Law Enforcement Official Claims Citizens Use Better Encryption Than Cops Do
Rep. Cicilline Wants To Remove Section 230 Protections For Platforms That Host 'Demonstrably False' Political Ads

The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time?

Broadband

from the round-and-round-we-go dept

Wed, Feb 26th 2020 06:17am -

Last October the DC US Court of Appeals upheld a large chunk of the FCC’s controversial net neutrality repeal with a 2-1 vote. But the ruling wasn’t a total win for Ajit Pai’s FCC. The ruling blocked the FCC and broadband industry’s attempt to include a provision in the repeal that would have banned US states from being able to protect consumers, noting that when the Trump FCC abdicated its consumer protection authority, it also gave up its right to say what state regulators and lawmakers could or couldn’t do.

The courts also forced the FCC to take several parts of the Orwellian-named “restoring internet freedom order” (which did nothing of the sort) back to the drawing board. Specifically, the Ajit Pai FCC was told it spent little to no time considering how its handout to industry impacted minorities, low income communities, and public safety–suggesting it should, you know… do that.

But, as per the request, the FCC will need to open up its process to public comment one more time:

Granted the last time we went through this, Trump and broadband industry linked PR shops flooded the FCC website with comments from fake people, dead people, and the stolen identities of real folks (including myself)–all to try to create the illusion that pandering to telecom monopolies was ultra popular (note: it’s fucking not). And since absolutely nobody has been held accountable for any of this, there’s nothing to suggest the same stage play won’t repeat itself as the Ajit Pai FCC whistles and looks in the opposite direction.

Filed Under: , ,

79 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
79 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"For a site that often criticizes incorrect uses of the word "theft", that’s a bad headline."

Because copying isn’t stealing.

The popularly named "identity theft" is, however, to assume someone else’s identify for the specific use of removing the original identity owner’s ability to access their money. That does mean in an "identity theft" something is indeed taken from the original owner.

Let’s get back to your analogy once a copy of a song can be used as a unique identification enabling someone to access your bank account.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: You are way too hard on these guys!

"…why can’t you just admit you’re wrong about them?"

To the current GOP, any intervention by the genuine Mr. Lincoln would probably be rather embarrassing. The first thing he might say is "Good Lord. Where did all these racist assholes come from? Is this the democrat party by any chance?"

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Thad (profile) says:

Related: Clarence Thomas regrets ruling that Ajit Pai used to kill net neutrality

This could be relevant in the inevitable appeal.

(Of the justices currently sitting on the court, only Thomas, Breyer, and Ginsburg were there for the Brand X ruling. Breyer concurred, Ginsburg partially dissented.)

I very rarely agree with Thomas on anything, but I think he’s right and I’m glad he’s changed his position on this issue.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

George B McClellan or something says:

The net-neutrality repeal seemed like bad policy to me at first but after examining the network architecture I think it’s a good thing. The FCC cannot deliver net-neutrality without reconfiguring the network layout and have been proven to be unable to do so in a timely manner. The word "lawful" or "legal" also means different things to different people, organizations, and nations.

The FCC shouldn’t promise things it cannot deliver.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 'FInd the evidence yourself' = '... because I've got nothing.'

Nothing says ‘I do not actually have a good argument’ more than making a claim and then when asked to back it up trying to shift the burden of proving it to the other side, with doubling-down just making the one doing so look ever more dishonest and their claim all the flimsier.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 'FInd the evidence yourself' = '... because I've got not

Of course there’s no evidence. It’s just Baghdad Bob once again trying to claim he knows technology only to demonstrate – in the next sentence – that he hasn’t a clue.

All that is required for net neutrality to work is for US ISP’s to stop actively interfering with traffic priorization. Full Stop.

And yet Bobmail/Jhon/blue tries to spin a whopper around how this would somehow involve the FCC having to reconfigure existing networks.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Y’know, you could start by actually providing evidence. Also, that evidence should be able to be verified by others (so providing a source is highly recommended), and it should actually relate to and support your claims (which your later (also unproven) assertions of malicious cyber activity on wh.gov and “killing people with cheap lasers don’t actually do, by the way).

As the one making the claims, you have to provide actual, verifiable evidence that is relevant, materai, and actually supports your claims if you want your claims to be taken seriously here. You have not done so despite multiple requests, and we have no obligation to do your research for you. Unless and until you can actually provide some supporting evidence for your claims, we have no reason to argue with you about them outside of demanding evidence, nor do we have any reason to believe your claims at all. According to Hitchen’s Razor, “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” As you have made multiple assertions and provided evidence for absolutely none of them, we can safely dismiss all of your assertions without providing any further explanation until you can actually provide some evidence.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Wait, who is being killed with cheap lasers, and what does that have to do with net neutrality, identity theft, fraud, the internet, network layouts, network architecture, or the FCC?

Also, you can assert the existence of a malicious-cyber-activity national emergency of wh.gov, but 1) that doesn’t prove that it actually exists, 2) that isn’t actually evidence if you don’t have a source or anything to support it, and 3) even if proven, that still wouldn’t prove any part of any of your claims from the original comment, which include the following:

  1. The net neutrality repeal was actually a good thing, at least “after examining the network architecture”. (Admittedly, this was an opinion, but it wasn’t really supported by anything else you said, so even if you proved everything else, this statement still needs some actual reasons behind it.)
  2. “The FCC cannot deliver net neutrality without reconfiguring the network layout”.
  3. The FCC has “been proven to be unable to do so in a timely manner.” (Also, it’s not clear whether you mean delivering net neutrality or reconfiguring the network layout.)
  4. “The word "lawful" or "legal" also means different things to different people, organizations, and nations.” (Actually, this doesn’t need to be proven to be true or false, but it’s unclear how it’s even relevant here. Besides, when it comes to enforcing net neutrality, we can just go with US laws to determine what’s lawful or legal, and those can be determined by the courts, anyways. What individual people or organizations think is or isn’t lawful/legal isn’t all that relevant.)

These are the claims and statements that need additional sources, evidence, support, and/or clarification. Your (also unproven and unsupported) assertions of “the malicious-cyber activity national emergency on wh.gov” (of which I have no idea what you’re even talking about) and “killing people with cheap lasers” (which I know even less about) would not prove, support, or clarify any of the aformentioned statements at all (even if we assume that they are, in fact, true, but you haven’t even proven that much); they aren’t even the least bit relevant to anything said by you or anyone else in this thread, in this comment section, or in the article at all.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It’s really violating NN that requires extra work on the infrastructure, putting in all the deep-packet inspection tools and non-usage-based throttles needed to make the scams function.

Upholding neutrality needs nothing more than companies to refrain from fraud.

Many smaller ISPs even found the latter to be literally effortless.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"If you are in IT/ops I pity the company you work for and their customers."

I think i recognize the original comment syntax. Lays claim to expert knowledge, makes a wild assertion meant to discredit net neutrality, refuses to back said assertion up while trying to argue down from self-appointed "authority".

I think we’ve got Baghdad Bob back online.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You don’t understand the network layout."

Unless the US network "layout" is, in fact, something you can’t even describe as a network, i think we do.

The FCC doesn’t need to reconfigure jack shit to impose net neutrality. All they need to do is to force US ISP’s to not actively screw with traffic priority.

And that remains true no matter how the network is laid out.

All you’ve got is a wild assertion that you know tech – which you obviously don’t, as proven in your comments – combined with another assertion that net neutrality would require the FCC to rebuild networks.

Net neutrality only requires the FCC to tell US ISP’s not to actively fuck with the default network optimization. Net neutrality is literally what you have out-of-the-box when you string a few routers together.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Since you haven’t actually explained anything about how or why “the network layout” would need to be “reconfigur[ed]” to have or enforce net neutrality, nor have you provided any evidence to support such a claim, why should we believe you? Plus, net neutrality has been working just fine for years without having to do so, so what exactly changed?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: The Dunning-Kruger Zone

The net-neutrality repeal seemed like bad policy to me at first but after examining the network architecture I think it’s a good thing. The FCC cannot deliver net-neutrality without reconfiguring the network layout and have been proven to be unable to do so in a timely manner. The word "lawful" or "legal" also means different things to different people, organizations, and nations.

Please describe the limiting factors of the network architecture in regards of implementing net neutrality.

Please describe how said re-configuring of the network layout could be done in regards of implementing net neutrality.

Also, if the words "lawful" or "legal" means different things for different people it also means people are free to interpret laws how they see fit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: The Dunning-Kruger Zone

There is a foreign entity that practices slavery in a sanctions regime still. They have outlawed it but have such weak enforcement and penalties that it is effectively legalized. Do you want to live under that entities legal regime if it has a lawful claim to a presence in the United States?

The limiting technological hurtle is a bunch of lasers hooked up to the internet to hijack connections and devices.

So the cyber attack, that the foreign entity claims is lawful can route around the lawful, coporate owned wired connections by inserting covert or otherwise wireless connections in the line.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The Dunning-Kruger Zone

There is a foreign entity that practices slavery in a sanctions regime still. They have outlawed it but have such weak enforcement and penalties that it is effectively legalized. Do you want to live under that entit[y’s] legal regime if it has a lawful claim to a presence in the United States?

Nothing about any of that has anything whatsoever to do with net neutrality, its repeal, network architecture, “the network layout”, or the FCC. Actually, that has nothing to do with the internet or our laws and regulations governing it, either. Nothing that’s been talked about would give any foreign entities’ legal regimes a lawful claim to a presence in the US, at least no more than they’d already have otherwise, and nothing that’s been said has anything to do with slavery, either.

If you’re talking about an exception to net neutrality regarding illegal or unlawful content, I believe the general rules (when applying net neutrality) are based upon US laws and possibly any laws of the country in which either the internet access provider (IAP) or the people running the website actually physically reside (at most); if we’re discussing a website run from within the US hosted by a US-based company and running through a US IAP, no foreign entity’s definitions of “lawful” or “illegal” would matter.

The limiting technological hurtle is a bunch of lasers hooked up to the internet to hijack connections and devices.

[citation needed]

Also, what in the world does that have to do with net neutrality?

So the cyber attack, that the foreign entity claims is lawful can route around the lawful, coporate owned wired connections by inserting covert or otherwise wireless connections in the line.

Again, [citation needed], and that the foreign entity claims the cyber attack is lawful is immaterial as far as our laws are concerned. Also, this still has nothing to do with net neutrality or the FCC.

tl;dr
Basically, you’re just making new claims without evidence, and they don’t actually have anything to do with net neutrality or the FCC. You haven’t, as Rocky asked of you, “describe[d] the limiting factors of the network architecture in regards of implementing net neutrality,” nor have you “describe[d] how said re-configuring of the network layout could be done in regards [to] implementing net neutrality.” You provided no evidence to support any of your claims.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"..but after examining the network architecture I think it’s a good thing. The FCC cannot deliver net-neutrality without reconfiguring the network layout and have been proven to be unable to do so in a timely manner. "

That is…bascially a load of disingenious bullshit.

No, the FCC can’t "fix" any networks. What it CAN do is to implement net neutrality rules which stop ISP’s from abusing network monopolization.

And the only thing required to do that is for every ISP to stop actively tampering with network traffic priority. The FCC isn’t required to "reconfigure" anything, least of all a network "layout".

"The word "lawful" or "legal" also means different things to different people, organizations, and nations."

Only if you can find a nation which for some reason doesn’t accept or recognize their own dictionaries.

That particular way you have of lying through your teeth while pretending to know how technology and law works seems familiar. Baghdad Bob, is that you again?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Okay, since it’s such a big deal to you I’ll explain how network neutrality is still in effect.

There is a corrupt foreign diplomat that will give everyone on earth diplomatic immunity even if that’s not the intent of the immunity legal regime through a loophole in a foreign law.

To even things out, another corrupt foreign country will designate everyone on earth a terrorist and authorize combat against them.

It is now impossible to break the law or have a valid complaint against the people that do.

How do you make the neutral network out of that regime that you desire to have?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Okay, since it’s such a big deal to you I’ll explain how network neutrality is still in effect."

It is indeed a big deal that you’re lying through your teeth, and it only gets to be a bigger deal when your "explanation" takes the form of a chewbacca defense.

"There is a corrupt foreign diplomat that will give everyone on earth diplomatic immunity even if that’s not the intent of the immunity legal regime through a loophole in a foreign law."

So far only seeing an odd assertion about a hypothetical criminal mastermind with, apparently, actual super powers, because that’s not how things work…

"To even things out, another corrupt foreign country will designate everyone on earth a terrorist and authorize combat against them."

…Followed by another piss-poor analogy only applicable to, say, North korea. If they had mind control super powers.

"How do you make the neutral network out of that regime that you desire to have?"

Since "net neutrality" has as much to do with your dystopian-fairytale "analogies" as the concept of quantum physics has to do with a literary analysis of Tolkien’s LOTR trilogy, we’re back to the point where you are rambling incoherently about terminology you plainly do not understand.

Net Neutrality is, specifically, the legal background which states that any carrier is obligated to prioritize data packet handling in such a way as to promote the optimum flow of data, rather than by determining that packets from or to any given address has priority.

the only real-world analogy that applies well to the principle of net neutrality is the way a city’s light signal network is built to accommodate the optimal flow of traffic rather than being designed to automatically prioritize giving the green light to cars built by a given OEM such as Ford or Volvo.

When you allow an ISP to screw with packet priority depending on the address or origin the result is comparable to, in the traffic light analogy, messing up the traffic flow, causing major disruption of the inner city traffic.

It also consolidates a perfect monopoly situation where the local network owner suddenly gets to decide which companies the citizenry are or are not allowed to receive information from.

It is NOT comparable to some far-fetched dystopian impossibility where you appear to desperately try to link the concept of net neutrality to dystopian fiction.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"I’m not reading that whole thing. I’m not even finishing the first sentence."

Of course you aren’t, Baghdad Bob. Your usual shtick, apparently, remains the same of making a wild assertion based on a flat-out lie, then when confronted with evidence to the contrary you simply flip your lid and try to dismiss the thread with an ad hom – and usually while calling someone else a troll.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Net Neutrality in the real world:

Internet access providers should not abuse their monopoly position to interfere with lawful use of the telecommunications services they provide to unfairly enrich themselves by defrauding their customers or other service providers with rent-seeking scams like paid prioritization and zero-rating.

Zero networks in need of reconfiguration, zero foreign involvement, zero lizard people.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

"I… don’t see why we have to remove any “foreign crap” off the internet to make net neutrality work."

Because the current flavor of troll seems rather desperate to make net neutrality sound more complex and/or less desirable than it really is, alternatively link it to something completely different in the hope of confusing the issue.

Meanwhile net neutrality remains the same extremely simple principle it always has been. It mean that the ISP should not be allowed to prioritize traffic outside of optimizing the bandwidth utilization. Full Stop.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

If you're going to be stabbed, make them work for it

And since absolutely nobody has been held accountable for any of this, there’s nothing to suggest the same stage play won’t repeat itself as the Ajit Pai FCC whistles and looks in the opposite direction.

While I have absolutely zero doubt that Pai will treat identity fraud and bot comments any differently this time around it’s still important to submit comments as though they were being looked at by someone honest, as if people who are rightly in favor of network neutrality just give up then that allows Pai to control the narrative, and with only anti-network neutrality comments flooding the system it would be all too easy for him to spin that as ‘evidence’ that people are in favor of what he did and haven’t suffered any negative repercussions from the change, and with no comments to point to to show that he’s lying he’s much more likely to be believed.

TFG says:

Re: If you're going to be stabbed, make them work for it

Exactly this.

I submitted my comment over the weekend, immediately on finding out about this (from Imgur, amusingly).

Blow them up with comments. Even if they try to sidestep it, it provides ammunition in legal battles, and for people who actually do have public interests in mind.

Recommend avoiding profanity, though – profanity makes it easier to dismiss the comment.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Well, no

It might help if you defined both terms, because from what I’ve read it was both when it came to bogus anti-network neutrality comments.

As I would define the two astroturfing is creating bogus people to create the appearance of support that doesn’t actually exist, whereas identity theft(which might be better termed identity fraud) is using a real person’s name and other identifying information to fraudulently do something and/or support something in their name without their knowledge or permission.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: this is NOT identity theft

If you use another persons identity for a gain; whether it be financial, political or other, it’s identity theft.

A firm that is being paid to astro-turf a certain viewpoint and which use other peoples identities to hide their involvement to promulgate that viewpoint, it’s identity theft.

And the act of astro-turfing by using fake identities to submit false statements to a federal agency probably breaks several other laws.

Anonymous Coward says:

Nothing short of the CIA tracking down and murdering the hell out of anyone linked to the misinformation campaigns on the FCC’s comment period will stop them from a repeat performance of the same shitshow we got last time and its clear that sadly it ain’t happening so its hopeless as long as Pai and the republicans are in control.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Law Enforcement Official Claims Citizens Use Better Encryption Than Cops Do
Rep. Cicilline Wants To Remove Section 230 Protections For Platforms That Host 'Demonstrably False' Political Ads