Issues with reporting bugs is something that is a kind of side effect of the DMCA - but the vuln report community has already split into trusted / vetted groups where a lot more takes place than in public groups like full disclosure. For that part I have no dispute with you at all. Neither do I disagree with 'rule of law'.
The network neutrality debate is one that has been vitiated with more ideology than anything else, a penchant for regulating - one that makes absolutely no distinction (among its leading commenters, as I have seen before) about filtering for legitimate security (spam and malware) versus discrimination based on content. And its leading proponents see no problem with calling paid peering - which IS content neutral, and which is based on traffic ratios rather than content - "extortion". There are legitimate policy arguments to be made on that side of things. A penchant for actual public policy rather than playing politics might help them make their case a lot better. --srs (iPad) > On 05-Mar-2014, at 11:49, Cory Doctorow <docto...@craphound.com> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > I pretty much totally agree. > > The triumverate of Internet rules we need are: > > * Net Neutrality (either by forcing line-sharing like in the UK, or > through direct regulation of carriers on the basis that they receive a > massive public subsidy in the form of rights-of-way) > > * Vuln neutrality: an end to rules like the DMCA (and its global > cousins) that prohibit reporting bugs > > * Rule of law: an end to censorship without court orders (DMCA > takedown notices) and without penalty for abuse. Filing a bad-faith > takedown should be criminally punishable as perjury, should be grounds > for dismissal from the bar (if applicable), and should also be grounds > for a civil action with exemplary damages > > Additionally, national security agencies' primary role should be the > strengthening of cyber-security: reporting and patching defects in > common OSes and applications, improving cryptographic standards, etc. > > Cory > >> On 05/03/14 03:16, Udhay Shankar N wrote: >> Via Dave Farber's IP list. Ignoring many of the talking points in >> the rant below, the claim I am most interested in is "The internet >> is a utility, just like water and electricity." >> >> I am really interested in the thoughts of silklisters on this, >> especially folks like Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash, who work >> in the policy area; Cory Doctorow, who ceaselessly educates anyone >> who will listen on these issues; and divers others. >> >> Udhay >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Dewayne Hendricks* >> <dewa...@warpspeed.com> Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Subject: >> [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked To: Multiple recipients of >> Dewayne-Net <dewayne-...@warpspeed.com> >> >> >> [Note: This item comes from friend Tim Pozar. DLH] >> >> From: Tim Pozar <po...@lns.com> Subject: The internet is fucked >> Date: March 4, 2014 at 8:13:00 PST To: Dewayne Hendricks >> <dewa...@warpspeed.com> >> >> POLICY & LAW The internet is fucked By Nilay Patel Feb 25 2014 >> <http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked> >> >> Here's a simple truth: the internet has radically changed the >> world. Over the course of the past 20 years, the idea of networking >> all the world's computers has gone from a research science pipe >> dream to a necessary condition of economic and social development, >> from government and university labs to kitchen tables and city >> streets. We are all travelers now, desperate souls searching for a >> signal to connect us all. It is awesome. >> >> And we're fucking everything up. >> >> Massive companies like AT&T and Comcast have spent the first two >> months of 2014 boldly announcing plans to close and control the >> internet through additional fees, pay-to-play schemes, and sheer >> brutal size -- all while the legal rules designed to protect >> against these kinds of abuses were struck down in court for >> basically making too much sense. "Broadband providers represent a >> threat to internet openness," concluded Judge David Tatel in >> Verizon's case against the FCC's Open Internet order, adding that >> the FCC had provided ample evidence of internet companies abusing >> their market power and had made "a rational connection between the >> facts found and the choices made." Verizon argued strenuously, but >> had offered the court "no persuasive reason to question that >> judgement." >> >> Then Tatel cut the FCC off at the knees for making "a rather >> half-hearted argument" in support of its authority to properly >> police these threats and vacated the rules protecting the open >> internet, surprising observers on both sides of the industry and >> sending new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler into a tailspin of empty >> promises seemingly designed to disappoint everyone. >> >> "I expected the anti-blocking rule to be upheld," National Cable >> and Telecommunications Association president and CEO Michael Powell >> told me after the ruling was issued. Powell was chairman of the FCC >> under George W. Bush; he issued the first no-blocking rules. "Judge >> Tatel basically said the Commission didn't argue it properly." >> >> In the meantime, the companies that control the internet have >> continued down a dark path, free of any oversight or meaningful >> competition to check their behavior. In January, AT&T announced a >> new "sponsored data" plan that would dramatically alter the fierce >> one-click-away competition that's thus far characterized the >> internet. Earlier this month, Comcast announced plans to merge with >> Time Warner Cable, creating an internet service behemoth that will >> serve 40 percent of Americans in 19 of the 20 biggest markets with >> virtually no rivals. >> >> And after months of declining Netflix performance on Comcast's >> network, the two companies announced a new "paid peering" >> arrangement on Sunday, which will see Netflix pay Comcast for >> better access to its customers, a capitulation Netflix has been >> trying to avoid for years. Paid peering arrangements are common >> among the network companies that connect the backbones of the >> internet, but consumer companies like Netflix have traditionally >> remained out of the fray -- and since there's no oversight or >> transparency into the terms of the deal, it's impossible to know >> what kind of precedent it sets. Broadband industry insiders insist >> loudly that the deal is just business as usual, while outside >> observers are full of concerns about the loss of competition and >> the increasing power of consolidated network companies. Either way, >> it's clear that Netflix has decided to take matters -- and costs -- >> into its own hands, instead of relying on rational policy to create >> an effective and fair marketplace. >> >> In a perfect storm of corporate greed and broken government, the >> internet has gone from vibrant center of the new economy to >> burgeoning tool of economic control. Where America once had >> Rockefeller and Carnegie, it now has Comcast's Brian Roberts, >> AT&T's Randall Stephenson, and Verizon's Lowell McAdam, robber >> barons for a new age of infrastructure monopoly built on fiber >> optics and kitty GIFs. >> >> And the power of the new network-industrial complex is immense and >> unchecked, even by other giants: AT&T blocked Apple's FaceTime and >> Google's Hangouts video chat services for the preposterously silly >> reason that the apps were "preloaded" on each company's phones >> instead of downloaded from an app store. Verizon and AT&T have each >> blocked the Google Wallet mobile payment system because they're >> partners in the competing (and not very good) ISIS service. Comcast >> customers who stream video on their Xboxes using Microsoft's >> services get charged against their data caps, but the Comcast >> service is tax-free. >> >> We're really, really fucking this up. >> >> But we can fix it, I swear. We just have to start telling each >> other the truth. Not the doublespeak bullshit of regulators and >> lobbyists, but the actual truth. Once we have the truth, we have >> the power -- the power to demand better not only from our >> government, but from the companies that serve us as well. "This is >> a political fight," says Craig Aaron, president of the advocacy >> group Free Press. "When the internet speaks with a unified voice >> politicians rip their hair out." >> >> We can do it. Let's start. >> >> THE INTERNET IS A UTILITY, JUST LIKE WATER AND ELECTRICITY >> >> Go ahead, say it out loud. The internet is a utility. >> >> There, you've just skipped past a quarter century of regulatory >> corruption and lawsuits that still rage to this day and arrived >> directly at the obvious conclusion. Internet access isn't a luxury >> or a choice if you live and participate in the modern economy, it's >> a requirement. Have you ever been in an office when the internet >> goes down? It's like recess. My friend Paul Miller lived without >> the internet for a year and I'm still not entirely sure he's >> recovered from the experience. The internet isn't an adjunct to >> real life; it's not another place. You don't do things "on the >> internet," you just do things. The network is interwoven into every >> moment of our lives, and we should treat it that way. >> >> "COMMON CARRIER RULES ARE BASICALLY FREE SPEECH." Yet the >> corporations that control internet access insist that they're >> providing specialized services that are somehow different than >> water, power, and telephones. They point to crazy bullshit you >> don't want or need like free email addresses and web hosting >> solutions and goofy personalized search screens as evidence that >> they're actually providing "information" services instead of the >> more highly regulated "telecommunications" services. "Common >> carrier rules are basically free speech," says the Free Press' >> Aaron. "We have all these protections for what happens over >> landline phones that we're not extending to data, even though all >> these people under 25 mostly communicate in data." >> >> It's time to just end these stupid legal word games and say what we >> all already know: internet access is a utility. A commodity that >> should get better and faster and cheaper over time. Anyone who says >> otherwise is lying for money. >> >> THERE IS ZERO COMPETITION FOR INTERNET ACCESS >> >> None. Zero. Nothing. It is a wasteland. You are standing in the >> desert and the only thing that grows is higher prices. >> >> 70 percent of American households have but one or two choices for >> high-speed internet access: cable broadband from a cable provider >> or DSL from a telephone provider. And since DSL isn't nearly as >> fast as cable, and the cable companies are aggressive in bundling >> TV and internet packages together, it's really only one choice. And >> that means the level of innovation from these providers has almost >> completely stagnated, even as prices have gone up. >> >> Why are cellphones so much cooler now than they were in 2000? >> Because Apple and Google and Samsung all had to fight it out and >> make better products in order to survive. They're competing. >> Comcast hasn't had to fight anything, at any time. It is fat and >> lazy and wants nothing more than to get fatter and lazier. That's >> why Comcast is spending $45 billion on Time Warner Cable instead of >> integrating Netflix into its cable boxes and working with Apple and >> Google and Microsoft on the real next generation of TV: when you're >> the only real choice in 19 of America's 20 biggest markets, you get >> to move real slow and still make a lot of money. It's not clear >> Comcast even knows what real competition looks like. >> >> "Unless the FCC thinks that there is a realistic chance that the >> deal will reverse two decades of rising prices, it should stop the >> merger," writes Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu. "Passing on >> savings has never been part of Comcast's business model." >> Monopolies are nice like that. >> >> Despite the innovation in phones, the same is true for mobile >> internet. There are only four major national carriers, most of whom >> run incompatible networks and all of which are stronger in various >> regions. If you hate your Sprint or Verizon service, switching to >> AT&T or T-Mobile is anything but simple and probably requires >> paying off a two-year contact of some kind. (Even T-Mobile, which >> is aggressively eliminating contracts for service, maintains a >> number of device payment plans that require a contract.) Chances >> are once you've chosen a wired broadband carrier and a wireless >> carrier that works well in your area, you're stuck: there are few >> other places to go, and even if you have choices the high costs of >> switching mean you're not very likely to leave at all. >> >> (And if anyone tries to tell you that ultra-expensive mobile >> broadband is somehow competitive with wired service, ask that >> person to buy you a nice dinner and tell you the story of when they >> realized dignity had a price. You're talking to a cable industry >> lobbyist; they can afford it.) >> >> What happens in countries where there's real competition? In the >> UK, where incumbent provider BT is required to allow competitors to >> use its wired broadband network, home internet service prices are >> as low as £2.50 a month, or just over $4. In South Korea, where >> wireless giants SK Telecom and LG Uplus are locked in a fierce >> technology battle, customers have access to the fastest mobile >> networks in the world -- up to 300Mbps, compared to a theoretical >> max of 80Mbps on Verizon that's actually more like 15 or 20mbps in >> the real world. >> >> AMERICANS PAY MORE FOR SLOWER SPEEDS THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD >> And Americans pay more for these slower wireless speeds than anyone >> else in the world: in Germany, where customers can freely switch >> between carriers by swapping SIM cards, T-Mobile customers pay just >> $1.18 per Mbps of speed. In the US, our mostly incompatible >> wireless networks lock customers in with expensive handsets they >> can't take elsewhere, allowing AT&T and Verizon to charge around $4 >> per Mbps each and Sprint to clock in at an insane $7.50. >> >> American politicians love to stand on the edges of important >> problems by insisting that the market will find a solution. And >> that's mostly right; we don't need the government meddling in >> places where smart companies can create their own answers. But you >> can't depend on the market to do anything when the market doesn't >> exist. "We can either have competition, which would solve a lot of >> these problems, or we can have regulation," says Aaron. "What >> Comcast is trying is to have neither." It's insanity, and we keep >> lying to ourselves about it. It's time to start thinking about ways >> to actually do something. >> >> [snip] >> >> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/> >> > - -- > Cory Doctorow > docto...@craphound.com > > For avoidance of doubt: This email does not constitute permission to > add me to your mailing list. > > blog: boingboing.net > upcoming appearances: craphound.com/?page_id=4667 > books (novels, collections graphic novels, essay collections): > craphound.com > podcast: feeds.feedburner.com/doctorow_podcast > latest novel: Homeland craphound.com/homeland > latest essays: Context craphound.com/context > latest short story collection: With a Little Help craphound.com/walh > > Join my mailing list and find out about upcoming books, stories, > articles and appearances: > > http://www.ctyme.com/mailman/listinfo/doctorow > > READ CAREFULLY. By reading this email, you agree, on behalf of your > employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from > any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, > shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, > non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I > have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents > and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and > privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to > release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iEYEAREIAAYFAlMWweUACgkQkCbbvh/CN68GLwCeJl4FxjsMLv8+2twY0YXAIEEQ > DOIAoLBu01v6MFC1LsjPf6zJOrdhz75D > =4Xw5 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
