutely massive in lobbying power and total influence.

I should have anticipated that transitioning from net neutrality to privacy issues would confuse some but my point was just that I’m concerned that politicians and the regulatory bodies are going to earmark in a ton of privacy-related loopholes on the backs of this because privacy fanatics are pushing them to do so while addressing this and that they’ll overreach into privacy regulation so far the other way that criminals will be able to exploit and fall back on new rules created on the backs of the worthwhile pursuit of net neutrality.

Far too often have I seen movements like this on both sides of the political spectrum gain tremendous momentum in the public to the point where there’s almost a consensus that something needs to be done and then seen it be co-opted by other special interests and agendas and end up earmarked in far reaching rules or in far-reaching de-regulation that share minor overlaps with the primary issue. This is often done because people see it as an opportunity to pass additional legislation they’ve been lobbied to pass or themselves are personally in favor of and because they know the political environment will make it harder for people to vote it all down as a result of the public’s perception of the issue and people not wanting to be perceived as being against it. This happens often in popular bills or movements and it’s something I wanted to highlight and make people aware of and keep an eye out for as a result because it’s in those details where things can sometimes swing the other way.

There’s a more vocal and active contingent of people closer to the “let’s make the internet as close to the dark net as we can!” camp than there are in the “What can be done and how can it be done to ensure it doesn’t become that and what can be done to update the tools law enforcement have to allow them to better gather admissible evidence on suspects, and prosecute the most dangerous, fraudulent, violent predators and terrorists who currently do much of their plotting and organizing and fraud online and will continue to make use of those tools in new ways?” It’s not cool to talk about the latter but I wanted to based on what I said above and have done so. Now I’m done.

Please carry on with Net Neutrality in general. I’ve said my piece.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[OAKLEY_2]

If laws in America are changed because media congloms lobbied for them and they end up affecting us, then we are screwed because America will have an imperial position of authority over international communications. Communications that make us more open societies. Communications that allow for real innovation. Controlling the internet in any way sets a dangerous precedent for anti trust market domination by "private" interests. Like a lot of things the internet should be a public domain just like utilities should 100 per cent of the time no exceptions. Rome-America will always fight this.

[whoknows]

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.

[Fairview4Life]

Let's get one thing clear:

Proceeds to post a bunch of nonsense.

Just support one team no matter what, and everything is simple.

[lobosloboslobos]

I should have anticipated that transitioning from net neutrality to privacy issues would confuse some but my point was just that I’m concerned that politicians and the regulatory bodies are going to earmark in a ton of privacy-related loopholes on the backs of this because privacy fanatics are pushing them to do so while addressing this and that they’ll overreach into privacy regulation so far the other way that criminals will be able to exploit and fall back on new rules created on the backs of the worthwhile pursuit of net neutrality.

Sorry DH but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. "Privacy fanatics"? What the hell are those? Are you out of your mind? Do you realize that the internet has enabled the almost total destruction of the very concept of privacy as it has been known for hundreds of years? Did you not notice Edward Snowden sharing DOZENS of illegal surveillance programs run by governments that involve domestic and external spying, the collection of YOUR metatata through backdoors built into the most widely used platforms in the world??? Do you believe that people who are calling the for the retention of even the smallest slice of privacy rights - like the kind that would prevent the police from unilaterally searching and reading and viewing every email or voice call or text you have ever made without notifying you (something being advocated for in the USA now and quite possibly going to be made into law because of nutbars like you) are "privacy fanatics"????? What sort of alt-right loony bin are you spending time in? Well, hello Agent Smith!

Do you think that privacy rights protect pedophiles and online criminals working the dark web? What? Are you kidding? Do you think they care in the slightest about those supposed protections or feel in any way bound or affected by them? What are you saying?

You want to fight online predators and pedophiles? Fine, every single person here is with you. But your invention of 'privacy fanatics' and insistence that they are a threat that we must respond to by locking up every freedom is exactly the same BS that is used to demonize the handful of antifa protesters or Black Lives Matter and justify even more state suppression and intimidation. Your arguments are either intentionally misleading and shameful or merely ignorant and seriously in need of some research from elsewhere than the Breitbart echo chamber.

If you didn't come on so strong I wouldn't respond so strongly, but man, whether you know it or not you're spouting some genuinely dangerous ideas in these volatile times.

[I_Like_Dirt]

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.

If you really want law and order and are worried about security, why not argue for nationalizing the internet and increase the ability of police to access/use the internet? The dark web isn't going away any time soon. You aren't actually arguing for a solution to the problem you are suggesting.

Here's the thing, theoretically, you could have a system to eliminate most crime and punish it all if all of us constantly be monitored in every way possible at all times. But there are problems with that extreme. For one, our legal system is largely tied to finances, meaning the ability to spend your way out of crimes will largely maintain your status quo while those who don't are going to be the ones hit. And yes, less crime is generally better, but where do you cross the line? Some things society agrees on, but other things they really don't. You're going to have inconsistent rules and enforcement thanks to those differences.

Moreover, there is simply no way to police absolutely everything. I get that you aren't arguing trying to police everything, but it's very difficult to separate things on the internet like that. This is going to move increasingly towards AI control, and AI surveilling everyone isn't necessarily a direction I'm comfortable in heading. Yeah, it could happen either way, and I'm taking the argument farther, but there are massive dangers here and putting decisions in corporate hands out for profits as the first priority rather than safety is a dangerous game.

You are literally arguing for increased policing, and I get that. The catch here is that the internet isn't actually going to become more policed by net neutrality. Just take a look at countries that control their internet. Do you really feel it's stopping crimes in those countries? A free internet actually allows us to become more aware of crimes at times. Throttling content and increasing consumer costs is a way to make for a less informed public which doesn't generally go hand in hand with democracies making wiser choices overall.

There are other options besides eliminating net neutrality if you want to attempt to increase policing of pedophiles or human traffickers or whatever. You can strengthen the abilities of police forces to tackle those issues without destroying net neutrality. You're acting like they're mutually exclusive and they really aren't.

[duppyy]

I should have anticipated that transitioning from net neutrality to privacy issues would confuse some but my point was just that I’m concerned that politicians and the regulatory bodies are going to earmark in a ton of privacy-related loopholes on the backs of this because privacy fanatics are pushing them to do so while addressing this and that they’ll overreach into privacy regulation so far the other way that criminals will be able to exploit and fall back on new rules created on the backs of the worthwhile pursuit of net neutrality.

Sorry DH but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. "Privacy fanatics"? What the hell are those? Are you out of your mind? Do you realize that the internet has enabled the almost total destruction of the very concept of privacy as it has been known for hundreds of years? Did you not notice Edward Snowden sharing DOZENS of illegal surveillance programs run by governments that involve domestic and external spying, the collection of YOUR metatata through backdoors built into the most widely used platforms in the world??? Do you believe that people who are calling the for the retention of even the smallest slice of privacy rights - like the kind that would prevent the police from unilaterally searching and reading and viewing every email or voice call or text you have ever made without notifying you (something being advocated for in the USA now and quite possibly going to be made into law because of nutbars like you) are "privacy fanatics"????? What sort of alt-right loony bin are you spending time in? Well, hello Agent Smith!

Do you think that privacy rights protect pedophiles and online criminals working the dark web? What? Are you kidding? Do you think they care in the slightest about those supposed protections or feel in any way bound or affected by them? What are you saying?

You want to fight online predators and pedophiles? Fine, every single person here is with you. But your invention of 'privacy fanatics' and insistence that they are a threat that we must respond to by locking up every freedom is exactly the same BS that is used to demonize the handful of antifa protesters or Black Lives Matter and justify even more state suppression and intimidation. Your arguments are either intentionally misleading and shameful or merely ignorant and seriously in need of some research from elsewhere than the Breitbart echo chamber.

If you didn't come on so strong I wouldn't respond so strongly, but man, whether you know it or not you're spouting some genuinely dangerous ideas in these volatile times.

He's an FCC shill.

[Badonkadonk]

This really isn't what net neutrality is largely about to be honest. Net neutrality is more about the telecom companies who own the internet infrastructure making use of the foresight they had in investing into the internet infrastructure decades ago by exerting control over third party companies and doing things like allowing video from their own platforms not to count at all against data plans as a way to entice new consumers. This idea and others like it outrages the companies who would be faced to compete against that now and into the future.

This is completely disingenuous. The telecom companies did not have foresight, they had inertia and barriers to entry. While they invested in infrastructure, they did not create the internet.

Eliminating net neutrality protects the interests of the big cable/telecom companies at the expense of the consumer. Plain and simple.

I can only assume you work for Rogers or Bell. I guess we all work for somebody.

[lobosloboslobos]

This really isn't what net neutrality is largely about to be honest. Net neutrality is more about the telecom companies who own the internet infrastructure making use of the foresight they had in investing into the internet infrastructure decades ago by exerting control over third party companies and doing things like allowing video from their own platforms not to count at all against data plans as a way to entice new consumers. This idea and others like it outrages the companies who would be faced to compete against that now and into the future.

This is completely disingenuous. The telecom companies did not have foresight, they had inertia and barriers to entry. While they invested in infrastructure, they did not create the internet.

Eliminating net neutrality protects the interests of the big cable/telecom companies at the expense of the consumer. Plain and simple.

I can only assume you work for Rogers or Bell. I guess we all work for somebody.

exactly!

though I might add:

Eliminating net neutrality protects the interests of the big cable/telecom companies at the expense of the consumer and of democracy. Plain and simple.

[Double Helix]

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.

If you really want law and order and are worried about security, why not argue for nationalizing the internet and increase the ability of police to access/use the internet? The dark web isn't going away any time soon. You aren't actually arguing for a solution to the problem you are suggesting.

Here's the thing, theoretically, you could have a system to eliminate most crime and punish it all if all of us constantly be monitored in every way possible at all times. But there are problems with that extreme. For one, our legal system is largely tied to finances, meaning the ability to spend your way out of crimes will largely maintain your status quo while those who don't are going to be the ones hit. And yes, less crime is generally better, but where do you cross the line? Some things society agrees on, but other things they really don't. You're going to have inconsistent rules and enforcement thanks to those differences.

Moreover, there is simply no way to police absolutely everything. I get that you aren't arguing trying to police everything, but it's very difficult to separate things on the internet like that. This is going to move increasingly towards AI control, and AI surveilling everyone isn't necessarily a direction I'm comfortable in heading. Yeah, it could happen either way, and I'm taking the argument farther, but there are massive dangers here and putting decisions in corporate hands out for profits as the first priority rather than safety is a dangerous game.

You are literally arguing for increased policing, and I get that. The catch here is that the internet isn't actually going to become more policed by net neutrality. Just take a look at countries that control their internet. Do you really feel it's stopping crimes in those countries? A free internet actually allows us to become more aware of crimes at times. Throttling content and increasing consumer costs is a way to make for a less informed public which doesn't generally go hand in hand with democracies making wiser choices overall.

There are other options besides eliminating net neutrality if you want to attempt to increase policing of pedophiles or human traffickers or whatever. You can strengthen the abilities of police forces to tackle those issues without destroying net neutrality. You're acting like they're mutually exclusive and they really aren't.

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.

I'd support more Dundas Square-style eye in the sky cameras in Toronto at more major landmarks, public spaces, and heavily congested intersections to better protect children and women by dissuading would be predators and to give the police more ability to track license plates in hit and runs or in violent robberies. This type of surveillance terrifies some but with sufficient oversight and trust in the rest of our democratic process I'm not opposed to it at all. I'm more concerned with the worst among us hurting people we care about then I am of some crazy police state escaping the supreme court, or some Orwellian Canadian Government somehow using surveillance to enslave us like some sci-fi movie. Honestly, the biggest fear-mongering on these topics typically isn't what's actually happening online but rather what we see in Sci-Fi movies. It seems more irrational to me to worry about all of our democratic pillars collapsing and us becoming North Korea here than to worry about heinous acts that are already occurring more easily because the internet is essentially the Wild West and how much worse and more frequent those kinds of acts could become if we, as a society, aren't willing to let a little bit of privacy concern go in order to allow lawful updates to intelligence communities and law enforcement so that they can better do their jobs. It's not unlike us all sacrificing a little more of our time and privacy at an air port via all of the checks we go through to better ensure our own safety on the plane.

[Fairview4Life]

Start digging up my man.

[Double Helix]

And again... for like the 3rd time now... I'm in support of net neutrality!

Nobody needs to convince me of its merits. I'm aware of them. I was simply pointing out the money and influence of the so called grass roots movement and the situation in Canada where a telecom tried to supply superior service to consumers by offering free data on video products they had investments in which was shot down because of net neutrality. That's not a made up story. That happened in the country we live in.

I've already shared why I went off course and moved the conversation more into other areas of discussion. It's because others are doing the same thing with regard to Net Neutrality. The larger conversation is moving beyond it as a concept and into other issues. I've had these discussions in other places both offline and online so I naturally expected the conversation to move there and pre-preemptively shared my take on privacy versus surveillance because I know it's not super common among young liberal people and because I think it's a consideration other young liberal people should at least give some thought to. I shared my opinions on those things. I shared that I expected I'd be outnumbered for these beliefs on a basketball message board that skews young and repeated several times now that I'm basically done with the conversation because I'm not sure what else I can really say that I haven't already. I support net neutrality. I'm probably more concerned with violent crime than many people are. I'd be okay with more surveillance if a sufficient balance could be found, including more high quality cameras up on street lights in Toronto. Despite these feelings I support a socially progressive agenda elsewhere and feel like privacy fanatics truly do remind me of gun rights fanatics at times.

[Double Helix]

Can we move back to actual net neutrality topic more specifically now and away from the clearly controversial concerns I have on law and order in the 21st and 22nd centuries and the need for some form of surveillance in the future?

[King of Canada]

If this comes to pass it'll be interesting to see how the market adapts. I don't think it'll be how the big guys think it will.

[OAKLEY_2]

This really isn't what net neutrality is largely about to be honest. Net neutrality is more about the telecom companies who own the internet infrastructure making use of the foresight they had in investing into the internet infrastructure decades ago by exerting control over third party companies and doing things like allowing video from their own platforms not to count at all against data plans as a way to entice new consumers. This idea and others like it outrages the companies who would be faced to compete against that now and into the future.

This is completely disingenuous. The telecom companies did not have foresight, they had inertia and barriers to entry. While they invested in infrastructure, they did not create the internet.

Eliminating net neutrality protects the interests of the big cable/telecom companies at the expense of the consumer. Plain and simple.

I can only assume you work for Rogers or Bell. I guess we all work for somebody.

Comcast is looking to avoid more Netflix. Customers? Oh yeah them. Their accounts are debited monthy. Need better quarterly results? Just find a way to add more fees. Works for banks.

[OAKLEY_2]

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

He is certainly done with word count.

[OAKLEY_2]

I already quit Cable, if the powers to be want to screw around more and mess up the accessibility of contents on the net, then I will quit the internet too. Please don't **** around with the internet! We like it as it is.

And "they" didn't like that so now they are coming for your internet.

[Patman]

If this comes to pass it'll be interesting to see how the market adapts. I don't think it'll be how the big guys think it will.

This. Are we the only two not worried by this? The conglomerates like Bell and Robbers will probably charge for popular content, but there's nothing stopping smaller ISP's from not charging anything extra for content. I'm with Bell, but if they start charging a per diem for Netflix and such, I'll simply switch to a competitor.

[whoknows]

If this comes to pass it'll be interesting to see how the market adapts. I don't think it'll be how the big guys think it will.

The same they did before 2015, when it was forced by Obama and now it is removed.

No real news here!

[Fairview4Life]

If this comes to pass it'll be interesting to see how the market adapts. I don't think it'll be how the big guys think it will.

This. Are we the only two not worried by this? The conglomerates like Bell and Robbers will probably charge for popular content, but there's nothing stopping smaller ISP's from not charging anything extra for content. I'm with Bell, but if they start charging a per diem for Netflix and such, I'll simply switch to a competitor.

There is very little broadband competition in Canada, relatively speaking.