John McCain’s S.1836 Internet Freedom Act
S.1836 – A bill to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating the Internet.
Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, introduced a bill Thursday that would prohibit the FCC from enacting rules that would regulate the Internet. The FCC “shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services,” according to the bill text.
Access to unadulterated information, which may be the greatest human rights achievement, now lay squarely in front of a legislature. Senate Bill 1836, introduced on October 22nd 2009, is intended to strip the FCC of the power to force equal broadband access to all types of traffic. Giving self regulation to the communication giants would be like calling for the abolition of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Positioned against the free information movement is the reorganization, or tiering, of the information on the web. One concept is guised with the promise to deliver faster Internet as well as priority media delivery. Conceptualize a core of “fast track” websites that are included in the basic Internet package. Unfortunately, to access others it would require a premium fee similar to basic cable and HBO. The egalitarian style of broadband access on the web, not to mention GNU GPL based applications, are in the cross hairs of big business.
As a member of Political Cartel I must also inform the reader that I am inherently biased on this topic. If broadband was divvied up our traffic may crash because people would not visit due to the extra fee’s. All that traffic would go to the big time sites. Free exchange of ideas, thoughts, speech – all censored because of the prohibitive cost associated with service.
The McCain bill is corporatism at its worst and it plays to the monopolistic tendencies of capitalism. It articulates the worst element of the Republican ideology, that is carte blanche deference to private industry for regulation will yield the most desired results.
As other nations give widespread broadband access as a civil right, this bill would turn America into a pay-to-play internet scheme for those who can afford it.
I turn to openinternet.se for a thought provoking discussion and the most succinct explanation of the concerns confronting all of us :
“The Internet is something that most of us have gradually become accustomed to during the last ten to fifteen years, but it is changing in a fundamental way. What started as a tool for universities to exchange information has transformed into a global meeting place. The world’s largest marketplace, which drives the development of new products, services and business methods. The world’s largest social forum, where billions of people exchange thoughts and ideas, argue, discuss, fall in love, apply for jobs and live a large part of their lives. Perhaps the most important invention hitherto in the history of humankind.
But, as so often happens, conflicts arise between the new and the old. Freedom is being curtailed the world over, as is the openness of the Internet. Voices often rise about the censorship in some faraway dictatorship, while the mainstream is frighteningly quiet regarding the fact that many democratic countries are in the process of building the exact same sort of control mechanisms. Not only to monitor their citizens on the net, whatever they are doing, whether they commit criminal acts or not, but also to block the access to arbitrarily defined “unsuitable” material. For instance, Australia has a filter with the outspoken goal to block access to child pornography, and few people would object to that. However, two-thirds or so of the blocked websites have nothing to do with child pornography at all.
The struggle for whether state organizations and mega-corporations should be able to monitor and decide about your private business is ongoing the world over, seldom given as much attention as it should have. Our freedom is nothing to take for granted. Laws are made in bulk in countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and Sweden, to limit the personal integrity of the citizens. And don’t trust that you will avoid registration just because you stay within the boundaries of the law. Information collected about you might be stored, analyzed, sold and used against you in five, fifteen or fifty years. Did you vote for the wrong party? Did you read the wrong book? Did you have the wrong friends? It’s hard to foresee the future consequences of what happens on the net right now”.
Genachowski issued a statement yesterday in which the FCC chairman discussed six conceptual commitments that he fully endorses.
1. The goal is a free and open Internet. First, the goal is, and must remain without compromise, preserving a free and open Internet. “Each and every user of the Internet must have access to an unlimited online universe of ideas and commerce,” Genachowski said.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10381355-266.html
This CNET article from yesterday explains the kinds of FCC regulations that McCain evidently wants to limit.
It’s a confusing topic because normally we associate “government regulation” with “decreased freedom” or “bad.” But in this case the regulation is to keep big internet companies from funneling internet traffic in ways that unfairly benefit them and hurt users.
The companies say they take issue with “network management”, that is one of those loaded terms to be vary of. There is another missing piece. Providers do not tell you that they have fallen incredibly short of the goals laid out to upgrade the network of this country – to which they have received a massive amount of subsidies for.
This whole argument of network management can sometimes be code for blocking high bandwidth users. There wouldn’t be a need for this blockade if they had upgraded the system enough to easily facilitate this type of use. In my observation I find that these providers are actually benefited by keeping the countries bandwidth low so as they can charge high rates for meager usage plans. I think a profit motive exists and it is in the nature of beast to exploit it.
When other countries talk of 100mbit speeds by 2015 I am disgusted that I pay so much for such a puny line… to which according to the FCC they actually only deliver 1/2 of what they promise, which for some reason is not considered fraud.
I suppose I’m generally in support of free, unadulterated internet access (in price and access). Although I’ve never really given it a whole lot of thought. I did think of one question though. Is it conceivable that there is more harm than good done with unfettered access to information on the internet? Or, in other words, is a certain degree of information control justified?
For example, what if a government decides it wants to block access to any website containing instructions on how to make homemade bombs. As a result, they, like Australia, end up blocking more website than intended. What is the net result? I would venture to say there is a net benefit in such a scenario, even though some websites are unjustifiably blocked.
Also, is that article from openinternet.se suggesting that the government is going to sell information about you obtained from the internet in order to black mail you into doing something or sabotage your career? Sounds like a good novel to me! Also sounds like typical anti-government scare tactics. Although I agree that it is hard to foresee the consequences of what happens on the internet right now, let’s not jump to McCarthian-style fear mongering.
As for the tiering of internet information, I think I’m principally opposed on the basis that it discriminates against the less-than-affluent classes in America.
Anyway, really interesting stuff. The idea of internet access as a fundamental/human right isn’t something I’ve thought enough about.
Q. Is it conceivable that there is more harm than good done with unfettered access to information on the internet? Or, in other words, is a certain degree of information control justified?
- No. The architecture of the internet is such that restrictions would be illogical. On its face the most simple problems would be censorship – i.e. who controls the net? Is it a panel, an administration; what if someone posts a link on political cartel to child porn? Nobody wants children to be exploited but there needn’t be censorship. The servers hosting the content are likely subject to jurisdiction of the country the live. People do go to jail for this and the justice systems work fine – you won’t find lasting child porn servers in America – only p2p rings of pedophiles. How do you police p2p traffic?
Journalists use massive server centers to become anonymous when reporting from hostile situations. Actually, many people posting to WikiLeaks are urged to do the same. Alright so imagine I am Pittsburgh and try to access a bomb making site in a net netrual country. America’s ISP’s block it. I then connect to a distributed server bank in Germany and then route to Sweden. As far as America knows I am just connecting to Germany. The solution would either be packet monitering of every citizen or a worldwide body of censors. Neither of present a reasonable solution. As for the philosophical argument of people being able to access dangerous content… Wouldn’t a pretty science textbook also provide the same tools? When a will exists a way does too. The nature of technolgical advancement is that society needs ot educate people to be responsible with knowledge. Statiscally speaking, the fear of terrorism (bomb making or the like) is so absurdly unjustified: In the last 10 years there has been 250,000 deaths from driving off the road whereas 3,100 from terrorism. Intellectual protectionism is a backwards looking ideology.
Q. Sounds like a good novel to me! Also sounds like typical anti-government scare tactics.
- It is difficult to imagine how massive data mining operations actually work until you work on the back-end of projects where you are asked to synthesize profiles about people. Let me assure you this is a very real potential threat to civil liberties. Restrictions are basically unenforceable or non-existent. It is certainly not beyond people to use extortion as method of control. Here is one of many a real life examples from the ACLU. I picked this one because it is a unique public/private hybrid. Strictly private database examples are everywhere. This McCarthy briefcase is not empty.
http://www.aclu.org/fusion
“”"A new institution is emerging in American life: Fusion Centers. These state, local and regional institutions were originally created to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. Though they developed independently and remain quite different from one another, for many the scope of their mission has quickly expanded – with the support and encouragement of the federal government – to cover “all crimes and all hazards.” The types of information they seek for analysis has also broadened over time to include not just criminal intelligence, but public and private sector data, and participation in these centers has grown to include not just law enforcement, but other government entities, the military and even select members of the private sector.”"”
I think Steve’s first point wasn’t really addressed. He suggests that maybe some targeted censorship of certain things (those which have no redeeming value, like bomb-making sites or child porn sites – which, even if the servers aren’t located in the US, can be accessed from within the US) would be a net benefit scenario. That brings up the comparison of the costs to the benefits. What is the cost of that kind of censorship? The slippery slope fallacy is tired of being dragged into every single censorship debate. Not all limitations on free speech automatically result in 1984.
I’m not necessarily in favor of that kind of thing, but I think we should seriously look into the realistic costs and benefits before ruling it out on abstract principle.
I think Michael answered my question. However, his answer is unsatisfying. What he says, essentially, is that the internet is too massive and complex to be effectively managed, thus rendering any attempt at information control “illogical.” It seems to me as a technical dismissal for any future policies that aim to control what people can access. I think Micheal’s answer is inadequate because it only provides mitigating disadvantages: censorship woes and enforcement hurdles. These two arguments don’t seem to me as reasons for not doing something. It’s like saying we shouldn’t do something because it’s too difficult.
What I’m alluding to is the delicate balance between security and freedom; what most policies boil down to in a free society. The issue of information dissemination and information access is within the scope of this debate. I cannot reasonably take the stance that the right to disseminate and access information is absolute.
I must admit that my technical expertise on this subject is little and in need of further study. But, in principal, I’m usually against extremes. In this case, uninhibited freedom. Perhaps this is where Michael and I differ philosophically.
Q. Essentially, is that the internet is too massive and complex to be effectively managed, thus rendering any attempt at information control “illogical.”… technical dismissal for any future policies …. because it only provides mitigating disadvantages: censorship woes and enforcement hurdles.
I understand the hypothetical but think it very, very, abstract. When you talk of censorship on the internet it may seem substantively similar to banning a type of book. Same freedom of speech arguments, slippery slopes , 1984 allusions – the costs of censorship. But here is how the internet differs; To stop the distribution of sensitive material requires a highly invasive methodology that has many privacy concerns of its own. Tracking IP’s, compiling MAC addresses, monitoring traffic… Does it concern you that someone may know everything you do or say over a cell phone… What if it was transcribed electronically and added to your file? It can get real invasive using already established viable technology. Many of the tools are already commercially available. Have you ever used the privacy feature on Google Chrome? It actually gives you an explicit warning that ISP’s are not fettered by this privacy feature. The net benefit for banning a book relies on a fairly simple procedure of removing the book from shelves and streams of commerce. Stopping dissemination of an internet article requires a far more extensive procedure to be truly effective (especially in the case of terrorism). On the philosophical level ‘mere inability to police’ is generally a poor answer. But unfortunately the facts show that an effort to control the web would blast away every semblance of privacy to be effective. It is illogical because the ramifications are vastly greater than banning a book. I believe this kind of cost/benefit analysis is more aptly suited.
How comfortable are people with authorities having exclusive control of personal information? I don’t buy the cold mathematics of profiling. We are not in a cold war amongst ourselves; the politics of fear subvert our humanity.
Q. But, in principal, I’m usually against extremes. In this case, uninhibited freedom. Perhaps this is where Michael and I differ philosophically.
Actually I do not see that. In an earlier post I referred to police actions taken against local servers as an effective tool. There may well be an argument against Spammers, Child Porn, Mal-Ware, Bomb-Making, and the like. I simply believe that the potential for abuse is so incredibly high that benefits are outweighed. The difference in our opinions comes not from a philosophical difference but a differing understanding of the costs and the benefits.
You are still using a lot of extremely broad statements and tired 1984 comparisons. Let me try to make it more concrete.
Right now, it is illegal to operate a server distributing child porn or download and possess it in a lot of countries, including the US. This is a form of censorship. It is admittedly limited but still at least partially effective, right? How does your abstract critique of internet censorship interact with this real-life policy?
(How did we end up talking about this anyway from net neutrality? Haha)
http://wiki.wsu.edu/wsuwiki/Net_Neutrality_Legislation
Kraemer, Michael. (23 October 2009). “John McCain’s S.1836 Internet Freedom Act”. The Political Cartel Foundation. http://politicalcartel.org/2009/10/23/john-mccain-s-1836-internet-freedom-act/.
Wow, our first documentation. Nice work, Michael. 500 karma points to you!
Does Wikipedia count? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr#cite_note-manes-2