×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Gov't. Ending Its Hands-Off-the-Internet Stance

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the that-was-then-and-this-is-now dept.

Government 452

Taco Cowboy writes in with a report from The Register about a US policy shift away from keeping hands off the Internet. "According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over. Instead, an 'Internet Policy 3.0' approach will see policy discussions between government agencies, foreign governments, and key Internet constituencies, with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance." Here is the presentation in which Strickling enunciated these changes.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

452 comments

Nervous reactions (5, Interesting)

N3tRunner (164483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31304994)

This is all because of their recent failed security simulation where they couldn't repel a cyber attack. Now that they feel vulnerable they have what they think is adequate motivation to screw the rest of us. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out...

You got the cause and effect reversed (5, Insightful)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305036)

I think the "simulation" was just a part of a massive drama intended to justify this and future acts.

Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (2, Insightful)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305266)

I didn't vote for Obama, hell I didn't even vote. Crap like this is why. Is this the change that everyone was hoping for? "Yes we can!" - take over your Internets?

Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (0, Flamebait)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305322)

hell I didn't even vote

Then your opinion is irrelevant. Please refrain from posting.

Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (4, Insightful)

1stpreacher (848239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305382)

I voted... And I agree with the guy who didn't vote. So just use me as a proxy for what he said and all will be happy.

"Change" heh.

Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305386)

Then your opinion is irrelevant.

Are you a politician?

Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305466)

Because choosing not to vote between two evils discards your right to an opinion?
I can fully understand the trend where people simply don't care to vote anymore.
Abstination from voting can be an expression of opinion in itself. Hell, it is not uncommon for politicians to abstinate from voting on matters (although for various other reasons also).

Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (5, Insightful)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305574)

Because choosing not to vote between two evils discards your right to an opinion? I can fully understand the trend where people simply don't care to vote anymore. Abstination from voting can be an expression of opinion in itself. Hell, it is not uncommon for politicians to abstinate from voting on matters (although for various other reasons also).

I'm really sick of this "I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils" crap. If you actually believe there is a lesser of two evils, I'd say it's your duty as an American to vote for it. Abstination from voting is an expression of cynicism...nothing more.

Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305624)

Considering that we've had options other than the lesser of two evils offered up for a while now- and we've viewed them as nutballs and flakes...

We're getting precisely the government we deserve with this.

Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (4, Insightful)

Exception Duck (1524809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305628)

Abstaining from voting is not an expression of anything but lazyness.

Showing up and handing in unfilled ballot is an expression of opinion - and sends out a message.

The message is to people thinking about running that there is room for new people and to the people in charge that they are not doing a good enough job.

Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (4, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305528)

I didn't vote for Obama, hell I didn't even vote. Crap like this is why.

You figured Obama would pull some "crap", so you didn't oppose him, despite having a consequence- and cost-free way of doing that? I fail to follow your logic here.

"Yes we can!" - take over your Internets?

Well, since it seems that his opponents can't even be bothered to haul their arse a few blocks over to the closest voting place... yeah, I guess he can.

Let me clarify that. You didn't have to stand against the Persian army with your 299 comrades. You didn't have to engage in sabotage against the Nazi army in occupied France. You didn't have to express a political opinion that could get you fired. All you had to do was haul your ass a few blocks away to cast a vote that could not be traced back to you. But you failed to do even that. And now you complain that the guy you imply to have known to be up to no good but couldn't be bothered to oppose is doing what you feared he would? Sorry, but you aren't getting any sympathy from me.

A coward I might pity, a greedy miser I might despise, but for you, all I can say is: "WTF?"

Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305448)

Aren't most government sponsored 'crises' that way?

More (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305452)

A lot of the recent "CyberWar" related stories have no technical accuracy and are just straight out of those crappy hacker-movies. The only imaginable purpose of those stories is to spread paranoia among the masses who don't know how networks work. I also have many more suspicions but I'll be ridiculed if I put them forward now. So I'll confine myself to prediction. If my suspicions are correct, we are going to see a large number of DNS redirections in the next few years. These will be accompanied by clueless media reports which lack any discussion about WHO currently has the power to redirect traffic. Finally, US government takes over the Internet. There is nothing that can be done by you and me to stop this. Because we are outnumbered by naive and ignorant masses.

Re:Nervous reactions (1)

jofny (540291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305066)

No. 1. That wasnt run by the government and it was a joke - even to the government. 2. Do you think the government changes decades old policy in the space of a week or two with such large implications? Not without a lot more motivation.

However, the simulation WAS accurate insofar as it portrayed how the gov't deals with the internet...so it's going to be a fun time the more they get involved ;)

Re:Nervous reactions (3, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305262)

This is all because of their recent failed security simulation where they couldn't repel a cyber attack. Now that they feel vulnerable they have what they think is adequate motivation to screw the rest of us. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out...

Yeah, because God forbid the Government create any sort of secure classified network out there for use in times of national emergency, complete with hardware encryption to ensure privac....Er, oh wait, I forgot. They already have that.

And as far as "we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out", how has that worked out so far sitting back watching the current Administration? Yeah, I've had just about enough of "wait and see", because that usually turns into "wish we would have done something"...

And in Other News... (0, Offtopic)

mim (535591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31304996)

Water is wet; the sky is blue and small furry animals are still small and furry.

Re:And in Other News... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305252)

Are they small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri?

Re:And in Other News... (2, Funny)

mim (535591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305634)

I tried to approach this scientifically, so took a poll of those currently in residence, but only one would say "Be like the twenty-second elephant with heated value in space—bark!" even though they appear to be feline. I'm concerned and keeping my towel at the ready.

Well, this seems subpar. (4, Insightful)

jeek (37349) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305004)

As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being. This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.

Re:Well, this seems subpar. (1, Insightful)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305088)

You mean like when DARPA created the Internet?

Re:Well, this seems subpar. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305150)

No. He meant like when DARPA grew internationally, assuring neutrality to everyone.

Re:Well, this seems subpar. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305208)

You mean like when DARPA created the Internet?

Clearly you misunderstand the nature of DARPA. DARPA is NOT a conventional military R&D process and is independent of them.

DARPA is purely research oriented with a hands off approach (as opposed to the conventional military R&D processes that DARPA itself is independent of). People within are given a goal, and told "get to it however you can". There is no real management of the product being produced by said people.

What came out of DARPA was then built upon by private industry giving us the wonder we now see.

If you want to erase all of it, simply ask the government to step in and manage enough aspects of it and it will quickly be made unrecognizable.

Re:Well, this seems subpar. (3, Insightful)

jeek (37349) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305242)

Well, I will admit, DARPA seems to be an exception to the rule. It's an exception to a lot of rules.. like their hiring process completely ignores civil service regulatons... in fact, without actually looking into it, I'd guess the reason DARPA is so useful is because they don't have to play by the normal bureaucracy bulldada.

Re:Well, this seems subpar. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305276)

You mean like when DARPA created the Internet?

Did you intentionally leave out the part where they left it alone after that?

Re:Well, this seems subpar. (1)

valnar (914809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305194)

This is typical Democrat behavior. They want their hands in everything to grow the Government. I'm not surprised, just pissed.

Re:Well, this seems subpar. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305414)

This is typical Democrat behavior.

And typical Republican behavior. I hope you aren't somehow implying that whether our pretend-liberal party or our pretend-conservative party is in charge would have any impact on this sort of thing.

Re:Well, this seems subpar. (3, Insightful)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305368)

I would argue that it's not due to the government being involved that the quality lowers, but rather that the government decides to become involved without raising taxes to fully fund the projects. The reason is that raising taxes kiss of death that is hindering new and current government industries alike.

One example is Social Security, which has not increased the number of workers since their budget was cut in the Reagan-era. Note that the baby-boomers are now at/approaching retirement age, the prominence of "ambulance chasers" (ever see a lawyer commercial saying they'll get you the cash you deserve? That's them) are both strains on the system.

Also, NASA.

Re:Well, this seems subpar. (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305432)

As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being. This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.

Then you either haven't been looking very hard or have no fucking clue of what life was like 100 years ago.

The government "gets involved" with the quality of your food (FDA), worker safety (OSHA), air travel (NTSB), highway safety (NHTSA), building codes (varies by State), law enforcement and an endless number of other sectors of society.

Guess what: the end result has been a net positive for society. Thanks to the government, we no longer have the food quality, building standards, security situation, or worker protections (just to list a few examples) of countries like Haiti and Somalia.

Whenever I hear "the government ruins everything" I know that I'm hearing ideology, not reality.
The people saying such things take so many of the regulations, which make this country run smoothly, for granted.

If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public, I'd love to hear why.

Re:Well, this seems subpar. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305530)

Indeed. It shouldn't be government ruins everything, but rather, our government ruins a lot of things.

it's about time (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305008)

Al Gore invented it, remember?

Internet to Powerful, for governments (3, Interesting)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305010)

The internet is too powerful, for governments, to leave alone. This is especially true of governments which would like to control the thoughts of there populus, but even for the most Lazze Faire governments, the chance to control the internet industy must be highly tempting.

---

Privacy vs Sureillance [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (2, Insightful)

jofny (540291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305038)

You hit it exactly. They're interested because of its ability to affect political power. Everything other reason is just an excuse.

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305044)

I think you mean laissez faire

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305052)

... their* populous*...

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305204)

*their populace

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305238)

Knowing words fail... "populace" is what you want there.

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (4, Insightful)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305094)

Not to mention money. So, will the people just roll over as usual and accept this? Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world. Now the article even talks about "aligning" itself with "global trends" towards fascism, even mentioning Italy's latest display of blatant fascism as something to "align" itself with. When communism was a "global trend" the old-style US had the balls to stand out against it. Now they want to hide behind "global trends" to gain more power and money in clamping down on liberty. You can justify anything these days by just saying it's a "global trend".

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (1, Insightful)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305364)

When communism was a "global trend" the old-style US had the balls to stand out against it.

Yes, I recall. Thank God for McCarthy and the HUAC, or Communism would have destroyed the Republic.

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (0, Flamebait)

Conzar (1603461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305434)

Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world.

When was this? Was the US a beacon of liberty to the Native Americans (genocide and slavery), Africans (kidnapping and slavery), Mexicans who's land was invaded and taken, Women and their rights, and the list goes on?

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305522)

Each of the problems you mentioned has been corrected. Stop living in the past or it will eat you alive.

Then again, those who live in the past probably should be eaten alive, as they likely still blame our long ago apelike ancestors for being cannibals?

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305554)

> Once upon a time the US used to be a 'beacon of liberty' to the world.

Only in your own eyes. To everyone else, you have been an aggressive nation, meddling where you aren't wanted, genociding the native peoples who were in your lands before you, invading countries without cause, and ruining others economically for your own benefit.

That "beacon of freedom" never existed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305558)

Enter the 20th century, it was a figment of imagination. There were always inherent limit to freedoms in the US imposed by local politics, and outside the US imposed by US foreign policy. The diffeernce, is that for a time the US looked LESS worst than the other bad guy. But now this is turning around, and the US looks as bad as everybody else, with politics wishing to grab as much power as possible , and keep it, and a certain aprt of the society , the new "aristocracy", enriching itself on the back of the serf. Sure we are better off than the 15th century (or even 19th) but let not you be blind : your chance to ever enter that group is nil.

Re:That "beacon of freedom" never existed (4, Insightful)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305612)

What's sadder than the steady demise of America as a world 'beacon of freedom' is that there are people who even believe that that 'beacon of freedom' never existed --- it most certainly did (even though it was far from perfect, sure), just crack open a few history books. Come live in a communist or failed state for a while (like myself, where amongst the general collapse of the country and takeover by communists and socialists our people are being slaughtered and the government is complicit in allowing it to happen), and you might get some perspective --- the US most certainly even today still looks nowhere near as bad as half the wretched countries on this planet.

I know it's fashionable to be anti-American (even in America) and to claim that America is just as 'evil' as all the rest, but such views are simply not based on any reality at all, they're just fashionable memes.

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305100)

The internet is too powerful for governments to control.

Many have tried and ultimately failed. China has had some success, but even there it is slowly helping to disseminate news and information more freely. Perhaps the US thinks it is special because it invented the internet (although not the web) and controls the root DNS servers, but I doubt those things will help it much.

In a way I actually welcome this move. It will help push us towards mass uptake of anti-censorship technologies, awareness of online privacy issues and the ubiquity of encryption.

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (2, Insightful)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305148)

The internet is not "powerful" because in order to connect to it you need ISPs, which being private enterprises can be bullied by government and bigger business easily enough.
They'll soon be taking complete control of the root, and after that it will be a done deal: they will own the internet. Game over.
Now, we tried the soap box, and they ignored us. We tried the mail box, and they didn't answer or reminded us of the need to protect "teh children" and especially IP ownership. We tried the ballot box, and each and every major party is either pro-control or too pro-business to care, and the Pirate Parties are too small to make any difference. We tried the jury box, and the judges are either pro-corporate or the new laws comples them to be.
All that's left is the ammo box, but loserboys do not want to fight.

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305536)

Any restrictive technology will be worked around swiftly.

Re:Internet to Powerful, for governments (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305626)

The internet is too powerful, for governments, to leave alone.

William Shatner, is that you?

Maybe they need to set their priorities (4, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305028)

And change their stance on hands off spam.

Re:Maybe they need to set their priorities (3, Interesting)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305126)

I like the spam problem as a measuring stick. First go and solve the spam problem without reducing the usefulness of the internet to anyone (except the spammers of course). If you can do that, then we'll talk about some other policing that might be a good idea...

If they could stop all the child porn and stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it, but only if they can stop _only_ child porn, and _only_ illegal downloads, without any 'collatoral damage' of legal material. And they can't - all recent attempts to do so are proof of that. So in the mean time, keep a better eye on your kids and make it easier for people to buy your stuff than download it.

Re:Maybe they need to set their priorities (1, Interesting)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305170)

stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it

Not me, and not millions of people who want to see dramatic copyright reform.

Re:Maybe they need to set their priorities (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305274)

If you want copyright reform, then you apparently respect copyright and the law in general. Post-copyright reform, more downloads will be legal, so you would presumably be more inclined to support the idea that illegal downloading be stopped. So, before and after copyright reform, stopping illegal downloads should be fine.

Oh, you meant that you want to keep downloading stuff for free, just that you want to be immune from negative consequences? That's different.

Re:Maybe they need to set their priorities (2, Insightful)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305408)

Oh, you meant that you want to keep downloading stuff for free, just that you want to be immune from negative consequences?

Uhh nnooo I think he said: people who want to see dramatic copyright reform

The "respect" for copyright requires copyright in good faith. If that trust is broken, I have no respect for the law - and neither should you.

Now I think someone could, maybe should, start a campaign of publicized copyright infringement. One person won't do it, but hundreds, or thousands, offering themselves up for arrest would start to make waves.

I don't know, I've been thinking about the best way to do it for a while now. I don't know if we have the luxury of waiting much longer.

Be careful what you wish for... (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305374)

If they could stop all the child porn and stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it, but only if they can stop _only_ child porn, and _only_ illegal downloads, without any 'collatoral damage' of legal material.

Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.

Here's one ugly scenario for effectively blocking copyright-infringing downloads. All material to be made available for download must be registered with a government clearing house[*] before it can be offered for download. Scanning everything for signatures provided by registered copyright owners might introduce a small delay, of course, but that's the cost of making the internet safe from copyright-infringing perverts. Worse, downloads might be legal only if initiated via that clearing house using approved proprietary software, to prevent copyright-infringing perverts from sneakily switching content). Oh, and don't even think about making encrypted or otherwise unrecognizable material available for download - it would be blocked and investigated. After all, you've got nothing to hide, right?

Now, a resourceful person could still circumvent such a scheme, but the inconvenience would render the effort of limited use to typical users. The cost would also entail becoming a federal criminal, and the minimum penalty could be set quite high (20-to-life in a PMITA institution). Don't underestimate the dark side...

[*] Multiple sites distributed around the US to oppress^W protect domestic consumers, and at all points where the net enters the US to thwart illegal import or export of copyright content. A sort-of Great Copyright Wall of the USA. The notion could be extended in much the way the Chinese have developed their censorship barriers, given today's technologies.

Re:Be careful what you wish for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305590)

"without any 'collatoral damage' of legal material."

what you just described very much constitutes collatoral damage of legal material, where legal is defined as "honest" and not as "what is defined by very large amounts of cash".

Comment blocked (4, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305046)

Your biometric identification with the Intergovermental Panel of Internet Acess Enforcement have failed.

Make sure that your webcam is BigBrother-certified and that its view of your face is not obstructed. If the problem persists, please verify that your general acess level is adequate for class 3 content and that you have no active thoughtcrime sanctions.

Re:Comment blocked (2, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305198)

Your biometric identification with the Intergovermental Panel of Internet Acess Enforcement have failed. Make sure that your webcam is BigBrother-certified and that its view of your face is not obstructed. If the problem persists, please verify that your general acess level is adequate for class 3 content and that you have no active thoughtcrime sanctions.

Will we tag this as "Funny" 10 years from now? I certainly hope so, but my doubt grows...

no they will just hire slashdot moderators (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305260)

slashdot moderators have plenty of experience in judging 'thought crime' and controlling debate. (look at the Hans Reiser stories for the sad trail of evidence) they will be the first to sign up for the Internet Protection Administration

Re:Comment blocked (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305340)

"Will we tag this as "Funny" 10 years from now? I certainly hope so, but my doubt grows..."

The prospect of peaceful change for the better is increasingly remote. That's why folks like Joe Stack who lash out are often (now) regarded as heroes, when that would have been almost unthinkable in the past. As provocation increases, the fringe will blow back...first.

Re:Comment blocked - Credit Card please! (1)

gink1 (1654993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305202)

Most of these changes are being driven by huge Corporations.

So instead of Biometric ID expect to enter a Credit Card to log on!

Hopenchange! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305050)

Along with a renewed Patriot Act! [washingtonpost.com]

Funny, I seem to have missed the Slashdot story of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passing that bill, or the Democrat-controlled Senate passing that bill. Nevermind the Slasdot story about the Democrat President actually signing that Patriot Act extension....

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

Actually, that's not true. The old bosses at least said they were going to keep Gitmo open, extend that Patriot Act, and leave troops in Iraq. So at least they did what they said. These new bosses are MUCH worse - they LIE and do and say anything to get elected, then keep on with the policies of the past that they LIED about changing.

And now, these LYING new bosses want us to turn the largest sector of the US economy - health care - over to THEIR control. Because that'll be better for all of us.

What kind of person could possibly believe that THIS group of egomaniacs getting control of another couple of trillion dollars a year would help anyone?

Re:Hopenchange! (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305186)

Along with a renewed Patriot Act! [washingtonpost.com]

Funny, I seem to have missed the Slashdot story of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passing that bill, or the Democrat-controlled Senate passing that bill. Nevermind the Slasdot story about the Democrat President actually signing that Patriot Act extension....

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

Actually, that's not true. The old bosses at least said they were going to keep Gitmo open, extend that Patriot Act, and leave troops in Iraq. So at least they did what they said. These new bosses are MUCH worse - they LIE and do and say anything to get elected, then keep on with the policies of the past that they LIED about changing.

And now, these LYING new bosses want us to turn the largest sector of the US economy - health care - over to THEIR control. Because that'll be better for all of us.

What kind of person could possibly believe that THIS group of egomaniacs getting control of another couple of trillion dollars a year would help anyone?

Welcome to the new hopeandchange. You can practically smell the "yeah, what the fuck are you gonna do about it?!" air of ignorance wafting over the entire lot of them, as they pretty much do whatever they want. It smells far worse than ANY other group before them.

And "what kind of person" you ask? Dunno, there's got to be at least a few million out there that voted FOR this, although you might be hard-pressed these days to find any of them who would admit that NOW.

Re:Hopenchange! - Corporate Health Care Coming (1)

gink1 (1654993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305216)

Actually the new bosses are turning health care over to a Monopoly with a long history of patient abuse for undisclosed sums.

I wish your version was true! We would be better off even in Government hands.

Re:Hopenchange! - Corporate Health Care Coming (1)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305440)

Actually the new bosses are turning health care over to a Monopoly with a long history of patient abuse for undisclosed sums.

I wish your version was true! We would be better off even in Government hands.

I'm not sure I agree with your first categorization, but you have my full-throated support on your second. A government-run public option would definitely have been better for us. Too bad the Dems are suffering from spinal atrophy.

Re:Hopenchange! (1)

valnar (914809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305228)

Yah, it's funny how everyone was up in arms about Bush and the Patriot act, and the war, and the unemployment, and the deficit. Nevermind that all these things continue, AND GET WORSE under Obama. Where is the Slashdot outrage over this?! The Patriot Act didn't affect me on iota. This Internet "bill" will.

Re:Hopenchange! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305338)

AMEN!

The best change so far is that Obama has lost his celeb/god status. If we don't have REAL change PDQ, Obama might not make a full first term.

We need a "No Confidence Vote" now!

Re:Hopenchange! (1, Troll)

TimHunter (174406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305294)

You do understand that the Democrats wanted to add new privacy protections to the Act, don't you? They gave up the fight when the Republicans, as usual, promised to filibuster. Apparently the Republicans don't want any new privacy protections. You should ask them why the "small government" party wants to continue giving the bosses free rein to continue intruding into our private lives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35592245/ns/politics/ [msn.com]

Re:Hopenchange! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305490)

At least there are a few Democrats that will break from their party and vote against this kind of shit. The best you can expect out of the Republicans is unanimous support for any privacy trampling legislation. Our system is fucking broken.

Stop banging on about healthcare (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305300)

In the UK we have the NHS. Lots of people moan about it. It's not perfect. But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.

In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.

The US is the home of free speech and a bastion of many personal freedoms, but it is also a place where survival of the fittest takes priority. If you're doing well for youself, then great. Not everyone is.

Take a step back and start thinking about what other people need for a change. Having a government mandated healthcare system to cater for the bottom fifth of society (which private healthcare would otherwise ignore) ain't so bad an idea.

Well, government "oversight"... (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305062)

...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones. You wouldn't want people to go on doing things without permission, would you? The State knows what's best.

Re:Well, government "oversight"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305176)

I firmly believe there needs to be a large amount of regulation protecting people from power hungry businesses, this... well this is too much. Remember in your regulation hatred, that our government was founded on it, what is check and balances but regulation of one branch of the government to another. the president is regulated by congress and the courts, the courts, by congress and the president, congress, by the president and the courts... intertwined regulation is what protects the common man from those who will abuse the system. by removing all sorts of regulation, as you regulation haters love to do.. like allowing the president to wiretap without the courts... you are exposing the common man, myself and yourself included to those who would abuse their power, and this ranges from police officers, to bailed out bank executives, by you removing this regulation, we are at the whim of both.. so... shall we rethink your beliefs, of will you remain stuck in your pre-reflective quagmire of idiocy?

Re:Well, government "oversight"... (3, Insightful)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305474)

...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones. You wouldn't want people to go on doing things without permission, would you? The State knows what's best.

Wow. Yeah. You know, not having lead in my food and not having my 10 year old nephew working in a factory - man, those over-regulating bastards. It is exactly the same thing as abridging access and privacy on the internet.

Exactly the same.

Awesome show. Great job.

Moratorium (4, Insightful)

jofny (540291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305078)

There should be a moratorium on government internet legislation of any kind until the first crop of kids who grew up with it and understand it are in power. The current group doesnt and will do long lasting damage - even if their intentions were/are good.

Re:Moratorium (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305154)

There should be a moratorium on government internet legislation of any kind until the first crop of kids who grew up with it and understand it are in power. The current group doesnt and will do long lasting damage - even if their intentions were/are good.

I'm sorry, but the gap between Congress and damn near any kind of technology has been as wide as the Grand Canyon for decades, and it has little to do with generation, but more to do with influence. As long as you allow lobbyists to invade the eyes, ears(and pockets) of those making law, this level if ignorance will continue.

Oh great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305084)

Either this article is over 10 years too late, or the things like the DMCA and forcing search engines to hand over use search records are seen as "hands off".

Just like the old boss ... (0, Flamebait)

warren.oates (925589) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305112)

The working class can kiss my ass; I've got the foreman's job at last. -- Ballacks O'Bama.

US Govt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305114)

"Don't worry,....I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

Obama to the rescue (1, Funny)

inthealpine (1337881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305118)

Obama is here to save us from the internet! Don't worry everyone it's not like the Obama administration has ever said anything about your electronics devices on a network as it relates to privacy...oh wait wasn't there something about cell phones and Americans having “no reasonable expectation of privacy” http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html [cnet.com]

I'm sure we'll be fine...hey...why does my system tray have a little icon that looks like a dude in a brownshirt?? Never mind, when I mouse over it it says 'Hope and Change' so false alarm..

Let me balance this out a bit, I don't like the patriot act as well.

Money and Power. (2, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305124)

"...covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance."

In other words, and in summarization, it's all about money and power/control. It's pretty much the only reason the Government gets involved in ANYTHING like this these days.

We see how well Government-sponsored control programs have worked out for other countries, so expect more of the same here. Billions (or trillions) spent, with little or not real effect(other than sending the country further into bankruptcy).

You forgot taxes . . . (3, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305174)

. . . the government is always searching for new sources of income. Call me cynical, but I believe that an Internet tax is also on their agenda.

Re:Money and Power. And their Corporate Masters (4, Insightful)

gink1 (1654993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305272)

The only reason the Government gets involved in anything is when they are paid to do so by their Corporate Masters.

And it is a well known fact that Corporations want to eliminate those pesky Internet freedoms and force us to pay for every click or download.

Luckily for them, Obama's just the man for that job!

Geeks will blaze a new trail (4, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305138)

According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over.

Any time this has happened the past, geeks blaze a trail to another communication medium. While most people were using phones to make phone calls, geeks used it to create a BBS system. Later came the internet, which was a great place until AOL came along. Just seems like when one medium starts becoming crowded and excessively regulated, geeks will find another place.

Maybe self-discovering mesh networks, something over satellite, not sure what's next. But the more crowded and regulated the internet gets, the more the inner geek will start looking around for a less crowded place.

Re:Geeks will blaze a new trail (1)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305510)

the more crowded and regulated the internet gets, the more the inner geek will start looking around for a less crowded place.

Maybe some kind of wireless wetware grafted in surgically. Make medical privacy laws work for data privacy?

Consumer Monkeys! (2, Insightful)

Art_Vandelai (596101) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305144)

"If you’re a user, you want to know that you can make a transaction online without your credit card information falling into the wrong hands..." Yes, because all "internet users" are supposed to use the internet for is to consume. Feed the beast. If you are a consumer, you can be controlled, and we don't have to worry about you actually doing anything about the predicament this world is in.

Let me translate... (3, Insightful)

kenh (9056) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305158)

privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance

Privacy - You are allowed to feel like you have privacy, but if we can trump-up a good sounding reason, forget it.

Child Protection - Now we can go after offending websites, forgetting First Amendment protections, but don't worry, it's all for the sake of protecting the children.

Cyber-security - We can't out-smart our opponents, so we'll employ brute force and squash anything that even looks dangerous.

Copyright Protection - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns. (You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?

Internet Governance - Hey, why should we cede control of something we in America invented?

There, I hope that helps you understand what is going on.

Re:Let me translate... (1)

Ardeaem (625311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305456)

You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?

You seem to be implying that the small donations that the Obama campaign claims were from individual Americans was actually from media conglomerates, and that there is intentional deception going on. This is a claim that requires evidence.

Re:Let me translate... (1)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305568)

Copyright Protection - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns. (You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?

I don't think they raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars at all.

Actually read the article (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305162)

These points (crucial to the argument) strike me as massive FUD:

"* If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won’t use it.
* If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.
* If large enterprises don’t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.
* If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet."

- How many users are afraid to use Amazon, eBay, or any other service because of credit card fraud? I would suggest that only terminally ignorant users are afraid of this.
- Content providers are capable of handling their own protection just fine. See: Steam, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc. What he really means is "old and incompetent" providers.
- Large enterprises will NOT just disconnect their network for fear of being breached: they will develop better security. Fuck, this is an incredibly stupid argument.
- WHY would foreign governments ever trust Internet governance unless the internet is completely censored of all objectionable (read: valuable) speech?

Terrible, terrible, terrible arguments. This needs to be fought vigorously.

Re:Actually read the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305304)

>If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.

Don't worry, we have millions of volunteers to do it for them.

Three Strikes and Obama Says You're Out (2, Insightful)

gink1 (1654993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305180)

Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty (championed by Obama) are showing up in various countries.

Now here comes Obama with a new initiative for the US to regulate the internet and two of it's goals are "copyright protection, and Internet governance".

Seems a fair guess that one of the first things that will occur is an ACTA style 3 strikes rule that must be enforced by all ISP's.
Will BitTorrent be banned by those ISP's? It seems likely, since in spite of the legal applications, that would make life so much easier for the ISPs.

Our Internet freedoms are slowly disappearing as governments regulate them away on behalf of the Corporations! Internet users are allowed no voice.

Soon the Internet will be the CorporateNe" and we will have to enter Credit Card info just to log on!

It's the war on file sharers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305190)

Let me be the first to welcome our acta-wielding *AA -sponsored overlords.

Hopefully this will be the end of ...... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305248)

Spam,
Paypal.
low bandwidth due spam congestion.

But it will most likely bring about addition taxation for you usage time. (so much for constant connection value)
And it seems very clear that unknown to you, people will be monitoring and judging you in your use of the internet and this includes all communications you have via the internet and anything connected to teh internet, such as phones that use the internet.

Hmmm, and that means paypal will remain, so when some government official or someone they know or sucking up to them (payola) doesn't like your communication they can take your money away from you.
And tax you for doing so too.

And hey, since you don't really have control over what information gets put on your system in being connected to the internet, you can be set up and busted for all sorts of things. And taxed for it too.

As always, this will get sold to the public as a good thing and the ignorant public will accept it. little by little.

And the worse part......... They won't regulate the spam, it'll continue to be the majority of the traffic on the internet.
Proving how worthless and incompetent they (we know who they are here), to do anything about anything real.

So it should be obvious, just think of spam, if you think there exist any ability to do anything more than spy and attack those they don't like with acts of fraud.

For what is being claimed to be the benefits of such a direction, they should already be able to do anyway.

I.e. get rid of paypal exception to banking regulations.
And that is something they could do, but haven't.

Why is that?

Nerds in concentration camps! (2, Insightful)

voodoo cheesecake (1071228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305298)

Hell, they've already culled off a good portion of the fighting force, now just cull off the free thinkers and the economy will snap right back!

It's time to build a new Internet... (1)

AlexLibman (785653) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305324)

... archiving (i.e. anonymous cache proxy) and extending the old, with 100% private locally-owned "last mile" underground wiring, or better yet wireless mesh [wikipedia.org] infrastructure that would be very difficult for the government to subvert and control. Of course such a project would benefit from a sufficient density of liberty-loving individuals habitating in close proximity to each-other, but luckily we a already have the Free State Project [freestateproject.org] gradually taking shape in New Hampshire.

Only the fools are being fooled by the governments. Sooner or later, Atlas will shrug!

Re:It's time to build a new Internet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305566)

Atlas has already shrugged, but it's the shrug of indifference. If Atlas were even awake, the PATRIOT act would have never passed. US democracy was tested, and it has failed. Even now you don't care whether more of your freedoms are trampled upon, as long as there is someplace left to run.

"Control" the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31305476)

The internet isn't something you control. Government morons have no idea what technology this is. Remember when some idiot decided to shut Napster down and thereby "end" music sharing? Nerds will always get around this kind of stupid stuff. How about ad hoc networks? How about rooting your Droid to get around a different overseer, Verizon. This is all political posturing crap by the great benevolent dictator government. They should do what government is supposed to do. That is provide roads, water, sewer, police, fire, and pick up the garbage. Keep me safe with a big army and navy. Leave technology and it's advancement to nerds.

Here you go. (1)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31305498)

Directly from TFA:

Copyright protection: How do we protect against illegal piracy of copyrighted works and intellectual property on the Internet while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content? NTIA and our sister agency at the Department of Commerce, the US Patent and Trademark Office, are beginning a comprehensive consultation process that will help the Administration develop a forward-looking set of policies to address online copyright infringement in a balanced, Internet-savvy manner.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...