In an Accidental Email To TechDirt Editor, Telco Lobbyists Outline How They Intend To Shift The Blame For Privacy, Net Neutrality and More To Internet Companies (techdirt.com) 144
Technology news outlet TechDirt on Thursday published a hell of a story about the ways telecom lobbyists are going to try shifting the blame for a range of recent developments -- including net neutrality, competition, privacy, and cybersecurity -- to internet companies. The outlet cites talking points that it received in an accidental email that was supposed to go to a different Mike. Here's an excerpt from the story, which shares the privacy section: MESSAGE: Here is the modern reality of consumer protection: the greatest risks are posed by companies on the internet's edge. Privacy is a shared responsibility -- and the burdens and obligations can not rest solely with ISPs and must be applied equally across the internet ecosystem.
The increased scrutiny of Facebook and other edge provides offer a significant opportunity for Congress to implement clear and consistent rules that apply equally to all companies in the internet ecosystem. And when they begin the process of establishing best practices for privacy, they will need to look no further than broadband providers.
For years, our members have embraced strong consumer privacy policies, because they understand the success of any digital business depends on earning their customers' trust.
Consumers and companies alike deserve one set of protections and rules of the road. This is the best way to ensure consumer protection while also providing the necessary flexibility for a competitive and innovative marketplace. TechDirt editor Mike Masnick writes: There's a brief section later in the document, suggesting that they play up Trump now fighting with Google, and suggest that's a good point to drop in the "same rules for edge" providers meaningless argument:
Trump/Google Drama: People have spent years clamoring for ISP net neutrality. We need same rules of the road for edge. On net neutrality: MESSAGE: Our nation's broadband providers strongly support net neutrality -- without 1930's-era regulations -- and with consumer protections that are consistently applied across the entire internet ecosystem. Read the full story here.
The increased scrutiny of Facebook and other edge provides offer a significant opportunity for Congress to implement clear and consistent rules that apply equally to all companies in the internet ecosystem. And when they begin the process of establishing best practices for privacy, they will need to look no further than broadband providers.
For years, our members have embraced strong consumer privacy policies, because they understand the success of any digital business depends on earning their customers' trust.
Consumers and companies alike deserve one set of protections and rules of the road. This is the best way to ensure consumer protection while also providing the necessary flexibility for a competitive and innovative marketplace. TechDirt editor Mike Masnick writes: There's a brief section later in the document, suggesting that they play up Trump now fighting with Google, and suggest that's a good point to drop in the "same rules for edge" providers meaningless argument:
Trump/Google Drama: People have spent years clamoring for ISP net neutrality. We need same rules of the road for edge. On net neutrality: MESSAGE: Our nation's broadband providers strongly support net neutrality -- without 1930's-era regulations -- and with consumer protections that are consistently applied across the entire internet ecosystem. Read the full story here.
Good stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be curious to know who downvoted me and why. Is it because I made fun of HRC, or social justice warriors, or Trump? Hmmmmm...
I did not, but I would. It's off topic.
Crap! Now I am off topic too...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
awwww. babies first election!
Re: (Score:1)
Loose lips sink ships (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Loose lips sink ships (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have time to explain the finer points of weasel words and controlling the narrative. But the simple answer is that the story has been deliberately crafted to sound good and reasonable to everyone. You have to look closer to find the manipulation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that none of those things have anything to do with the problems "over here" that are the actual issue being discussed.
Re:Loose lips sink ships (Score:5, Interesting)
This is great stuff if you're looking for your telecom stock to go up.
This stuff is PR foam and goo and reality distortion if you're anyone but a telecom stockholder.
Utility regulation in the US was made for a very good reason, which is that utilities will turn into monopolistic snakes in lieu of being forced to act even reasonably human. They are snakes and toads and lizards.
These distractions are designed to take concern away by a makeover of the worst, most misleading kind. It smacks of the propaganda campaigns so moneyed in current western world politics.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see how you can agree with obvious lies, but I hear people with that kind of flexibility are in high demand.
Re:Loose lips sink ships (Score:5, Interesting)
You could start by RTFA. It pretty mush shows point by point how the lobbyist message is not so much a direct lie (that is Yes, google and facebook are a privacy problem), but a "creative omission" (telcos have been doing worse for years but you won't find mention of that in the lobbyist's message).
We're all on the putting green and the lobbyist points and exclaims "LOOK! it's the Goodyear blimp!" and then casually pushes the ball in the cup with his foot while everyone looks where he pointed. I have no idea why you want to believe so badly that you couldn't see that.
Re:Loose lips sink ships (Score:5, Insightful)
Really?
And when they begin the process of establishing best practices for privacy, they will need to look no further than broadband providers.
You want congress to go ask the top 5 major ISP companies for how to make rules for privacy? The people who have been caught violating your privacy for profit. You really think that's a good idea?
For years, our members have embraced strong consumer privacy policies, because they understand the success of any digital business depends on earning their customers’ trust.
The telcoms have success at business because they're monopolies. Most people believe them to be untrustworthy.
People have spent years clamoring for ISP net neutrality. We need same rules of the road for edge.
Most network neutrality issues pertain to those controlling the pipes. But hey, sure, I too have to admit that sounds like a good idea. So it shouldn't matter where you're requesting a video from Youtube and there should be no "restricted due to your countries IP laws". Buuuuuuut that's an issue ABOVE congress. You know, since it's international. ISPs on the other hand, are pretty constrained on the rules of the nation their pipes currently reside in.
Federal investment must be used to fill the gaps in truly unserved areas, not create false market competition by allowing electric utilities with established monopolies to extend their market power over this already fragile market. Together, we should be laser-focused on serving the unserved and maximizing the federal support to do it, while avoiding duplication and overbuilding, and ensuring efficiencies wherever possible.
If you believe at all in capitalism, you HAVE to realize that the ISP industry doesn't have competition and the major telcoms are engaging in anti-competitive practices:
1) They collude not to compete in each other's territory
2) They subsidize service in any area where new competition comes to town, like Google Fiber.
3) They've sued against anyone touching the poles which have their cables. If they're arguing a power company having a monopoly on their own poles, they're hypocrites to the extreme.
Re:Loose lips sink ships (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm... actually on the side of the lobbyist talking points on this. Someone care to educate me where they are wrong?
The talking points themselves are not terrible, but they make the false equivalency that ISPs and websites are the same thing and require the same, equal levels of regulation (IE, you'd better not regulate me but leave them alone..)
If people had their choice of a number of broadband providers, maybe they would almost have a point. I can, and am, free to connect to the Internet, and choose any website I'd like to get my information from. Twitter doesn't stop me from doing that. Facebook doesn't stop me from doing that. Even Google doesn't stop me from doing that. The ISP cartel is the only one trying to put roadblocks in the way by acting like mobsters requiring "protection money" from businesses, and can, and currently do this because they are able to ensure that they own the lines that the users use, lines which should be a utility not owned by media companies.
They're not _just_ asking the user to pay for the bandwidth he uses, or the companies to pay for the bandwidth _they_ use, the ISPs want an additional fee on top of that from the websites. They can't just charge the users more because users would revolt over such direct violations, so they want to charge websites the extra money they want to pocket, knowing that websites will pass the costs "invisibly" through to the users. This is because the ISPs are trying to be more than ISPs. They are media companies, owning their own content services. Since they own the lines, they don't need to pay the fees they charge others. They are against net neutrality, because lack of net neutrality lets them use their monopoly/duopoly positions as ISPs to gain a competitive advantage in any other Internet they wish to expand to. Everything else in regards to "regulating" online websites has to do with harming those websites. Again, with the disingenuous insinuation that if ISPs should be regulated, then online sites should be as well.
Re: (Score:2)
And everywhere else you'll have shills try to derail any sensible discussion about it.
Like, say, here.
Message: We Care (Score:3)
Except we don't, suckers!
Re:Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you don't have to use the content platforms, but you have to use the ISP as there is only one in the area. We need GDPR equivalent to apply to all the platforms and content providers and all companies you interact with on the internet
Re:Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A competitive ISP market doesn't guarantee that at least one provider will offer reasonably priced, net-neutral service. We need net neutrality mandated by law even if there are multiple high-speed, low-latency ISPs serving every area.
True, a competative market doesn't guarantee someone will step up and provide what really ought to be a cornerstone of civilization, akin to clean water and greasy gyros. It practically guarentees it in any major city. SOMEONE would start up a business and launch it and even i
Re: (Score:2)
I think the untrustworthiness of the congress that would be crafting the laws is my biggest concern. As for leaving it to regulators we already know that just means it will be controlled by whatever industry hack the latest administration puts into the FCC, either on the telecom or media side depending who's in power.
The best way to fix this is probably to prevent ISPs from being media companies, just like we don't let film studios own theaters. Free market principles don't necessarily mean allowing for th
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to fix this is probably to prevent ISPs from being media companies
You're only looking at the current industry fight with ISPs and netflix. You want something like film studios not owning theaters (or car manufacturing owning car dealerships). But what industry doesn't make use of the Internet? They'd have to be restricted to ONLY being an ISP.
And even if they themselves don't own the competition, they can simply sell priority. ESPN3 made deals with ISPs to blatantly violate NN. Rather than selling to individuals, they sold to the ISP. That service is now not neutral wi
Re:Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, we can't endanger profits just because some people want to have an internet that ain't just a walled garden.
Re: (Score:2)
That would become an Intranet, once you remove links it's no longer the Internet therefor there would be consumer laws protecting you because you didn't get what you paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
A few more such zingers and you have a standup routine.
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet America, content platforms use YOU!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
They can make money off it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"They can make money off it, that makes it their business"
That is a disgusting attitude, and is why we need some regulation: rent-seeking.
Re:Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah sweet, you're conflating privacy and security, issues that nobody really thinks every handler of data on the internet should be responsible and accountable for, with content issues for two entirely different segments of service and function on the internet. Waters sufficiently muddied, false dichotomy suggested! Telcos pleased!
Net neutrality doesn't have shit to do with what kind of data is published on websites anymore than the owner of the only road in town should be able to say that because a store can kick somebody off their property, the road owner should be able to as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the ISP is the interstate and the country roads.
The platforms are places ( libraries, store fronts, etc ) I might want to go to using the above.
ISPs are attempting to become modern "highway men" making their money on allowing me ( really, not allowing me, unless the library or store front pays them ) to visit.
Re: Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but.. (Score:5, Informative)
Because there's a huge difference between the two? I can have ISP service and avoid using these platforms, but I can't access anything on the Internet without an ISP. If you can't see how the two are not even remotely comparable then you must be brain damaged or an industry shill. One of them is literally the gatekeeper to access anything on the Internet which grants them far more power than any of these platforms have.
Re: (Score:1)
or an industry shill.
Never underestimate how much social media is flooded with paid shills.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there is a HUGE difference between the two. I only had one real choice in ISP before I moved to a real city. Service sucked. (Now it's just expensive).
Buuuuuuuuuuut, they're similar in certain ways. ISPs should be dumb carriers not liable for the packets they transport and they shouldn't fuck with them. And since that whole "internet 2.0" craze, any website you can publish your own reviews, comments, posts, blogs, and diatribes. I would also like these websites to be dumb carriers not liable for t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because ISP and content providers are not the same thing.
Your ISP is only one of many ISPs that your data passes through when you use the Internet. You may select the bestest most trustworthy ISP, but somewhere between you, your ISP, and the end link are several other ISPs for which you have no recourse if they record and distribute your sessions, or if they downgrade your QoS. Your ISP's EULA is not their EULA.
This is why ISPs must be regulated - so they all play by the same laws, and so you can know what
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the road needs to be neutral as who is allowed to drive on them, then why don't the garages and houses connected to the roads let everyone into them?
It's probably because the roads are intended to be generic and public, whereas the "edges" are far more diverse and intended to be for whatever someone wants. Everyone has to use the roa
Lobbyists (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we just ban all lobbyists and campaign donations and kickbacks and bribes?
I mean, if I took money for my company to give preferential treatment to someone or to another company I would be arrested. How is this different? (and don't bother replying with, "its the American way" or some canned response like that, really try to come up with a valid reason)
And how are lobbyists support anything but corporate best interest at this point? They are all bought and paid for as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbying is legal.
Great, you identified the problem, first step done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... all I said was that you identified the problem and completed the first step to change, where did I say that you shouldn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Can we just ban all lobbyists and campaign donations and kickbacks and bribes?
I mean, if I took money for my company to give preferential treatment to someone or to another company I would be arrested.
Really? You mean you cannot have exclusive contracts, or preferential pricing for some customers? What country do you live in where that is illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Getting campaign donations for a stance is be like giving a car to a sales rep for a good deal at the expense of the company they where claiming to work for.
This is illegal, or at least the second one is, the first is only illegal in functioning democracies.
Actually, it is not illegal. Doesn't mean you won't get fired, but what law is broken by giving a sales rep a deal better than the company normally would? There is nothing illegal about it. At all.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the U.S. we have a variety of basic freedoms recognized as things the government hasn't been given the power by the people to take away. Among those basic freedoms are the right to express our political views to other people, even if we want to spend our own money to amplify and express those views, and the right to petition our government officials, i.e. tell them what we want them to do for us.
Lobbyists are people the more organized among us hire to represent their interests in telling politicians
Re: (Score:2)
I find myself in general disgust at the disproportionately high level of amplification available to corporations (as compared with individual citizens) for the purpose of influencing the legal and regulatory environment.
However, you have an excellently argued defense of lobbying activities, and, though not personally in agreement with all your points, I wish I had mod points for you. +1, Insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your thoughtful response.
In terms of corporations, if you compare them to any other similar sized group of people (shareholders+employees) who agree on something and want to influence politicians about it, they may benefit from their level of organization, but they don't really have much more in terms of resources than is available elsewhere.
I suppose really what you're seeing is that because the people involved have formed a limited-purpose organization, the effect is more focused/concentrated
Re: (Score:2)
Spending your money on hosting a blog, making a movie, purchasing advertising in a magazine/newspaper/billboard, and similar activities all involve "giving someone money". They're also all forms of speech and covered under what is described as freedom of the press in the Constitution.
Money is just a means to facilitate an exchange. As an example, if you exchange your efforts for money, then exchange that money for someone else's efforts to post a billboard, it's just a more efficient way of doing things tha
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here, no lobbyist, no politician and no CEO ever felt useful, so they don't even know what they're missing.
swamp thing (Score:5, Insightful)
You notice how some of the worst people in the world are now using Trump's antics to excuse the most dishonest and despicable behavior? Everything from white supremacists and jackoffs with swastikas tattooed on their necks are crawling out from under rocks and trying to claim their rightful place atop the dung heap. There are bunches of openly white supremacist candidates running as Republicans this election, some with open nazi connections. Cops are throwing up gang signs and shooting into cars filled with black kids. Neo-nazis demonstrate in front of the White House. If you need an excuse to be shitty, you just have to point to Trump and expect a pass.
Remember when people were saying that Trump would "Drain the Swamp"? Those people have had to fully retreat from reality into some #qanon insanity just to try to keep their fragile worldview from falling to pieces, and now there's no way back for them. All because, as the noted philosopher Lao Tzu once said, "You never go full retard".
Re: (Score:1)
You notice how some of the worst people in the world are now using Trump's antics to excuse the most dishonest and despicable behavior?
Yes indeed. I mean really making Google and Facebook respect your privacy or at the very least spell out how your data is used. Imagine the cheek.
Re: (Score:2)
You notice how some of the worst people in the world are now using Trump's antics to excuse the most dishonest and despicable behavior?
Yes indeed. I mean really making Google and Facebook respect your privacy or at the very least spell out how your data is used. Imagine the cheek.
Google and Facebook do not have to respect your privacy if you're in the USA; they are not charging you a penny to use their free services and in return you have agreed to their terms of service. The only point I will agree with you on is spelling out how they use your data (in the broadest sense) since people are apparently to stupid to understand that these companies have operating costs to pay for let alone supporting a stock price and yet charge nothing... gee I wonder what they are doing with your acti
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, the tangled web of information selling to third parties adds a level of complexity to what I said obviously which is a totally different discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
Seems someone is happy with abusive monopolies as long as they think the abusive monopoly is on their side.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:swamp thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Prick.
troll tactics (Score:2)
It's probably their job, so don't take it too personally. This particular troll likes to provoke people into responding in the hopes that they don't change the comment title, effectively hijacking the karma bonus and increasing their visibility.
Here's some recommended reading [cryptome.org] about the methods these parasites use. They're a lot easier to ignore once you understand them.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the problem is, he was serious when he said he'd "drain the swamp"
He just never imagined how deep the rot really went. Look at all the people currently under investigation and/or getting fired. They were guilty of all this way before Trump won his way into the office.
Re:swamp thing (Score:5, Funny)
We are going to find out some day, that Trump was the top mole in the greatest law enforcement sting in history! He faked sliminess, dishonesty and dementia until he was completely surrounded by criminals, such that there wasn't a single honest person who worked with him. Then, starting with Manafort, he ratted them all out. We're going to find out he was Mueller's informant all along.
In Stupid Watergate, Trump is Deep Throat! Instead of secretly meeting in a parking garage, his covert channel to reporters and Mueller was some nerdy internet thing that nobody normal understands, called "Twitter."
Trump was so committed to truth, justice and the American way, that he sacrificed his own son!
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, it isn't Trumps's fault that these assholes exist. They chose to be white supremacists, etc., independently of any influence from Trump. Your claim seems to be that there is greater social tolerance of this sort of thing thanks to Trump...but....if the social intolerance of it was an effective means of overcoming it than all these people would have given up their ways before Trump was elected.
People are going to be assholes. You can't fix that by picking the right president.
Re: (Score:2)
The first step in draining the swamp is to identify the most decayed parts.
None of these people were peaceful, law-abiding citizens of upstanding character before Trump was elected.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they were scared to show their faces, which is how it's supposed to work in civil society.
Re: (Score:2)
Are the transgenders trying to force you to change your speaking patterns again? God, what a frightened little man you must be.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. I almost have nothing to say beyond that after reading this garbage of a post filled with horse shit mixed with half-truths (like the open Nazi connected "Republican"; I hate the Republican party, but that dude is not a Republican, rather he is an opportunist who ran as a Republican because he was unopposed at the primary).
Literally nothing has changed under Trump in terms of these people coming out of the woodwork. The only difference is that the media chooses to cover it and attribute it to him, as t
Re: (Score:1)
So, we agree that a nazi ran for office as a Republican and no one in the GOP would oppose him. OK. Makes sense. I don't see the distinction, but there it is. And he wasn't the only white supremacist with ties to neo-nazi groups that is running as a Republican this cycle. Why have they chosen the Republican part
Re:swamp thing (Score:4, Informative)
It's not "one guy". There are a host of white supremacists and neo-nazis running as Republicans. Would you like a list?
You've got John Fitzgerald in California's 11th district. You've got Seth Grossman in New Jersey. Of course, Arthur Jones in Illinois. Steve King in Iowa's 4th. Paul Nehlan, Corey Stewart. Russell Walker in North Carolina. Patrick Little. John Abarr in Montana. Sean Donahue. Augustus Invictus (born, Austin Gillespie) I could go on, if you'd like. If we start listing the GOP candidates who are "white supremacist-adjacent", we could be here all day.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/1... [vox.com]
https://www.rollingstone.com/p... [rollingstone.com]
Re: They're Right (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
people should demand the same rules
Should the rules for who can park in a business' parking lot be the same as the rules for all the roads that can be used to get to that business? Why not? Shouldn't we be using the same rules wherever cars can go?
Re: (Score:2)
Was just going to mention how their tactics were similar to asinine alt-right brainsharts about the need for "neutrality at the application layer" and here we are. Remember when there was a conspiracy theory that net neutrality was a stealth Fairness Doctrine 2.0, and the right considered that to be A Bad Thing? Good times.
Re:They're Right (Score:4, Insightful)
downstream platform monopoly
You can choose to get your ill-thought short diatribes and banal status updates from somewhere other than Twitter.
Unless you're an ideologue like many of the 'pro netneutrality' crowd who are completely fine with other voices being censored so they can monologue unopposed.
Just who the fuck are you? Show me one god-damned instance of someone arguing in favor of network neutrality that somehow veered into advocating for censorship. Go on. Pour some sauce over here. Throw me a link. Because you can't just spew that sort of garbage around without at least SOME sort of backup.
I'm pro-NN as fuck and I believe Hall said it best: I might disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because another problem exists doesn't mean we should ignore this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, now the comments are duplicates too. Parent was shot down already. We certainly saw an article about how throttling threatened public safety recently and how Verizon belatedly backpedaled and sort of apologized for it./
Re: (Score:2)
Adding more corn doesn't make pooping on the dinner table any more attractive.
TechDirt ROCKs! (Score:1)
TechDirt always publishes cutting edge news about tech issues, legal issues relating to tech, copyright, DRM, FOSS, and YRO stuff as it happens.
Their writers, Mike Masnick, Tim Cook, others, and occasional insight by EFF writers give HUGE ("YOUJE") perspective as to the politicial, legal, and social climate with regard to tech issues -- not just in the US -- but also including Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
They've covered everything from Kim DotCom, Julian Assange, Paul Ceglia, to people you might eve
"This is Not Your Father's Microsoft" (Score:2)
Hmm... sure seems like they haven't changed.
Re: (Score:2)
The rule is "thou shalt not murder". And murder is only killing another one of our kind, that doesn't mean we can't commit some happy genocide in other peoples.
And no, I don't want that regulation back.