×

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!

Chile First To Approve Net Neutrality Law

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the pathbreaker dept.

The Internet 293

Sir Mal Fet writes "Chile has become the first country in the world to approve, by 100 votes in favor and one abstention, a law guaranteeing net neutrality (Google translation; Spanish original). The law states [submitter's translation]: 'No [ISP] can block, interfere with, discriminate, hinder, nor restrict the right of any Internet user of using, send, receive or offer any content, application, or legitimate service through the Internet, as well as any activity or legitimate use conducted through the Internet.' The law also has articles that force ISPs to provide parental control tools, clarify contracts, guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever. This is a major advance in the legislation of the country regarding the Web, when until last year almost anything that was performed online was considered illegal."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

293 comments

I love the wording in the above translation. (5, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893682)

The "send" part eludes most U.S. discussions. Most major ISPs in the US block many outgoing ports to prevent you from running a server. What I do with my bandwidth is my business thank you very much, including serving up HTML.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32893706)

Residential customers don't need a web server, though.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (3, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893750)

Do you work for Verizon?

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32893822)

No, but obviously business uses are going to cost more.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (4, Insightful)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893910)

Why must I be a business to need a web server? I'm a hobbyist.
I'm paying for bandwidth, it's really none of their business how I utilize said bandwidth.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32893964)

That may be true but most people with a webserver are botnets/open proxies/etc.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893994)

Cut those morons off. Obviously if you don't secure your stuff you're doing harm.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (2, Insightful)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894134)

So Net Neutrality only extends as far as having an outside blacklist identify an IP and then you cut them off? In b4 ISP's secretly pay blacklists to hit their neediest customers.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (2, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894174)

LOL wut?

I'm trying to translate what you've said and I've failed so I'm going to offer my own translation.

You get net neutrality. If you fuck up and don't secure your machine and you get pwned the life guard makes you sit on the side of the pool for 15 minutes until you get your problem fixed. Then you get to jump back in the pool.

It's neutrality, but if you're doing harm by attacking others (by being pwned yourself) you get cut off all together and they can call you and tell you why.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (2, Insightful)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894196)

So... "Don't filter me bro... except you can filter him because he's not doing something I like"? Seems kind of stupid to want to have full and complete access to your 65536/tcp ports to do with as you wish, but if someone happens to be running a botnet (intentionally or not), you're ok with having them filtered.

This is pretty much the entire reason these debates come up... one rule for you, one rule for the rest of us.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (5, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894274)

Listen in many countries we have laws protecting our freedom to do as we please. Yes, it's debatable rather we really have those freedoms or not, but that's beside the point.

One thing that we generally have laws about is our personal freedoms end at the point that we utilize them to restrict someone else's freedom.

If you're botnet infested you are out there doing denial of service attacks and trying to hack other systems into joining your bot net. At this point your freedom is being used in an attempt to restrict someone else's freedom.

That's what jails are for, or in this case being cut off until you fix it.

I see no "one rule for you, one for the rest of us" as you say. I see "don't attack someone else". Don't attack someone else is a pretty good rule I think.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893840)

Residential customers don't need a web server, though.

Speak for yourself, kimosabe.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32893966)

Residential customers don't need a web server, though.

You are not competent to decide that for me, and neither is my ISP.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (1)

AngryK9 (1553903) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894156)

Perhaps in your world, that is true. In the real world, however, there are lots of reasons why someone would have a need to set up a home web server.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (-1, Flamebait)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893722)

egress filtering is a perfectly legitimate tool for both security and QoS reasons. If anything, most ISPs aren't doing enough of it.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (4, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893806)

You work for Comcast don't you?

I ran my own server off of SouthWestern Bell then later Time Warner for years with not a single spam message bounced off my server, nor issue from it. Seriously, hosting the occasional Fark photoshop pic and having a photo album hosted on my own equipment with passwords for my family along with a small vanity site, where's the problem with that? I did it for years and find it nearly impossible to do now because of people with your mindset.

I know a lot of people abuse it and run porn sites and push malware, but I shouldn't have to pay the price for them.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32893868)

I used to do the same thing, but I ended up getting an account from prgmr.com [prgmr.com]. My own private 6GB CentOS virtual server for $8 a month, and a multi-homed 100MBps connection with 40GB bandwidth.

Can't beat that.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (2, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893880)

No, I don't work for Comcast. My work would be much less popular with the Slashdot community, but I can't really discuss it anyway. But, just to play devil's advocate, if, say, port 80 traffic were completely unfettered in a bi-directional manner and incomming connections were allowed without a previously established outgoing connection, chances are quite high that would be abused by malware authors for command-and-control and botnet node intercommunication. I don't think that's much of a stretch at all, and its not as if the typical end user is going to know or care to secure their node.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893926)

That's easy.

Cut off infected users. ISP's outside of the US do it, ISPs in the US ignore you if you're under constant siege from one of their users, I know, I sent emails with log info and made phone calls etc...

Yes, some botnets do use port 80 for that. Cut the morons off and make them get their stuff fixed. I've been on the web since 97 and never been pwned into a botnet on one of my machines. I have fixed other peoples. You can't tell me it's outlandish to expect people not to get pwned on a regular basis or to fix it if they do.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32893972)

I live in germany. I've yet to encounter an ISP that does anything but block NetBIOS ports. It is no issue at all. Most users are behind a NAT device, anyways.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894010)

I was too. I set my nat device to forward port 80, along with very specific other ports, to the machine(s) I wanted them to go to. Pretty secure, I only had the ports I needed active on the machine doing the serving, and on top of that the NAT device caught any ports other than the ones I purposely forwarded.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894118)

BTW - a NAT device is sort of a natural firewall. It's not 100% effective but it's a heck of a lot safer than just sticking a Windows 98 box out on the bare web. Your NAT device argument goes more for supporting my side of the argument than the block it crowds.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (1)

orient (535927) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894052)

if, say, port 80 traffic were completely unfettered in a bi-directional manner and incomming connections were allowed without a previously established outgoing connection, chances are quite high that would be abused

Any port can be abused. According to you, all incoming connection should be forbidden, right? What about direct connections for online gaming, for audio/video chats or for peer-to-peer file transfers?
Afterall, I can write a command and control protocol that uses - take your pick - ICMP, UDP, SNMP. Commands can also be requested/sent via http requests, STMP, DNS requests/replies, finger, gopher, ftp. Then what? Block the whole Internet?

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (3, Insightful)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894056)

"if, say, port 80 traffic were completely unfettered in a bi-directional manner and incomming connections were allowed without a previously established outgoing connection, chances are quite high that would be abused by malware authors for command-and-control and botnet node intercommunication."

Still *my* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.

"I don't think that's much of a stretch at all, and its not as if the typical end user is going to know or care to secure their node."

Why he should? What are the consecuences of his malpractices? If you fuck it up you pay for the mop seems a sensible policy. But even then, still my f* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894096)

I don't think that's much of a stretch at all, and its not as if the typical end user is going to know or care to secure their node.

The typical end user will need to forward the port on their standard dlink/linksys/walmart router. Not to mention, your computer won't respond on that port without something running that requires the port (so if you aren't hosting anything you can't be hit on that port anyways). Windows has had a firewall built into their OS for a long time now.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (5, Interesting)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894300)

So do what my ISP does (Australian, not US). By default, ports 80 and 25 are blocked. If I want to open them, I log into my ISP, hit up my control panel, and turn off filtering. I've been running my own servers on my Internode connection for years.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (3, Informative)

trancemission (823050) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893748)

Most major ISPs in the US block many outgoing ports to prevent you from running a server

Unless you pay them [more]

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (3, Insightful)

rmaureira (1414691) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893780)

There's a catch in the project tho', in one of the paragraphs says: "May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they are legal and that they do not damage or harm the network or service quality." The last line can be used by ISPs saying that you're "damaging the network" with your computer. Now we need to wait for the government to pass the law, and then enforce it.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (4, Insightful)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894084)

"The last line can be used by ISPs saying that you're "damaging the network""

And they previous one can be used by any lobbying party to get off with whatever they want.

""May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they are legal"

So they just need to, say, declare illegal connecting more than one computer to a "single computer" connection and there you go.

"and that they do not damage or harm the network or service quality"

Oh, and by they way, trying to use 100% of bandwith as shown in the contract terms harms the service quality since we oversell it 100 to 1.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893986)

>>>legitimate service through the Internet

I worry about this part of the law. The word legitimate will eventually be used by follow-up laws (or overzealous police) to exclude:

- Peer-2-Peer
- Nudist websites
- Photos of your kids
- Hate websites like KKK.org
- So-called hate site like Teaparty.org
-
- Downloading software to emulate ancient Atari or Sega or NES games
- Sites that don't adhere to the new Internet Fairness Doctrine (don't present both sides of a story)
- Downloading nude women that APPEAR to be younger than 18 (see Australia where 20-something women can't post photos, because they have A-sized breasts)
- Downloading women who actually are younger than 18, but not committing any crime (such as topless photos from Brazilian or European beaches)
- And so on.

Government regulation brings *chains* not freedom

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (2, Insightful)

Burdell (228580) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894142)

You aren't paying for the bandwidth, you are paying for limited use of the bandwidth. You wouldn't like your bill if you had to pay the full cost of the bandwidth (yet most also complain at the mere mention of metered access). Also, I see many people demanding that ISPs block certain ports for abuse reasons (e.g. outbound SMTP to reduce spam, except of course, everybody wants all users but themselves blocked).

Paying taxes doesn't guarantee you 100% utilization of the highways; there are many times you will be unable to drive 100% of the posted speed limit due to other users of the road. Usage is unlimited (you can drive as many miles on as many public roads as you like), but you might not get to drive the speed you like.

Re:I love the wording in the above translation. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894226)

They sure as to fuck don't advertise limited access. They advertise Internet access.

If the ISP's went around advertising "Browse only access" instead of "Internet access" I probably wouldn't have such a strong opinion on the matter.

To continue your road analogy we don't pay taxes to maintain a road system that's mostly toll roads.

fuck a carrott (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32893688)

stick it in your butt

OK (4, Insightful)

koan (80826) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893700)

What Chile does: (what looks like) Decent Net Neutrality
What America does: Massachusetts Bids To Restrict Internet Indecency

Re:OK (2, Interesting)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893746)

I love how a second world nation is further ahead with ensuring the freedoms of its people then the United States. How about we just add an amendment to the constitution that replaces all references of "people" to "corporations".

Re:OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32894100)

I love how a second world nation is further ahead with ensuring the freedoms of its people then the United States. How about we just add an amendment to the constitution that replaces all references of "people" to "corporations".

We are a second world nation, dumb ass. Have been since the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) side of our GDP grew bigger than the Manufacturing side. Get used to it.

Re:OK (5, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893764)

From the Nixon administration through the first half of Bush 41's term, Chile had Augusto Pinochet, a military dictator. They might tend to look at freedom with slightly less jaded eyes than Americans who have had it "too good for too long." Small things like that can tend to have major effects on perspective. Just saying.

Re:OK (1)

koan (80826) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894120)

Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.

Maybe this country needs another depression, might slap that jade out of our eyes, to bad we would probably lose everything we worked for for 200 years.

Re:OK (1)

aaandre (526056) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894186)

For the last 10 years, USFreedom--

Most of the rest of the world is not turning into a faschist state, so the contrast seems obvious.

Ironically, Nixon installed Pinochet (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894290)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm [gwu.edu]

Read from the bottom up for chronological order, which goes roughly like this:

Pre election: Allende may align himself with the Communists, so prepare for divestment and possible action if he's elected. We cannot tolerate any example of an OAS country independent and working with Russia or Cuba, or in any way harming US interests.

Post election: Now that Allende has been elected, here are the options for getting rid of him. Propaganda campaigns have already begun.

Post assassination: "Chile's coup d'etat was close to perfect."

Post political executions: This telegram, written by Ambassador Popper and directed to the U.S. Secretary of State, reports on a meeting between Assistant Secretary of State Jack Kubisch, and Chile's foreign minister General Huerta on the controversy over two U.S. citizens--Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi--executed by the military after the coup. Kubisch notes that he is raising this issue "in the context of the need to be careful to keep relatively small issues in our relationship from making our cooperation more difficult."

Allende, who was the elected president of Chile before the coup, gave a final speech [youtube.com] while British-made jets dropped bombs on the presidential palace on 9/11/73:

My friends,
Surely this will be the last opportunity for me to address you. The Air Force has bombed the antennas of Radio Magallanes.
My words do not have bitterness but disappointment. May they be a moral punishment for those who have betrayed their oath: soldiers of Chile, titular commanders in chief, Admiral Merino, who has designated himself Commander of the Navy, and Mr. Mendoza, the despicable general who only yesterday pledged his fidelity and loyalty to the Government, and who also has appointed himself Chief of the Carabineros [paramilitary police]...

Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Go forward knowing that, sooner rather than later, the great avenues will open again and free men will walk through them to construct a better society.

Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!

These are my last words, and I am certain that my sacrifice will not be in vain, I am certain that, at the very least, it will be a moral lesson that will punish felony, cowardice, and treason. --Salvador Allende

Re:OK (5, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893930)

What Chile does: (what looks like) Decent Net Neutrality

I'm telling you, there's a real progressive wind blowing through South America. Brazil, Chile, Argentina and others are moving to the Left and having great success. There economies are growing and it's not just the rich that are doing better. Socially, they've got a long way to go, but at least they're moving in the right direction, using the European socialist model as a starting point, not an end in itself.

We're going to read a lot in the coming few years about the success stories in the Southern Hemisphere. They're going to be a shining example for what free societies can look like in the 21st century: prosperous, fair and free.

Even Hugo Chavez, who has gone off the rails as is common among very strong politicians who have great success, did a great deal of good for his country before he got drunk on power. But he'll be gone soon and there's a healthy crop of decent leaders waiting to take over.

Don't think for a second that the financial and social successes in South America don't scare the hell out of the USA.

Re:OK (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32894194)

i'm chilean, chile isn't in the way of a welfare state (european model) that you are saying, currently we are beeing driven by a right goverment with strong individualist values ( i am fine with that) , argentina has big BIG problem on their laws bu brazil you're right they seems to be doing OK

also mother is from venezuela , i had lived there for 6 months and i can tell you, chavez is a monkey, and thes rest of the politicians ain't any better, they don't have electricity even for the hospital , not even talk about the current implementation of net neutralities there

so next time if you want to JUSTIFY the goals of some country saying that is because the leftty politics that they have , better just STFU intead of looking like and idiot

excuse my poor english

Mod parent up! :) (2, Insightful)

PaulBu (473180) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894276)

And good luck to your country! ;-) I like Chilean wines anyway, maybe I should look into moving there!

Paul B.

Re:OK (0, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894296)

I'm sorry, I don't believe a word you said. I don't believe you are from Chile. I don't believe your mother is from Venezuela.

You gave away your game when you said "excuse my poor english" since clearly you thought by writing like an poorly educated American would fool people into thinking you are from a Latin American country.

Even Chileans with "bad english" (as you say) know how to write English properly. You didn't make a single mistake that I'd expect to see from a native Spanish-speaker writing English.

Good try, though.

Almost there (2, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893714)

It's not actually law yet. The last sentence of TFA states (my translation)

The Chamber of Deputies sent the present bill to the Executive so that it might comment or proceed to promulgating it as a Law of the Republic.

However, the Executive are quoted earlier as approving of it, so this should be a formality.

I see self conflicting clauses... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893732)

"guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever"

These two conflict. establishing privacy and safety require the users behavior and software be carefully configured and updated, and that impedes on ones liberty to have absolute control over their own behavior and property.

Re:I see self conflicting clauses... (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893796)

Well, like most liberties you can wave them. If you choose to not be safe by not updating your software and such, that becomes your liability and not theirs.

Re:I see self conflicting clauses... (1)

Mal-2 (675116) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893810)

"guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever"

These two conflict. establishing privacy and safety require the users behavior and software be carefully configured and updated, and that impedes on ones liberty to have absolute control over their own behavior and property.

It probably means the ISP must not do anything to compromise the privacy and safety of the users. Not much can be done about the users being directly compromised. This is going to be a conflict when someone is zombified though -- cut them off and step on their rights (but protect everyone else as obligated) or leave them alone even though it is known they are attacking others?

Mal-2

Re:I see self conflicting clauses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32893848)

privacy could possibly be referring to not using their traffic data for whatever they want, including turning it over to somebody else (hopeful) but I don't know what they mean by safety. On one hand, you could be correct in this just being oxymoronic but I'm being positive for a change since this is a huge step in the right direction.

Re:I see self conflicting clauses... (1)

Sir Mal Fet (1402403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893878)

Actually, probably this is my fault, by getting lost in the translation. The intention of the law is that the ISP cannot use your data in order to identify you for using the web, and at the same time, they must make sure that their services (servers and such, not your PC) do not get infected by viruses or other malware. What you get onto your own computer is your business, and they can't monitor that. Sorry for the faulty translation. :P

You have to wonder though... (1)

skyride (1436439) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893758)

What's different about Chile as a nation compared with the "western world"? I mean in the regard that these allegedly "less-successful" countries seem to vote in people who genuinely want to make their country a better place for all its people rather than corrupt half-wits?

Re:You have to wonder though... (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894082)

I'm of the opinion one of the biggest problems with 1st world elections is popular vote. Instead of voting for the person you want you should get a stack of votes of varying point values to drop on multiple candidates you like the best (can't go all on 1) that way you come up with a vote against system. If voters for person A hate person B and voters for person B hate person A, yet nobody really hates C even though he's not really in the spotlight, he has a better chance of winning that way. The rabid division down the middle of a party system is killing most first world nations.

Key Fickle Phrase (4, Insightful)

Aldanga (1757414) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893782)

"No [ISP] can block... legitimate use conducted through the Internet."

Anybody else see the problem here?

Re:Key Fickle Phrase (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893814)

You mean my illegal downloading of 1 million dollars worth of songs (Read: 5 songs) won't be protected?

Re:Key Fickle Phrase (1)

John Whitley (6067) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893904)

Note that the phrase in question will be both translated and summarized from the text of the law. I wouldn't read too much into it without a look at the original.

Also note: without some such clause, ISPs might be legally barred from useful and necessary activities such as addressing ongoing DDOS attacks.

Re:Key Fickle Phrase (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893928)

It's not a fickle phrase, Read it over again slowly.

'No [one] can block, interfere with, discriminate, hinder, nor restrict the right of any Internet user of using, send, receive or offer any content, application, or legitimate service through the Internet, as well as any activity or legitimate use conducted through the Internet.

(emphasis mine)

It is basically saying
No one can block/interfere/hinder/restrict anyone from using/sending/receiving/offering any content/application/legitimate-service/any-activity/legitimate-use of the internet.

there are actually are limits in this world (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894040)

on everything, including you freedom

when someone tries to block child pornography, for example, you are not witnessing some horrible slippery slope to fascism. no, really. to believe so is to be a hysterical twit and absolutely no credit whatsoever to an authentic fight for freedom

"Anybody else see the problem here?"

no, not at all. are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

the fight for freedom must be patient, shrewd, and wise. not a bunch of halfcocked lightweights spazzing out at every wisp of smoke

Re:there are actually are limits in this world (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894202)

>>>when someone tries to block child pornography, for example, you are not witnessing some horrible slippery slope to fascism

(1) Possession of children having sex should be no more illegal than possession of murdered people. You did not commit the crime. The molester or murderer is the one who committed the crime and should be arrested, not you for mere possession of an image.

(2) Neither should parents be arrested for posting photos of their family trip to the nudist or topless beach. But it has happened.

(3) Neither should artists be arrested for creating DRAWINGS of children in sex act. There's no victim; hence no crime.

Re:Key Fickle Phrase (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894094)

Yes as I said in a previous post, the word "legitimate" will eventually be used by follow-up laws (or overzealous police)(or asshole ISPs to exclude:

- Sites that don't adhere to the new Internet Fairness Doctrine (both sides of a story), Downloading nude women that APPEAR to be younger than 18 (see Australia where 20-something women can't post photos, because they have A-sized breasts), Downloading women who actually are younger than 18, but not committing any crime (such as topless photos from Brazilian or European beaches)
- Peer-2-Peer, Nudist websites, Photos of your kids, Hate websites like KKK.org, So-called hate site like Teaparty.org. Downloading emulators for ancient NES games
- And so on.

Government regulation brings *chains* not freedom. What we really need is a pro-choice solution that puts power in the hands of customers. The government can run 50-fiber bundles under all the streets, and then lease each of those lines to a different company. The customers would be able to choose among multiple ISPs: Comcast, Cox, Time-warner, AppleTV, Verizon, Virgin, Mom&Pop Cable, whatever. If one ISP sucks or blocks a website you want, just switch to a different ISP. You'd have upto 50 to choose from.

Re:Key Fickle Phrase (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32894236)

It's all in the wording isn't it...

I'm still trying to get over this tidbit: (assuming content not https)

... and safety when surfing ...

Might as well start creating a whitelist with 'sites deemed safe'. Absurd to say the least.

Stark contrast to UK's DEA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32893786)

Chilean politicians are remarkeably net savyy when compared to their UK counterparts. Did they ask why debate the protection of voters from luncheon meat? Probably not, but then they have just approved a document which appears to be the exact reverse of the UK's Digital Economy Act.

Why net neutrality is bad... (0)

myforwik (1465003) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893820)

I know that most people here are internet techies, but why do most of you not understand that net neutrality is a BAD thing. With net neutrality you only have one option for internet access: untampered internet. With net neutrality you will have many options, some with peer2peer tampering some without. The ones with tampering will be cheaper. The ones that do other dodgy things like insert adds will be ever cheaper. The neutrality of a ISP will be reflected in its price and people will vote with their feet. Net neutrality is a bad idea because it allows a minority (heavy peer2peer users) to force their taste for internet onto the majority (average users). If net neutrality was implemented it WILL WITH CERTAINTY increase internet costs for all users, which is disproportion to their usage, only heavy users should bare the increase. Why do you think companies do all these things like shaping of only peer2peer? For fun? They do it because if they didn't prices would have to go up.

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (3, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893886)

So you are saying that the people in areas with 1-2 ISPs will be able to switch to a different ISP that doesn't restrict traffic? Have you ever noticed how when one gas station raises their prices, the one directly across the street raises theirs to the same? Its not collusion but its price fixing. ISPs will do the same exact thing. Comcast goes, hey Wave Broadband is filtering out Torrents, we are gonna do it too to save money, people can complain but where they gonna go?

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (2, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893936)

Its not collusion but its price fixing.

Totally agreed. Any of you foolish libertarians who believe in "free markets" should recognize that Telecom/Cable has basically never been "free". It's been a (somewhat regulated) monopoly at local levels since pretty much day one. Those who would revoke those regulations without forcing open the market (ie, forcing resale of bandwidth/service etc) are basically allowing the telecoms to have their cake and eat it too. Net Neutrality is an attempt at strengthening regulations. In the absence of a free market, I'm all for it.

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894062)

So, you're saying that the solution to having too much regulation in a market, (telcom) is to install more regulation? How progressive of you.

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32894164)

Any of you foolish libertarians who believe in "free markets" should recognize that Telecom/Cable has basically never been "free". It's been a (somewhat regulated) monopoly at local levels since pretty much day one.

They do recognize that, and they're at least as opposed to those monopolies as they are to net neutrality legislation.

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894256)

Have you ever noticed how when one gas station raises their prices, the one directly across the street raises theirs to the same? Its not collusion but its price fixing.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Price fixing is just one of many behaviors bundled under the name "collusion."

What you're griping about is the market's perfectly legal tendancy to play follow the leader on pricing.

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893916)

I know that most people here are internet techies, but why do most of you not understand that net neutrality is a BAD thing.

Because we're actual techies, i.e. people who pay attention to what's actually going on in the tech world, as opposed to people who have swallowed the corporate "we have to be able to abuse our customers so we can provide service for our customers!" propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (4, Insightful)

tofubeer (1746800) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893938)

Net neutrality doesn't prevent charging based on usage (which is what they should be doing). Note that that is different than charging based on sites accessed or protocols used. ISPs should not be degrading P2P traffic, or restricting access to sites, what they should be doing is charging users based on their consumption.

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (1)

scross (1621251) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894252)

I agree with the concept, but how exactly do you compete with another company offering unlimited downloads? Much like web hosting, there's the small print agreement that says you can only download/host a 'reasonable' amount, but most consumers are going to go for the unlimited package.

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894006)

If net neutrality was implemented it WILL WITH CERTAINTY increase internet costs for all users

Did it ever occur to you that some of us would be willing to pay more for untampered internet?

And it's not just about peer2peer tampering. It's about all traffic shaping - streaming videos, playing video games, etc. Some of us would like to have unrestricted access. We already put up with the bandwidth issues during high traffic times - but you'll still be shaped in low traffic times. (Which, we might add, there is more low and mid-low traffic times then there are high and mid-high traffic times).

You mention how Net Neutrality will offer more choices (those with tampering and those without). Currently, for most people, there are two options, Suck and suck harder.

How could more options be worse?

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32894058)

So with net neutrality I only get to choose good things, and without net neutrality I have to choose between piles of shit?

Shit may be cheaper, but it's still shit. But wait! I don't think for a second that an ISP would charge less for shit than they are now. Instead, they'd raise the rates across to board to pay for all the fancy new equipment they installed to turn the internet to shit. They have to put effort into making sure that people who bought shit internet only get shit internet, and that's actually harder and more expensive to the ISP than letting the customers do whatever they want until their bandwidth fills up.

The reality is ISPs could do trivial things like blocking spoofed packets at their edges (DSL modems sending packets addressed from China? Probably a DoS, nobody will miss it when it's gone) to conserve bandwidth. They only want to end net neutrality so that they can go back to the AOL walled garden and still call it "the internet". Then they'll tell Ford that if they want the ISPs customers to read their website, they better buy the FORD keyword, or else they'll find a car company that'll pay for it. Likewise Google, Amazon, iTunes, and so on. The ISPs figure that subscription rates are chump change compared to using their subscribers for extorting the big corporations.

Re:Why net neutrality is bad... (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894150)

I agree:

The problem is not neutrality. The problem is the monopoly (or duopoly) that government granted these businesses. It's equivalent to if government suddenly announced, "You will no longer have a choice in grocery stores. Only Comcast Grocery will be allowed to operate within this city." Don't be surprised if the cost of food doubles or even triples as a result (no instantly but over a time).

I remember when Comcast was $30. That wasn't great but it was reasonable. Now it would cost me $80 ($85 with tax) to get equivalent service to what I had in 1997. They get away with it because they have a government-granted monopoly.

So what is "legitimate service" (1)

Fredde87 (946371) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893856)

The article states that the ISP can't restrict "legitimate service through the Internet", but doesn't that mean they can restrict "unlawful" activities? So how is this really different from what other western countries like Australia is trying to do where officially they say they are doing it to restrict illegal activities like child pornography or bit-torrent (which politicians still don't seem to understand is not illegal by itself)?

Re:So what is "legitimate service" (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894200)

For example, without net neutrality an ISP could block your VoIP traffic in order to sell you their phone service instead. Since VoIP clearly is legitimate, this law means they cannot block it.
I also guess it means they cannot simply block all torrents, because you could use bittorrent to download Linux images (which is a legitimate use), and blocking all torrents would restrict that legitimate service.
Of course it cannot protect against restrictions by law (e.g. if a new law states that torrents are now illegal, then torrents stop being legitimate traffic), but then, there's not much a law can do to protect itself against lawmakers anyway (the only way to protect it a bit more would be to put it into the constitution).

Will this work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32893870)

Can Chile criminally charge the American executives of an ISP that is filtering traffic now?

One Page bill (5, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#32893872)

I looked at the translation of the bill and it appears to be a one page bill. I only skimmed it, but I can support such a bill. There's no place to hide things in it. Unlike the "net neutrality" bills that have been introduced in the U.S. Congress.

Re:One Page bill (2, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894166)

It's more like 2.5 pages (official text in Spanish [camara.cl] - the document is 4 pages, but there's a lot of padding and some formalities at either end) but your point stands. The U.S. legislative system is insane.

Re:One Page bill (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894264)

The problem is that the U.S. legislative system isn't insane. They write the bills the way they do in order to hide stuff. The worst part is that there is stuff in most bills that even the guy who introduces it doesn't know is in there. And some of the stuff that is hidden from him, he would oppose if he knew it was there.

Re:One Page bill (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894308)

There's always a way to "hide" something. You simply don't define every term, and then duke it out in the courts.

Or you simply ignore it, and then claim that congress is infringing on the "rights" of rich people, and get a 5-4 decision in your favor.

Canada before sorry! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32894030)

Uhmm,

I believe Canada passed a similar law about 8 months ago?

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/10/20/crtc-net-neutrality-ruling.html

Happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32894038)

Is it strange that I read this as China first off!
Far less sensationalist to read second time around

Negative Rights vs. Positive Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32894060)

Most techies don't understand that the internet is a negative right, not a positive one. No one owes you internet, you simply have the right to pursue it. This means that if an ISP wants to limit the bandwidth to your home apache server or they only let you go to a limited range of IP Addresses, you should switch to another ISP. The only responsibility TWC or Comcast has is to fulfill their portion of the agreement (that's the long terms of service you probably didn't read), which may require unfettered internet access, or it may be limited based upon the plan that you choose. I don't see why a private company shouldn't have the right to do this. This legislation is not a step toward internet freedom, which should be driven by consumer demand, but rather a step in internet control via Government.

Redefines "Third World Country" (3, Insightful)

aaandre (526056) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894170)

The term used to be associated with "impoverished." Now it is more like "laws not yet fully rewritten by and for corporations."

Re:Redefines "Third World Country" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32894210)

Thrid world came from the cold war era, and it was attributed to Russia and Russia sympathizers.

Contradictory nonsense! (0)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894244)

Okay, so the Chilean ISP is not to mess with your traffic in any way, or even look at it. Yet, they must filter porn and ensure your privacy and security? Idiots.

And here I thought Pinochet died in 2006.

Safety and liberty? (0)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 3 years ago | (#32894246)

guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever.

Maybe the spanish translation needs help, but how can you guarantee privacy and safety without restricting liberty? What if I WANT to pay some Nigerian a bunch of money for zero return? What if I'm a security researcher looking for a virus to download and test?

Slippery slope, folks.

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...