Obama Administration's Plans for Regulating the Internet

[vector7]

Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee

• By Sam Gustin
• November 18, 2010 |
• 2:50 pm |
• Categories: Intellectual Property, Politics

Who says Congress never gets anything done?

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the “nuclear option,” which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites “off.”

COICA is the latest effort by Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies to stem the tidal wave of internet file sharing that has upended those industries and, they claim, cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade.

The content companies have tried suing college students. They’ve tried suing internet startups. Now they want the federal government to act as their private security agents, policing the internet for suspected pirates before making them walk the digital plank.

Many people opposed to the bill agree in principle with its aims: Illegal music piracy is, well, illegal, and should be stopped. Musicians, artists and content creators should be compensated for their work. But the law’s critics do not believe that giving the federal government the right to shut down websites at will based upon a vague and arbitrary standard of evidence, even if no law-breaking has been proved, is a particularly good idea. COICA must still be approved by the full House and Senate before becoming law. A vote is unlikely before the new year.

Among the sites that could go dark if the law passes: Dropbox, RapidShare, SoundCloud, Hype Machine and any other site for which the Attorney General deems copyright infringement to be “central to the activity” of the site, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group that opposes the bill. There need not even be illegal content on a site — links alone will qualify a site for digital death. Websites at risk could also theoretically include p2pnet and pirate-party.us or any other website that advocates for peer-to-peer file sharing or rejects copyright law, according to the group.

In short, COICA would allow the federal government to censor the internet without due process.

The mechanism by which the government would do this, according to the bill, is the internet’s Domain Name System (DNS), which translates web addresses into IP addresses. The bill would give the Attorney General the power to simply obtain a court order requiring internet service providers to pull the plug on suspected websites.

Scholars, lawyers, technologists, human rights groups and public interest groups have denounced the bill. Forty-nine prominent law professors called it “dangerous.” (pdf.) The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch warned the bill could have “grave repercussions for global human rights.” (pdf.) Several dozen of the most prominent internet engineers in the country — many of whom were instrumental in the creation of the internet — said the bill will “create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation.” (pdf.) Several prominent conservative bloggers, including representatives from RedState.com, HotAir.com, The Next Right and Publius Forum, issued a call to help stop this “serious threat to the Internet.”

And Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web, said, “Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.” He added: “In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that no person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty.”

Critics of the bill object to it on a number of grounds, starting with this one: “The Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,” the 49 law professors wrote. “The Act permits the issuance of speech suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content.” (original emphasis.)

Because it is so ill-conceived and poorly written, the law professors wrote, “the Act, if enacted into law, will not survive judicial scrutiny, and will, therefore, never be used to address the problem (online copyright and trademark infringement) that it is designed to address. Its significance, therefore, is entirely symbolic — and the symbolism it presents is ugly and insidious. For the first time, the United States would be requiring Internet Service Providers to block speech because of its content.”

The law professors noted that the bill would actually undermine United States policy, enunciated forcefully by Secretary of State Clinton, which calls for global internet freedom and opposes web censorship. “Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere,” Clinton said in her landmark speech on global internet freedom earlier this year. She was referring to China. Apparently some of Mrs. Clinton’s former colleagues in the U.S. Senate approve of internet censorship in the United States.

To be fair, COICA does have some supporters in addition to sponsor Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) and his 17 co-sponsors including Schumer, Specter, Grassley, Gillibrand, Hatch, Klobuchar, Coburn, Durbin, Feinstein, Menendez and Whitehouse. Mark Corallo, who served as chief spokesperson for former Attorney General John Ashcroft and as spokesman for Karl Rove during the Valerie Plame affair, wrote Thursday on The Daily Caller: “The Internet is not at risk of being censored. But without robust protections that match technological advances making online theft easy, the creators of American products will continue to suffer.”

“Counterfeiting and online theft of intellectual property is having devastating effects on industries where millions of Americans make a living,” wrote Corallo, who now runs a Virginia-based public relations firm and freely admits that he has “represented copyright and patent-based businesses for years.” “Their futures are at risk due to Internet-based theft.”

The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, praised Leahy for his work, “to insure [sic] that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish.”

Over the course of his career, Leahy has received $885,216 from the TV, movie and music industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

[vector7]

Senate Committee Passes Bill To Give The Attorney General The Power To Shutdown Alternative

MediaPublished on 11-19-2010
- By Lee Rogers



The elites for some time now have been using the premise of copyright law to seize more control over the Internet. Legislation that would ban people from the Internet if they were caught uploading and downloading copyrighted films and music has been considered in many countries including the United Kingdom, France and New Zealand. Now, the U.S. Congress through Senate Bill 3804 or the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act is seeking to enact a copyright law that would effectively give the office of the U.S. Attorney General the ability to shutdown web sites if they suspect a particular web site might be infringing copyright law.

This bill would give the executive branch draconian authority to shutdown the alternative media that has flourished on the Internet.

Yesterday, the bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 19 to 0. It has been heavily criticized by mainstream technology web sites including Wired Magazine. Below is a blurb from an article they wrote about the bill.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the “nuclear option,” which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites “off.”

Unfortunately, this analysis by Wired Magazine is absolutely correct. In Section 2 of the bill an amendment to U.S. Code is offered dealing with Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities. In this section the definition of an Internet site that is dedicated to infringing activities is defined. One of the definitions is as follows.

Primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--

goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays;

In other words, a web site could be involved in copyright infringement even if they provide a hyperlink to copyright material. Even more ridiculous is that the material in question doesn't even need to be a complete copy. Many web sites in the alternative media provide summations or use parts of copyright material. This is acceptable under what is known as "Fair Use" but this bill would actually redefine web sites that engage in legitimate news gathering and analysis to be involved in copyright infringement.

Based upon this criteria the bill allows the U.S. Attorney General to simply obtain a court order requiring Internet Service Providers to block access to domain names that they believe are involved in copyright infringement. In other words, the U.S. Attorney General can simply order Internet Service Providers to prevent a domain name from resolving properly if they believe it is involved in copyright infringement without any sort of due process.
Even more ridiculous is that the bill describes how the U.S. Attorney General would typically manage a list of domain names involved in copyright infringement. In the bill it states as follows.

The Attorney General shall maintain a public listing of domain names that, upon information and reasonable belief, the Department of Justice determines are dedicated to infringing activities but for which the Attorney General has not filed an action under this section.

Essentially, the only criteria for a domain name being put on this list is if the U.S. Attorney General has reasonable belief that a certain web site is involved in copyright infringement. Again, there is no due process involved for a domain name to be put on this list.

The bill which is also heavily supported by high profile corporate music and film interests is simply designed to shut down free speech and in particular go after the alternative media. It has absolutely nothing to do with providing legitimate copyright protection but would aid the out dated business models used by large music and film companies. It is one of the most insanely anti-freedom and anti-free speech bills ever conceived. There are already various copyright laws on the books and the only reason why this new bill is being pushed forward is because it suits the aforementioned corporate interests and it would give the U.S. government the power to begin shutting down web sites that the establishment has a problem with.

Many prominent law professors and engineers have already gone public denouncing the bill and it is easy to see why. The U.S. Congress has historically passed many pieces of legislation that have been entirely against the premise of individual freedom. Based on this fact it looks like this bill will eventually be passed into law considering the historical precedent. If not now, it will probably be re-introduced at a future date. It is obvious that the alternative media is creating problems for the establishment and they want to have the tools to be able to shut it down.

This bill if passed into law will give them that power.

[vector7]

Homeland Security shuts down dozens of Web sites without court order

By Daniel Tencer
Friday, November 26th, 2010 -- 2:25 pm

The Homeland Security Department's customs enforcement division has gone on a Web site shutdown spree, closing down at least 76 domains this week, according to online reports.

While many of the web domains were sites that trafficked in counterfeit brand name goods, and some others linked to copyright-infringing file-sharing materials, at least one site was a Google-like search engine, causing alarm among web freedom advocates who worry the move steps over the line into censorship.

All the shut sites are now displaying a Homeland Security warning that copyright infringers can face up to five years in prison.

According to a report at TorrentFreak, the search engine that was shut down -- Torrent-Finder.com -- neither hosted copyrighted material nor directly linked to places where it could be found. Instead, the site opened new windows to sites that did link to file-sharing materials.

"When a site has no tracker, carries no torrents, lists no copyright works unless someone searches for them and responds just like Google, accusing it of infringement becomes somewhat of a minefield," writes Torrentfreak, "Unless you’re ICE Homeland Security Investigations that is."

As of its last update, Torrentfreak counted 76 domains shut down this week.

Homeland Security's ability to shut down sites without a court order evidently comes from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a Clinton-era law that allows Web sites to be closed on the basis of a copyright complaint. Critics have long assailed the DMCA for being too broad, as complainants don't need to prove copyright infringement before a site can be taken down.

News of the shutdowns has some observers wondering whether the US really needs COICA, the anti-counterfeiting bill that passed through a Senate committee with unanimous approval last week. That bill would allow the federal government to block access to Web sites that attorneys general deem to have infringed on copyright.

"Domain seizures coming under the much debated ‘censorship bill’ COICA? Who needs it?" quips Torrentfreak.

However, COICA would allow the government to block access to Web sites located anywhere in the world, while Homeland Security's take-downs are limited to servers inside the United States. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said he would place a hold on COICA, effectively killing the bill at least until the new congressional session next year.

The owner of Torrent-Finder.net complained that his search engine was shut down without so much as a court order or prior complaint.

“My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!” the owner said, without being identified in the Torrentfreak article.

Earlier this week, Homeland Security shut down a popular hip-hop music site, RapGodfathers.com, which had nearly 150,000 members. The site claims it is compliant with copyright laws, as it doesn't host copyrighted materials. However, its users posted links to file-hosting services such as Rapidshare and Megaupload, where copyrighted material may have been shared.

These domains are now "the property of Homeland Security," writes Gareth Halfacree at Thinq.co.uk, "And there's no indication that their original owners will ever be able to get them back."

[Ryan Ruck]

Wave Goodbye to Internet Freedom

December 2, 2010

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency's chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the "freedom" of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped "non-public, for internal use only" to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for "openness."

The issue of "net neutrality" is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user's connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

In some cases, heavy use of this sort slows the Web experience for everyone sharing the same lines. That has prompted some cable Internet providers to consider either charging the heavy users more or limiting access to the "problematic" services. Of course, if cinema buffs find themselves cut off from their favorite service, they're going to be mad. If companies don't act, they're just as likely to find irate customers who don't want their experience bogged down by others.

It's not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it's not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.

No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC's last attempt in this arena. "That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss," FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. "And now the team is about to run the exact same play. ... In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so."

Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That's why Mr. Genachowski's proposal should be rejected and Congress should make it even more clear that the FCC should stop trying to expand its regulatory empire.

[Backstop]

There's only one freaking reason IMO they want to do this: to stem the free flow of information.

I pretty much believe the Internet helped topple the Dems in November.

[American Patriot]

Maybe the people that actually run the internet ought to just "Shut it down" for one full day.

All the ISPs shut it off.

Boy, can you imagine the panic?

[vector7]

BREAKING: WikiLeaks Being Used to Justify "Patriot Act" Legislation For Internet

By Eric Blair
Activist Post
Contributor profile | More stories
Monday, December 06, 2010 8:50

Senator Mitch McConnell called Assange a "high-tech terrorist" on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday and said, "if it‘s found that Assange hasn’t violated the law, then the law should be changed."

Over the weekend, an insightful article by Zen Gardner exposed how Wikileaks resembles an establishment creation. The article correctly pointed out that the WikiLeaks storyline was conforming nicely to the elite's problem-reaction-solution method, with the solution of more tyranny for our safety.

WikiLeaks is being used to bring in the agenda on so many levels, but most importantly by setting the precedent of shutting down websites for politically "dangerous" content. Gardner writes:

After all, if information is now the enemy, we must carefully police any and every aspect of this dangerous medium -- all for the safety and protection of 'we the people.'

Oh, we’ll still have the Internet, just like you can still fly. You’ll just have to be on the 'approved' list, screened, stamped, zapped, mugged and molested if you want to get 'on the net.' No biggie. Thanks Julian -- job well done.

First, let's be clear, the 250,000 pages of cables amounted to some geopolitical Jerry Springer he-said-she-said nonsense to make countries look petty and stupid. They revealed nothing new that wasn't already known or well suspected. The information simply stoked existing flames by airing geopolitical dirty laundry, nothing more -- no secret weapons, no major arms deals, no tactical locations of troops, and no revealing the ID of secret agents, etc.

Yet, the government has used its corporate muscle to illegally limit access to WikiLeaks. It was recently revealed that Amazon, the server host for WikiLeaks, caved to political pressure to drop the website. Then, in dictatorial fashion, PayPal removed its service for donations to WikiLeaks, and now their bank account has been frozen. And all this comes a week after the shutdown of 80-plus websites for "copyright infringement," apparently in preparation for passing the "Blacklist" bill.

Now, Gardner's weekend speculation and McConnell's call for action has turned into political reality. The Hill reports today that Senators unveil anti-Wikileaks legislation, which seems to be a sort-of "Patriot Act" for the Internet. It's astonishing how fast these guys can write legislation when major events occur. And again, it's tyranny-saurus rex, Joe Lieberman, leading the charge with scandal-ridden Ensign (R-Nev.) and empty-suit Scott Brown (R-Mass.). Ensign was quoted:

WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.

That, we agree with. Yet, therein lies the concern for establishing new Internet rules of what can and can't be discussed, and who qualifies as a "journalist." Look, Assange is clearly either a kinda-smart "useful idiot" or a brilliant insider to the elite. He is certainly not a genuine whistleblower. Admittedly, though, for those of us who hoped he was the real thing, the elite have used some savvy tactics to boost WikiLeaks' rogue credibility in order to confuse us.

The White House has sent down a warning to government agencies to restrict employee access to WikiLeaks in order to make Assange and crew appear dangerously off limits. Apparently, this warning has already trickled down to "potential" government employees as well. It was revealed that the State Department warned Columbia University students who may apply for a Federal job:

DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter.

In other words, the Thought Police is out in full force telling job-hungry students to not apply if they discuss current events if authorities label those events dangerous or harmful to America. Soon, they'll most likely publicly fire a mid-level employee who went over the line to prove how serious they are. After all, they desperately need to keep the slaves on the plantation.

Furthermore, an Interpol arrest warrant has been issued for Julian Assange for shady rape charges, making him an internationally "wanted" man.

And Assange is playing the clever but likable villain part so well, too, claiming to have an encrypted "insurance" file in case anyone kills him or terminates the website. Assange is the perfect international man of mystery with the dark shades in press conferences; endless mainstream media interviews in his exotic accent and short temper; and his famous silver-blond locks. What a great show they're putting on for us. I'm sure the movie industry is already clamoring for the rights to the script.

In the meantime, it has become the typical political gameshow. Only in America could Cablegate become such a divide-and-conquer partisan issue. The Right have successfully defined Wikileaks as a dangerous terrorist organization and desire the assassination of its leader, while the Left defends the public's right to knowledge, but disparages the damage the documents may cause, thus setting up the obvious bipartisan compromise: tighter control and surveillance of the Internet.

It will go down like this: the Right's extreme calls for Assange's execution will give the establishment the publicly defensible compromise to at least shut down their website by way of pressuring their service providers, etc. And the wimpy Left will compromise by letting it happen, while Assange will be allowed to remain alive and free.

It fits ever so perfectly for them to extend the definition of an "enemy combatant" to a website that publishes "anti-government" material. Enter Attorney General Eric Holder, who has authorized "significant" action into the prosecution of Wikileaks. Can't you just smell the tyranny coming to the Internet?

Ron Paul said it best in his book Revolution: A Manifesto: "Truth is treason in an empire of lies." Paul reiterated this principle of transparency in a recent interview. Paul said we need more WikiLeaks if we expect to live in a free society:

'In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,' Paul insisted. 'In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble.'

Given the angry calls for action and today's developments of government proposals, not to mention the blight of Internet legislation already on the table, we will likely get the exact opposite of the free-flow of information that Paul is advocating. In fact, if history is any indicator, get ready for nothing less than the Patriot Act for the Internet!

[vector7]

Intel's Sandy Bridge processors have a remote kill switch



Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors have a new feature that the chip giant is calling Anti-Theft 3.0. The processor can be disabled even if the computer has no Internet connection or isn't even turned on, over a 3G network. With Intel anti-theft technology built into Sandy Bridge, David Allen, director of distribution sales at Intel North America, told ITBusiness that users have the option to set up their processor so that if their computer is lost or stolen, it can be shut down remotely.

For those who want to protect their computers from thieves, the ability to remotely disable them sounds great. We're not sure the CPU is the component that should be targeted though. While a given stolen netbook, laptop, or desktop can no longer be turned on if Intel's new kill switch is flipped, there's nothing stopping the thief from taking out the HDD and putting it in another computer. As a result, you've only slightly slowed the criminal down and haven't really managed to ensure your sensitive data is protected.

Furthermore, those wearing tin foil hats will want to know if users have complete control over the feature. Is it enabled by default? If not, could someone else turn it on? Can anyone but the owner of the processor disable it remotely? Those might seem like paranoid questions, but nonetheless Intel needs to guarantee that the answer to all three is a resounding no.

[vector7]

Don't Tangle The Web With Rules

Posted 12/17/2010 07:13 PM ET



FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been accused of wanting to give "the federal government control over all aspects of the Internet." AP View Enlarged Image

Internet: The U.N. is talking about regulating the Web. Meanwhile, Washington is moving toward regulating online news and information content. Though not unexpected, these are deeply disturbing developments.

The U.S. media don't seem interested in the United Nations' attempt to invade the private sector, so word that the international body "is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonize global efforts by policy makers to regulate the Internet" had to come from an Australian outlet called iTnews.

Nothing new here. The U.N. has been wanting to run the Web for years and is not letting a crisis — the WikiLeaks releases — go to waste. Following the Chicagoland model, it has plans to form an intergovernmental group that would "attempt to create global standards for policing the Internet."

The meeting delegate from Brazil, which is pushing the proposal, told iTnews that the plan isn't to take over the Web. Which is no reassurance at all. Whenever an elected official or bureaucrat says a program won't cost much or the regulation being considered won't be a burden, history teaches us to expect the exact opposite.

This big idea is coming only a few months after the Internet Governance Forum, a group that consults with the U.N., met in Vilnius, Lithuania. Its goal: to save the Internet with an international treaty that would include net neutrality.

While we ponder the condition of the Internet in the clutches of the U.N. or some other inter-government group, we recall that America's own Federal Communications Commission is days away — Dec. 21 — from voting on net neutrality, a policy in which the government dictates how Internet service providers handle the traffic that flows over their infrastructure.

This policy, as we've said before, would institute a dangerous system that would violate free speech and property rights.

While the FCC schemes from its office just off the D.C. waterfront, anger is rising on Capitol Hill. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan who is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, says FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's net neutrality gives "the federal government control over all aspects of the Internet."


Listen to the Podcast
All IBDeditorials Podcasts

Rogers complains that Tuesday's vote is poorly timed and gives "Congress and the public little time to review a regulation that will ultimately impact one-sixth of the nation's economy."

Rep. Fred Upton, another Michigan Republican and the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has written a letter to the FCC asking it "to cease and desist" in its effort to regulate the Web, which it "does not have authority" to do.

[vector7]

DECEMBER 19, 2010
The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom

'Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand.

That sounds good if you say it fast.



Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.

In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.

Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation.

Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.

After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.

More on Technology

• Your Apps Are Watching You
• Holiday Help: People vs. Robots

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.

Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission

[vector7]

EXCLUSIVE: FCC Dems Narrowing Net Neutrality Gaps

By David Hatch
December 19, 2010 | 6:04 PM

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is making progress in narrowing gaps with his two Democratic colleagues over his controversial plan to adopt sweeping new rules for the Internet, National Journal has learned. But with the talks very fluid, and differences remaining, there's still a possibility that the regulatory initiative could be pulled at the last minute from the agenda of Tuesday's commission meeting.

Genachowski needs the support of Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn to approve his "network neutrality" proposal, which would create enforceable rules designed to protect the openness that is the Internet's hallmark. While both Copps and Clyburn are net neutrality advocates, they've complained that the chairman's framework cuts too many breaks for major telecommunications and cable providers of broadband. The two Republicans on the five-member commission remain staunchly opposed, arguing that the proposed rules amount to unnecessary government regulation of the Internet.

An FCC source familiar with the negotiations said progress is being made in three key areas: addressing concerns about wireless carriers, limiting Internet toll lanes and adding protections for a new online pricing model.

Responding to the complaint that the proposal, announced Dec. 1, would not bar discriminatory blocking of rival applications and services by wireless carriers. Genachowski appears willing to have the FCC monitor the situation over the next two years. Critics have noted that the proposed rules are more stringent for wireline carriers, even though Americans are rapidly gravitating to mobile connectivity.

Wireless carriers have endorsed (albeit grudgingly) the net neutrality plan, offering Genachowski critical industry support that can help dampen congressional criticism. They insist they need maximum flexibility in operating their networks due to capacity constraints, and won't block competitors.

If clear violations emerge, the agency would promulgate new protections down the road, the source said. Genachowski's side has argued during closed-door negotiations that since the wireless market is still developing, tougher rules shouldn't be applied now. Despite the progress, the source said the fate of the net neutrality proposal hinges on details to be ironed out over wireless service.

The FCC chairman also appears willing to limit the creation of toll lanes on the Internet for companies willing to pay for faster transmissions -- a structure known as "paid prioritization." As a result, the agency might specify scenarios under which such lanes would be barred because of concern about harm to consumers or competition. The chairman originally green lighted these arrangements in his announcement, raising worries that entities unable or unwilling to pay for priority treatment would be relegated to slow lanes.

Regarding a new form of Internet pricing that would charge customers based on the bandwidth they use, the chairman also may be ready to give some ground. Usage or metered pricing is allowable now, but most broadband providers have been hesitant to offer it because heavy Internet users would be slapped with higher fees -- a result that could draw brickbats from Washington. Genachowski, who endorsed the model as part of his net neutrality announcement, now appears receptive to placing some limits on it. For example, the FCC would prohibit a broadband provider from imposing exorbitant metered pricing fees on Netflix customers if the goal is to prompt them to switch to its less costly video service.

[vector7]

Chavez defends plan for Internet regulations

The Associated Press
Sunday, December 19, 2010; 4:10 PM



CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez defended plans for a law that would impose broadcast-type regulations on the Internet, saying Sunday that his government should protect citizens against online crimes.

Chavez's congressional allies are considering extending the "Social Responsibility Law" for broadcast media to the Internet, banning messages that "disrespect public authorities," "incite or promote hatred" or crimes, or are aimed at creating "anxiety" in the population.

Government opponents and press freedom groups have been critical of the plan, saying it is one of several measures being considered that could restrict freedoms in Venezuela.

"We aren't eliminating the Internet here ... nor censoring the Internet," Chavez said during his weekly television and radio program, "Hello, President." "What we're doing is protecting ourselves against crimes, cybercrimes, through a law."

As examples, Chavez mentioned messages promoting drug use, prostitution and other crimes, and said his government has an obligation to take a stand. Questions remain about how the measures would be enforced.

Chavez also rebuffed criticism over the National Assembly's vote on Friday granting him special powers to enact laws by decree in a range of areas for the next year and a half.

Critics called it a power grab, noting that Chavez will be able to largely bypass the incoming National Assembly that takes office next month with a larger opposition contingent.

"They're calling me a dictator?" Chavez said, dismissing the criticism.

"They're the dictators, those who are crazy for installing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie once again in Venezuela - but we'll never again allow them."

[American Patriot]

Chavez's congressional allies are considering extending the "Social Responsibility Law" for broadcast media to the Internet, banning messages that "disrespect public authorities," "incite or promote hatred" or crimes, or are aimed at creating "anxiety" in the population.

A damned lot of people want the same thing in the United States

[vector7]

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Big Brother tightens choke hold on Internet
U.N., FCC intensify efforts to regulate electronic speech

---

Posted: December 19, 2010
9:12 pm Eastern

---

WorldNetDaily



The United Nations is now joining the Obama administration and Democratic commissioners on the FCC in an attempt to regulate the Internet, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

"The U.N. is reacting to concerns of member governments, including the United States, that the Internet has made companies like WikiLeaks possible, while the FCC is more concerned about conservative news outlets on the Internet that are increasingly undermining government attempts to control the news through sympathetic mainstream media outlets," Corsi wrote.

"What is at stake is the future of electronic free-speech rights, as governments around the world realize how much less control government authorities have with a robust and critical press able to operate freely on the Internet."

Australia's ItNews.com reported that the U.N. is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to "harmonize" global efforts by policymakers to regulate the Internet.

The U.N. claims authority to regulate the Internet under a U.N. Economic and Social Council resolution passed in July that invited the U.N. secretary-general to begin discussions on coordinating government efforts to regulate the Internet on a global basis.

"Obviously, the U.N. is uncomfortable with anything like the Internet that the globalists cannot control," Corsi wrote.

Meanwhile, the FCC is preparing in its Dec. 21 meeting this week to vote on a proposal called "net neutrality."

[vector7]

FCC Approves Plan to Regulate Internet

Published December 21, 2010
| FoxNews.com


AP
In this March 12 photo, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is interviewed at his office in Washington.

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved a plan to regulate the Internet despite warnings that it could strangle industry investment and damage an economy that is still struggling to recover.

The 3-2 vote fell along partisan lines with Democrats capitalizing on their numerical advantage.

The rules would prohibit phone and cable companies from abusing their control over broadband connections to discriminate against rival content or services, such as Internet phone calls or online video, or play favorites with Web traffic.

Lawmakers in both parties have been arguing for months that Congress, not the Obama administration, should take the lead role in deciding whether and how much to police the web. But despite a brief backing-off earlier in the year, the FCC pushed ahead with its new regulatory plan.

President Obama said in a statement that the plan "will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech."

Related Links

A Coup By the FCC

"This decision is an important component of our overall strategy to advance American innovation, economic growth, and job creation," he said.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski secured the three votes needed for approval, despite firm opposition from the two Republicans on the five-member commission.

Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee, said the FCC's plan "appears to some as an obsessive quest to regulate at all costs."

"Some are saying that instead of acting as a cop on the beat, the FCC looks more like a regulatory vigilante," he said.

Genachowski's two fellow Democrats voted for the rules, even though they have said they consider them too weak.

Commissioner Michael Copps said Tuesday that he "seriously" considered voting against the plan.

"But it became ever more clear to me that without some action today the wheels of network neutrality would grind to a screeching halt for at least the next two years," he said.

The outcome caps a nearly 16-month push by Genachowski to pass "network neutrality" rules and marks a key turning point in a policy dispute that began more than five years ago.

Genachowski said he's proud of the process and the results, saying that the plan has drawn a wide range of support from technology and Internet companies to investors to labor, civil rights and consumer groups.

"Our framework has been supported by a number of broadband providers, as well, who recognize the sensible balance of our actions and the value of bringing a level of certainty to this broad issue," he said.

But the move raises concern that the FCC could soon have its regulatory foot in the door of the wild wild West of the Internet -- with an eye toward eventually exerting tighter control over content at a time when sites like WikiLeaks openly snub the government.

Republicans warn that the new rules would impose unnecessary regulations on an industry that is one of the few bright spots in the current economy, with phone and cable companies spending billions to upgrade their networks for broadband.

Burdensome net neutrality rules, they warn, would discourage broadband providers from continuing those upgrades by making it difficult for them to earn a healthy return on their investments.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told President Obama on Tuesday to leave the Internet alone, arguing that his administration has already nationalized health care, banks and student loans.

"That's why I and GOP senators have urged the FCC chairman to back off," he said on the Senate floor.

Sen. John Cornyn, whose amendment to prevent the FCC from regulating the Internet was blocked from a vote last week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said he was "disappointed" by the FCC's vote.

"Clearly, the Obama administration did not hear the clarion call from Americans in November that stated that they did not want more government regulations and restrictions, like those imposed through the new health care law," he said in a written statement. "Instead of trying to encourage our economic recovery, this administration has become a shackle to innovation and growth in America."

Republicans, who will control the House and an additional five seats in the Senate in the next Congress, may try to overrule the regulation. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can strike down a regulation by passing a joint resolution.

A number of big Internet companies, including Netflix Inc., Skype and Amazon.com Inc., have previously expressed reservations about the plan as well.

But the FCC defended the new rules.

"We adopted today a strong and balanced order that has widespread support and that focuses on the importance of Internet freedom, the importance of private investment, the importance of business model experimentation," Genachowski said at a news conference after the vote. "That's why we have so many different people from various parts of the ecosystem supporting it. It's a strong and balanced order. And I'm looking forward to talking with anyone who is interested."

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a longtime supporter of net neutrality and author of the first ever net neutrality bill, said the FCC plan is not perfect and does not contain all the protections and priorities that he has advocated.

"Still, it does represent a step forward in the process of preserving the Internet as a vibrant marketplace for commerce and communications while fostering innovation and job creation now and in the future," he said in a statement.

The chairman's proposal builds on an attempt at compromise crafted by outgoing House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., as well as a set of broad net neutrality principles first established by the FCC under the previous administration in 2005.

The rules would require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks -- including online calling services, Internet video and other Web applications that compete with their core businesses.

But the plan would give broadband providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic like spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.

Senior FCC officials stressed that unreasonable network discrimination would be prohibited.

They also noted that this category would most likely include services that favor traffic from the broadband providers themselves or traffic from business partners that can pay for priority. That language was added to help ease the concerns of Genachowski's two fellow Democrats.

The proposal would, however, leave the door open for broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services such as smart grids and home security systems over dedicated networks as long as these services are separate from the public Internet.

Public interest groups fear that exception could lead to a two-tiered Internet -- with a fast lane for companies that can pay for priority and a slow lane for everyone else.

They are also worried that the proposal lacks strong protections for wireless networks as more Americans go online using mobile devices.
The plan would prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices. It would require them to disclose their network management practices too.

But wireless companies would get more flexibility to manage data traffic as wireless systems have more bandwidth constraints than wired networks.

"We are concerned that if these companies are allowed to block the applications consumers can access over their iPhones or BlackBerry devices, there's nothing to keep them from censoring political speech," said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause. "The commission should look to ensure that net neutrality is fully extended to the wireless world."

Still, Genachowski's proposal is likely to win the support of the big phone and cable companies because it leaves in place the FCC's current regulatory framework for broadband, which treats broadband as a lightly regulated "information service."

[vector7]

Breaking: FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules

By Brent Lang
Published: December 21, 2010 @ 10:05 am
Print this page



Facing fierce criticism on both sides of the political aisle, the Federal Communications Commission passed new rules on Tuesday aimed at keeping the internet open and free.

The five member commission voted along strict party lines, with the three Democratic members endorsing the net neutrality guidelines and two Republican commissioners dissenting.

The new rules prevent cable providers from limiting broadband access to rival content, online video or other forms of internet traffic.

The FCC will impose fines and bring injunctions against offenders.

"Today, for the first time, we are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said during the hearing. "These rules will increase certainty in the marketplace; spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks, and contribute to a 21st century job-creation engine in the United States."

It also represented a rare chance for Genachowski to flex the FCC's muscles after being criticized for largely remaining on the fence during the cable industry's carriage fights and other debates.

President Barack Obama hailed the commission's vote as a key step forward in making good on his pledge to protect net neutrality.

"Today’s decision will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech," President Obama said in a statement. "As technology and the market continue to evolve at a rapid pace, my Administration will remain vigilant and see to it that innovation is allowed to flourish, that consumers are protected from abuse, and that the democratic spirit of the Internet remains intact."

Though Genachowski’s rules were approved, it could be a rough road to implementation. They will still face opposition from Republican members of Congress and a likely court challenge.

Particularly damaging to the FCC's rule-making abilities was a U.S. Court of Appeals decision last summer that said the commission -- which can regulate broadcast TV and telephone landlines -- has never been given authority to regulate the internet.

Republicans in congress argue that the House and Senate are the ones who should draft net neutrality rules, and there are already several competing pieces of legislation making their way through both chambers. With a power shift in Washington, the debate over who has the authority to govern the internet will continue to rage in the months ahead, even if a federal court does not strike down the FCC's new regulations.

The stakes are high, and the FCC's approach to the problem has been widely divisive. The FCC has been in a year-long fight to ensure that broadband providers do not discriminate against legal internet traffic or impose steep fees for premium service -- a move that companies like Comcast have flirted with levying on Netflix content.

But Tuesday's vote by the FCC left many unhappy.

Liberals have charged that the FCC's actions don't go far enough, while conservatives complain that the order will impose new regulations that will strangle innovation.

[American Patriot]

The Net was already free and open.

Now it will be fucked up.

[vector7]

Feds Propose Universal Internet “Driver’s License”

Jan 10, 2011 | 5:37 PM ET | By Paul Wagenseil, SecurityNewsDaily Managing Editor

It could be the best idea for the Internet in years – or a privacy nightmare.

On Friday, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and White House Cybersecurity czar Howard Schmidt ventured into the heart of Silicon Valley to announce plans for what some Web wags are already calling a “National Internet ID” but which proponents liken to an “online driver’s license.”

Ads by GoogleDallas Passport Office24hrs US Passport, Renewal, Photos Open On Weekends Call:214-696-6697www.AApassports.com

"We are not talking about a national ID card," Locke said at a conference hosted by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research in Palo Alto, Calif., according to CNET. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

Details of how the “driver’s license” would work are scarce, but a working paper issued last year suggested that private online retailers would offer customers an account they could use for multiple, or even all, vendors, eliminating the need to remember numerous usernames and passwords.

Schmidt, speaking at the Palo Alto event, denied that such an ID would be mandatory.

"I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to," he said, adding he doubted that "a centralized database will emerge," and that "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this."

The program is part of something called the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, or NSTIC, which, according to Bloomberg News, has the backing of such tech titans as Verizon, Google, PayPal, Symantec and AT&T.

What’s interesting is that the Commerce Department is handling this initiative, rather than the Department of Homeland Security, which originally hosted NSTIC, or the Pentagon’s National Security Agency.

Commerce has overseen the civilian Internet since the early days, and continues to take a remarkably hands-off approach for a federal agency governing such a big part of our daily lives.

That cheered some civil libertarians, including the American Civil Liberties Union’s Jay Stanley.

“If the concept were implemented in a perfect way it would be very good,” he told Bloomberg News. “It’s a convenience. But having a single point of failure may not be good for protecting privacy. The devil’s really in the details.”

John Clippinger of Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society took a rosy view of the proposal.

“This is going to cause a huge shift in consumer use of the Internet,” he told Bloomberg News. “There’s going to be a huge bump and a huge increase in the amount and kind of data retailers are going to have.”
Still, it’s not the first time someone’s tried to set up such an “Internet passport.”

Chroniclers of failed Microsoft initiatives will remember Microsoft Passport, which tried to do this more than 10 years ago but failed to catch on. Its descendant is Windows Live ID, which works mostly on Microsoft-owned sites such as Hotmail and Xbox Live.

Similarly, Google’s ID works across the Google universe, but not outside it. A newer initiative called OpenID claims to have the backing of Google, Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo!, among others, but it’s not widely known.

Facebook’s been a bit more successful with its Facebook Connect program, started in 2008. Many blogs and news sites, including this one, now let commenters log in with their Facebook IDs, which have to be verified with users’ real names.

• Staying Safe on Facebook: How to Lock Down Your Page
• Security and Privacy Software Reviews
• 2010’s Top 5 Social Network Foul-ups

[vector7]

Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans

Published January 08, 2011
| FoxNews.com


AP

Jan. 7: President Obama talks about the latest reports showing a decline in the unemployment rate as he highlights his economic policies in a speech on the factory floor of the Thompson Creek Window Company in Landover, Md.

President Obama is putting plans in motion to give the Commerce Department authority to create an Internet ID for all Americans, a White House official told CNET.com.

White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt told the website it is "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet.

The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace is currently being drafted by the Obama administration and will be released by the president in a few months.

"We are not talking about a national ID card. We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said at an event Friday at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, according to CNET.com.

Locke added that the Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project.

The move has raised eyebrows about privacy issues.

"The government cannot create that identity infrastructure," Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology told the website. "If I tried to, I wouldn't be trusted."

Schmidt stresses that anonymity will remain on the Internet, saying there's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge."

Click here for more on this story from CNET.com.

[vector7]

Obama Plans Internet ID "Ecosystem"



President Obama has given the U.S. Commerce Department authority to create a national cybersecurity "ecosystem" that will include a unique Internet ID for Americans.

At a forum with Silicon Valley business and academic leaders at Stanford University, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard A. Schmidt announced the broad outline of the plan. And don't worry, this is not some Orwellian conspiracy to put an end Internet anonymity—at least, that's what the Government says. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke explains:

Data breaches, malware, ID theft and spam are just some of the most commonly known invasions of a user’s privacy and security. People are worried about their personal information going out, and parents are worried about unwanted explicit material coming in to their children. And the landscape is getting more complex as dedicated hackers undertake persistent, targeted attacks and develop ever-more sophisticated frauds. The end game, of course, is to create an Identity Ecosystem where individuals and organizations can complete online transactions with greater confidence. . . putting greater trust in the online identities of each other. . . and greater trust in the infrastructure that the transactions run across. Let’s be clear. We are not talking about a national ID card. We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities.

What exactly this "Identity Ecosystem" will look like is still TMD; a forthcoming "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" will provide greater details sometime in the next few months. But the stated goal is to enslave Internet users in Obama's Tron-esque cyberspace basketball camps "enable an Identity Ecosystem where Internet users can use strong, interoperable credentials from public and private service providers to authenticate themselves online for various transactions." It looks like it will be optional.

Cnet news reports that the announcement "effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates, including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil-liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies."