http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/01/verizon-and-google-draft-net-neutrality-peace-treaty.ars

Amidst all the rancor that we’ve seen during the last few weeks over the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed net neutrality rules comes a joint filing by Verizon and Google that asks a refreshing question. What do the antagonists have in common regarding this vexing problem?

“Because our businesses rely on each other, it is appropriate for us to jointly discuss a number of things,” wrote Alan Davidson of Google and Thomas Tauke of Verizon on Thursday, such as “how we ensure that consumers get the information, products and services they want online; encourage investment in advanced networks; and ensure the openness of the web around the world.” And so they’ve come up with a set of broad principles and the outline of a voluntary industry-wide system for handling network management disputes, with government intervention included only in the most dire cases—a set of “overarching values that create a framework to guide players throughout the Internet space.”

Google/Verizon say that the Internet should function as an “open platform.” That means, to them, that “when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message,” they write. The ‘Net should operate as a place where no “central authority” can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to “innovate without permission.”

Consumers, the statement continues, should enjoy control over all parts of their experience of the Internet. “No entity from either the government or the private sector should wrest control from consumers over how they choose to use the Internet, and the government should not implement policies that would limit consumers’ ability to choose for themselves,” Verizon and Google explain. And providers should offer maximum transparency to consumers, giving them “clear and meaningful information” regarding the services they buy and receive.

But here is where they screw up:

But Google and Verizon acknowledge that there needs to be a “backstop role” for the government to step in “if or when bad actors emerge anywhere in the Internet space, and we do agree that involvement should occur only where necessary on a case-by-case base basis.” In those instances, intervention should be “surgical, swift and based on a finding of specific facts that establish such harm.”

Anyone else notice the blatantly contradictory statements that there should be no central authority yet the government should be the central authority?

There is *NO* need for government, period. The market, even in its currently distorted mode, is more capable of dealing with issues that may arise than some government bureaucracy. Ideally these companies would be calling for complete government withdrawal from the field thereby empowering consumers and entrepreneurs. But this is better than full government intervention.

http://arstechnica.com/…

Federal Communications Commission Chair Julius Genachowski told a Washington, DC newspaper on Tuesday that he’s going to defend consumers on the ‘Net, come what may. “One thing I would say so that there is no confusion out there is that this FCC will support net neutrality and will enforce any violation of net neutrality principles,” Genachowski pledged in an interview with The Hill.

And that would include keeping the Internet “free of increased user fees based on heavy Web traffic and slow downloads,” in the words of the two reporters with whom he spoke.

How about getting the government out of the business of monopolizing means of media distribution and then leaving regulation to the market place? Allowing individuals to utilize their property as they deem appropriate? If AT&T wants to discriminate payment levels based on content… let them compete against those who don’t and let the best service win.

http://arstechnica.com/…

Jesus said that the poor would always be with us—but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to bring them broadband. A coalition of Christian churches and the Islamic Society of North America has launched a new campaign to bring broadband to everyone in the US so that “our poorest communities, our rural areas, our public libraries, our public schools, and community centers” benefit from the communications revolution that the Internet hath wrought.

The “Bring Betty Broadband” campaign casts the broadband debate in moral terms. It’s about the “right to disseminate and receive information,” it’s a “right that helps to define ourselves as human beings and political actors,” and it’s absolutely essential for everyone in a modern society.

In addition, in the modern economy, just distribution of access to communication and information is essential to promote economic justice,” says the group. “Increasingly in the United States, the fundamental right to communicate is meaningless without high speed Internet access.”

The joint effort is part of a media reform project called “So We Might See,” and it’s spearheaded by the United Church of Christ. It has also been endorsed by the National Council of Churches, the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, the United Methodists, the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), the Lutherans (ELCA), and the Islamic Society of North America.

The groups all believe that the government has a role to play in this process, especially with more than $7 billion in broadband stimulus money on the table. “For too long,” they say, “the process of reaching out and educating traditionally disenfranchised communities has been left to volunteer efforts and the philanthropic community alone. Increasing access doesn’t just assist the people who are helped, we all benefit. Just as the value of a telephone increases when we can reach more people by using it, the value of the Internet for all of us increases when we are all connected.”

But, recognizing that many people without broadband don’t currently see its utility, the coalition asks the government “to promote digital inclusion initiatives to stimulate broadband demand and ensure that all US residents have access to the digital skills and equipment necessary to take advantage of the Internet’s enormous potential benefits. For example, establishment of local and national digital inclusion councils could work with other agencies and programs to promote digital inclusion principles in the fulfillment of their missions. Media literacy curriculum for secondary schools should be established, along with technology literacy and digital media production.”

Churchs promoting theft and redistribution of wealth. Fun. It would seem to me the moral question here is whether it’s moral and socially legitimate to steal from Peter to give to Paul. I’d say no… as I’d suspect our Christian anarchist friends would too.

Someone in the comments of the article accused libertarians and freedom advocates of wanting to keep everyone in a third world like situation. I was compelled to leave a snarky comment.

Read More…

http://arstechnica.com/…

Federal district judge Vaughn Walker has rejected lawsuits that aimed to hold telecommunications companies accountable for their role in a controversial warrantless surveillance program that was orchestrated in secret by the federal government. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union are preparing to appeal the dismissal.

The warrantless surveillance program is one the more contentious controversies that still lingers from Bush’s tenure in office. The Bush administration attempted to leverage the State Secrets privilege to block litigation that aimed to hold participants in the surveillance program accountable for violating privacy laws. When it became clear that the courts were going to allow the lawsuits to move forward, Congress intervened and passed a FISA amendment to grant the telecom companies explicit immunity. President Obama voted in favor of immunity, despite consistently promising to oppose it.

EFF and ACLU’s lawsuits against the telecoms are among the most significant pending lawsuits targeting the warrantless surveillance program, and they are viewed by privacy advocates as a means of bringing accountability and more robust judicial oversight to the surveillance mess. Judge Walker has thrown out the suits, citing the FISA telecom immunity amendment as the basis for dismissal. He affirmed that the evidence provided under seal by the government demonstrated that the conduct of the telecoms meets the criteria for immunity grants.

“While plaintiffs have made a valiant effort to challenge the sufficiency of certifications they are barred by statute from reviewing, their contentions under section 802 are not sufficiently substantial to persuade the court that the intent of Congress in enacting the statute should be frustrated in this proceeding in which the court is required to apply the statute,” Walker wrote in his decision. “The court has examined the Attorney General’s submissions and has determined that he has met his burden under section 802(a). The court is prohibited by section 802(c)(2) from opining further.”

The EFF and the ACLU are planning to launch an appeal, asserting that the FISA amendments which granted telecom immunity are unconstitutional.

“We’re deeply disappointed in Judge Walker’s ruling today,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn in a statement. “The retroactive immunity law unconstitutionally takes away Americans’ claims arising out of the First and Fourth Amendments, violates the federal government’s separation of powers as established in the Constitution, and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law.”

I suppose the next step is the United States court of appeals. I don’t have much faith in them ruling in the pro-freedom direction. Nor the Supreme Court should it make it there.

http://arstechnica.com/…

The first thing that stands out as you peruse the Federal Communications Commission’s latest report on rural broadband is that it reads like it was actually written by somebody.

“As long as a grade-school child living on a farm cannot research a science project, or a high school student living on a remote Indian reservation cannot submit a college application,” the 78 page document begins, “or an entrepreneur in a rural hamlet cannot order spare parts, or a local law enforcement officer cannot download pictures of a missing child without traveling to a city or town that has broadband Internet access, we cannot turn back from these challenges.”

Who penned these words? If you guessed William Booth of the Salvation Army, you are getting warm. Bringing Broadband to Rural America is the first big FCC published survey that I’ve come across that is signed by the head of the agency, in this case interim Chair Michael Copps. It definitely has the senior Democrats’ crusading tone, and turns an otherwise dreary list of bureaucratic recommendations into a Rooseveltian call to arms.

“A complementary government role in broadband deployment can yield advantages that a free market solution cannot achieve alone,” the report concludes. Give me a broadband New Deal, Copps is whispering to Congress.

The “advantage” is that the government can use the threat of violence to steal money and invest it in such a way that the free market wouldn’t because it’s not in great enough demand. So these people who choose to live in rural areas  will get land internet access. What isn’t being created because of these malinvestments? What is the unseen?

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary has ditched plans for a giant Government database tracking all emails, phone calls and internet activity.

Ms Smith said a central store of electronic data was an “extreme” solution and would have undermined privacy.

Records of every electronic communication made by Britons will instead be held by private companies at a cost of around £2 billion.

Internet firms will be asked to collect and store vast amounts of data, including from social networking sites such as Facebook.

Launching the proposals on Monday, Ms Smith acknowledged concerns over privacy.

She said: “My key priority is to protect the citizens of the UK, and communications data is an essential tool for law enforcement agencies to track murderers and paedophiles, save lives and tackle crime.

“Advances in communications mean that there are ever more sophisticated ways to communicate and we need to ensure that we keep up with the technology being used by those who would seek to do us harm.

“It is essential that the police and other crime-fighting agencies have the tools they need to do their job. However, to be clear, there are absolutely no plans for a single central store.

“We recognise that there is a delicate balance between privacy and security, but to do nothing is not an option as we would be failing in our duty to protect the public.”

She added: “There were two elements that I think people could be concerned about. One was the state holding the data. The other was the data all being concentrated in one place.

“It is to overcome those concerns about privacy that the proposal involves Communication Service Providers retaining the data that comes from them and passes across their networks.”

Under the plans, every internet user will be given a unique ID code and all their data stored in one place.

Government agencies such as the police and security services will access the data to investigate suspected criminals and terrorists.

But it could also be accessed by local authorities and other Government agencies.

Ministers stress the content of messages and online profiles will not be stored.

More fascism. Awesome. That way when the government fucks up they can blame it on the “free market.” As Franklin said… if you are willing to give up your freedom for a little safety you won’t have or be deserving of either.

They should take after the United States’ NSA. They just tap right in and sniff everything. Constitution and public opinion be damned.