Senators Ask FCC Why It Did Nothing To Stop Their Names From Being Fraudulently Used During Net Neutrality Repeal
from the fake-plastic-trees dept
Last year you’ll recall that somebody abused the nonexistent privacy protections at the FCC website to flood the net neutrality repeal proceeding with millions of fake comments. While the vast majority of real people oppose the repeal, a bad actor was able to either fraudulently use the identities of real people (like myself), or hijack the identities of dead people to spam the proceeding with bogus support. The goal: undermine public trust in the public comment period in order to downplay the massive opposition to the FCC’s handout to AT&T and Comcast.
Up to this point, the FCC has done less than nothing to investigate the fraud or prevent it from happening again, largely because it aided the FCC’s agenda. In fact, the FCC went so far as to block a law enforcement investigation into who was behind the fraud.
Hoping to pull the scandal back onto a front burner, Senators Jeff Merkley and Pat Toomey this week sent a letter to the FCC stating that they’ve discovered that their names were also used to post fake comments during the repeal. The two demanded the FCC implement some kind of CAPTCHA system to help police automated bogus comments (a bot seems to have posted millions of bogus comments in alphabetical order), and asked what the agency was doing to prevent the problem from occurring again:
“Late last year, the identities of as many as two million Americans were stolen and used to file fake comments during the Federal Communications Commission?s (FCC?s) comment period for the net neutrality rule,? the Senators wrote in a letter to Pai. ?We were among those whose identities were misused to express viewpoints we do not hold. We are writing to express our concerns about these fake comments and the need to identify and address fraudulent behavior in the rulemaking process.”
The FCC has been hammered for months over this scandal and has responded with the policy and regulatory equivalent of a shrug. I was told by the agency that there was nothing that could be done after my own identity was fraudulently used to support the repeal. So far, there’s been absolutely no repercussions for the FCC or its staffers, though a GAO investigation is currently ongoing. It’s worth noting that this kind of behavior isn’t exclusive to the FCC, with other Trump regulatory actions also being hammered with bogus support via bot over the last year.
Filed Under: ajit pai, comments, fake names, fcc, jeff merkley, net neutrality, pat toomey, senate
Comments on “Senators Ask FCC Why It Did Nothing To Stop Their Names From Being Fraudulently Used During Net Neutrality Repeal”
Pai couldn’t care less about anything that doesn’t fit his agenda. So expect lousy excuses and lies in an eventual reply. The executive will keep acting like it’s the law as long as the legislative doesn’t grow a spine an starts pushing back along with the judiciary. Simple as that.
Re: Re:
But they’re building a case.
The FCC is looking at lawsuits from all over the country, many of which focus on its lack of proper review. I believe the NY AG’s office is still investigating the fraudulent comments, as well.
How silly.
This is like asking the foxes what they intend to be doing about hen house security.
Re: How silly.
In fairness the problems are rooted a lot deeper than that:
– The FCC-members are political in nature and seems to be more focused on wielding the sword for that purpose!
– The comments are a formality. It happens way after the political deals have been made. There is basically no way to change their mind at that point!
– Fixing the system for taking comments would require the use of authentification programs to comment or a controversial “cleaning” of the data afterwards. Authentification programs are expensive and would run very close to the gun registry and voter-id issues. Cleaning after the fact will always result in a few legitimate comments getting pulled, which can be used politically…
Re: Re: How silly.
Not so. There are many [mostly] effective means available for preventing bot-posted comments. In 2015+, it border on ridiculous that a government page for collecting comments has no such protection added. It’s almost as if they didn’t really care what was posted as they had no intention of reading them anyhow.
Re: Re: How silly.
"The comments are a formality."
But they’re a legal requirement, and the gross abuse of the comment process by the FCC could weigh heavily against them in the coming lawsuits challenging the rules repeal.
It’s quite possible that the FCC wasn’t interested in investigating these fake comments because that RFC was just a formality for a decision that was already made, thus no one at the FCC had any need to even read any comments.
Re: Re:
That is, of course, exactly what it was. It was pretty clear even then that their minds were likely already made up.
Re: Re:
Only, I suspect, because the bot-submitted comments aligned with what they had already decided on, and they could therefore spin it as support for their planned action.
Had someone used a bot to post pro-network neutrality comments however I suspect they’d have been ‘gravely concerned’ and would have spent significant time and effort attempting to find ‘the individual(s) responsible for attempting to undermine public trust in the commenting procedure, and present a dishonest portrayal of the view held by those putting forth comments’.
expect lousy excuses and lies from Senators Jeff Merkley and Pat Toome.
Re: Re:
Because they need to make excuses for their names being used to fraudulently post comments to the FCC?
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. It doesn’t just contain flavor, color, sugar and water.
Re: Re:
Excuses for what, exactly?
I was unaware that it is a crime to ask a question, my bad … I really do need to pay closer attention to things like this because as they say – ignorance is no excuse.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, there are quite a few questions starting with the like of “would you be willing for this stack of 500 $20 bills to …” that can be considered criminal in nature.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only if you follow through on it. Asking the question and then being horrified when someone says yes is legal, no matter what the question.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The poster was engaged in criminal activity?
How did you come to that conclusion?
There’s an individual on a dark web site claiming to be responsible for the comments uploaded, paid by a company directly tied with Verizon.
The person claims this attack on NN is personal, after Wheeler shamed the company and used Title II reclassification.
Given the idiotic shill video of putting a puppet in control of the FCC, I’m very likely to believe this claim.
Obstruction
” In fact, the FCC went so far as to block a law enforcement investigation into who was behind the fraud.”
Because of the use of stolen ID for fraudulent use, that makes it a criminal investigation. To obstruct the investigation is obstruction of justice. A federal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
http://www.federalcriminallawyer.us/2011/01/12/federal-law-on-obstructing-justice-a-summary/
So why aren’t those involved in prison or at least ever arrested and charged?
Re: Obstruction
Because laws are for little people.
Re: Re: Obstruction
i wouldn’t say they were “for” the little people.
Against them maybe…
Re: Obstruction
I don’t think it’s obstruction of justice to just refuse to talk to police, ordinarily (although the fact that a government agency would refuse to talk speaks volumes.) Did anyone get an actual subpoena?
so what?
What did senators do to protect consumers from a rampant and out of control FCC?
But as usually the good ole folks at TD keep getting suckered.
the FCC is NOT the problem here… but it looks like those senators are doing a fine job of making you think the FCC is the problem.
If those senators “really” wanted to fix they problem they have tools. Stop getting suckered, it is beyond time to wake up!
Re: so what?
To say “the FCC is NOT the problem here” is ridiculous. Set aside net neutrality itself for a moment. The FCC is not only not investigating systemic fraud, they’re stonewalling other agencies trying to conduct investigations. I’m not sure what you think the Senate should do about that.
Re: Re: so what?
“To say “the FCC is NOT the problem here” is ridiculous.”
Then you have been successfully bamboozled. One of the biggest reasons why legislatures created agencies like this is so they can get you to absolve them of the responsibility and focus on the Agencies.
“Set aside net neutrality itself for a moment.”
You have clearly misunderstood then. I am not implying that NN is any part of the problem, I am saying NN is just another victim of this problem.
“The FCC is not only not investigating systemic fraud, they’re stonewalling other agencies trying to conduct investigations.”
Sounds like the FCC is doing what it was created to do! Regulatory agencies are NOT created to help you citizens. They are there to lul you into a false sense of security and like a magician in a magic show they keep your attention on the inconsequential while the real actions happens a couple of inches away.
“I’m not sure what you think the Senate should do about that.”
Like I said… you have already been bamboozled so of course you are too short sighted and ignorant to understand what they can do about it.
Keep it up slick… it’s certain to get better if you just keep doing the same thing while expecting different results! right?
Re: Re: Re: so what?
And all you do is to insult people, which is an effective way of failing to solve the problems.
Re: Re: Re:2 so what?
They insulted first… let me guess, you have a selectivity bias when it comes who can and who cannot be allowed to insult people.
If you can figure out how to overcome your double standards maybe you will having something “meaningful” to add to the conversation.
Re: Re: Re:3 so what?
His reply to you was not insulting. Your response to that definitely was insulting. You are adding nothing of value to this conversation or the site.
Re: Re: Re:4 so what?
I am guessing you don’t use a dictionary when you decide what words mean?
“ri·dic·u·lous
rəˈdikyələs/
adjective
adjective: ridiculous
deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.”
I guess you don’t view derision or mockery or accusations of it being absurd as “not insulting”.
Re: Re: Re:5 so what?
Insult: a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.
This is not the same as calling something, or someone, ridiculous or absurd, nor being derisive or mocking.
Re: Re: Re:6 so what?
I don’t know if you are trolling or just not able to comprehend straight forward english. Either way… good luck with that!
Re: Re: Re:7 so what?
I literally quoted you the definition of “insult”. How does that translate to me not comprehending English?
Re: Re: Re:8 so what?
Knowledge does not equal understanding, and just because you can quote the definition does not mean you understand the words in combination or individually.
Re: Re: Re:9 so what?
Then please explain where I erred in stating that calling a statement (not a person) ridiculous (deserving of or inviting derision or mockery, not actually deriding or mocking it, absurd) is NOT equivalent to disrespect or scornful abuse, and providing facts to back up my statement.
Re: Re: Re:4 so what?
I would like to add…
“You are adding nothing of value to this conversation or the site.”
The problem is that you are not capable of knowing what value is. Especially the value of a word and its meaning. You are so bent on “perceiving” insult that you are not capable to understanding what really is intended to be insulting. You must be one of those snowflakes that think everything you say is never an insult but if someone says something you “feel” is an insult can’t be anything other than an insult.
Re: Re: Re:5 so what?
This is entertaining coming from you since you yourself don’t appear to know the definition of an insult. Or that you can be derisive and mocking without slinging insults.
Re: Re: Re:6 so what?
Glad you are entertained. I never said I don’t insult. I just stated that I was not the first.
I am actually perfectly fine with this. The problem comes from when you snowflakes started getting all “need my safe space” up on here.
Insult away… I won’t complain, but if you bitch about me insulting others after being insulted then you should sorta go and fuck yourself. Bitch at the person that started it, not the person giving back!
Re: Re: Re:7 so what?
I never said you didn’t, but I am saying you did insult first since his reply can’t be considered an insult based on English grammar and word definitions.
Re: Re: Re:7 so what?
But you were, You didn’t even answer his very simple question you just lost it when he said your view was ridiculous.
If you cant/won’t read, can’t hold a conversation without being rude and take issue with anything written, why are you here?
Re: Re: Re:
Sup’ Dunning-Kruger. How’s the cognitive dissonance hanging today?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
in over drive now that you are here!
Cheers!
Re: Re: Re:3
No wonder you claim to not insult people. You are so pathetically bad at it people must mistake it for a compliment most of the time.
Re: Re: Re: so what?
"Regulatory agencies are NOT created to help you citizens. They are there to lul you into a false sense of security…"
Have you not yet noticed that nobody believes your paranoid ravings? You have absolutely no support for your position, but apparently it’s everybody else that doesn’t get it, right?
Re: Re: Re:2 so what?
Thats because “Everybody” else but me IS stupid! STUPID! You are ALL so “stupid”! Only I m Smart. So Very very Smart! You can Tell I am Smart because I “always” Say I am Smart! Which is waht Smart people Do!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
Silly senators, it’s because Ajit Pai and Richard Bennett said it was okay, that’s why.
Liberal hysteria
This article – and the letter from Merkley and Toomey – is nothing but theatrics. The names on the comments to the FCC are utterly unimportant because only the ideas in the comments matter. The FCC is not supposed to make decisions on the basis of popularity, it’s supposed to rely on technical and economic analysis.
Pests like Techdirt simply gin up outrage for the sake of traffic and only serve to delay progress.
Re: Liberal hysteria
Fake news.
Re: Liberal hysteria
Using a word like "pests" to describe those who are striving to shed light on fraudulent behavior, cronyism & possibly illegal actions is very telling, Richard.
It says a whole lot about your mentality and gives us all a pretty good indication of where your paycheck comes from.
Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
He is not entirely wrong.
TD is being made into a patsy, clearly and happily laying all the blame and accusation it can at the feet of the FCC while seemingly giving the Senators a pass.
We have seen this game before. Politicians created these agencies and give them power. Then they turn around run a bunch of lip at them, but actually do nothing. The game is old, the game is good, and it is still got TD and apparently you tripping over yourself.
Yes, it is good that TD points these things out, yes this is better than nothing otherwise. But that being said… how about we make sure all parties get some appropriate blame for this problem instead of letting the “senators” off scott free when they pay nothing other than lip service to the problem.
When those senators actually DO SOMETHING, then we can focus only on the FCC as the problem but until then… the FCC is only a symptom of the problem that is those senators. Attacking the FCC right now is nothing more than taking medicine to treat the symptom while remaining blissfully ignorant of the problem.
Re: Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
Oh go run away before I quote George Washington’s farewell address at you. You fucking hack.
Re: Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
No, he’s not entirely wrong but it has absolutely nothing to do with your further statements. As you yourself point out, what TD has pointed out here is good and worthwhile. The rest of your comment is a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense. If they were really that good at misdirection, we’d be worshipping them like they were the best thing since sliced bread. With the exception of some rabid fanbases on both sides, I don’t see any evidence that is the case with the majority of the American public.
Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
"Net neutrality is a very quaint fixation." – Richard Bennett
Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
Richard Bennett is on Pai’s Broadband Advisory Council. Anything and everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-17-433A1.pdf
Re: Liberal hysteria
Huh. A troll with a profile. What do you know?
So why bother to require a public comment period if their decision is only supposed to be based on technical and economic analysis? And were not most of the comments data in both of those analysis? And why am I asking someone who is obviously a shill?
Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
“So why bother to require a public comment period if their decision is only supposed to be based on technical and economic analysis?”
To trick people like you. State where they are legally required to actually “follow” or “respect” those comments? All they have to do is allow a commenting period… and they allowed it. Sure they abused it too, but the joke is on you!
Re: Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
Yeah, sure, whatever you say Alex Jones.
Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
To give members of the public who have technical and/or economic insights to provide the opportunity to do so, so that the decision-makers can draw on those insights in making their decision.
Under that model, once a given insight has been presented by/in one comment, a second comment presenting that same insight adds nothing.
I actually agree with Richard Bennett that for the FCC to permit the weight of numbers in the comments on either side of the issue to influence their decision would be inappropriate. Where I think the actual problem lies is in the issue of identity fraud – not in any effect on the decision by the FCC, but in the appropriation by whoever made those comments of the identities of others with which to do so. The FCC’s comment system was merely a place for this fraud to occur.
Re: Hey old sad bastard
It’s not our fault your nappy is full and your dingus doesn’t work.
Re: Liberal hysteria
You’re not entirely wrong but there is still value in WHO is making the comments, not just what they contain. Otherwise why not just have people submit comments anonymously? If you are going to say that who comments doesn’t matter, then you should have no problem with people commenting anonymously.
Of course we all know you don’t actually believe that because you whine and complain all the time about how I and others comment on TD anonymously. You’re being disengenuous again Richard, and your hypocrisy is showing.
You are correct that the FCC is supposed to make decisions based on facts and not popularity, but that’s not what happened. Pai’s mind was bought, sold and made up long before this came to a vote, much like your opinion on the matter. Not to mention that one indicator of whether something is good for consumers is whether it is popular or not. An unsafe car is not popular, and rules that benefit ISPs at the expense of consumer money, privacy, and freedom of choice is also NOT popular. Not to mention that the technical and economic analyses 100% prove that NN is good for consumers and competition.
Try again Richard.
Re: Liberal hysteria
"The names on the comments to the FCC are utterly unimportant…"
So you’re perfectly ok with thousands of people’s identities being used fraudulently? I’m pretty sure if your name was used to used in opposition to your paymasters’ anti-consumer wishes you’d being throwing quite the shit-fit.
Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
Hey, I found an FCC document that does have Bennett’s name on it!
Re: Liberal hysteria
The names on the comments to the FCC are utterly unimportant because only the ideas in the comments matter.
So… I take it that this comment was, in fact, left by you?
And? I don’t see what the problem is here. I couldn’t give two shits if you pirate kids want to download your several gigabyte games. – Richard Bennett
Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
To be fair, if that’s the level of discourse he actually has I’d be embarrassed to sign in my actual account and own up to it, too.
Not that we needed more proof that the government is staffed and advised by whiny, petulant children…
Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
Homophobic much, Coward? I’ll have you know that if it was biologically possible, I would have Ajit put a “Pai” in my oven. Net neutrality is dead, and this gathering of angry pirates that masquerades as a “tech news website” is next.
Re: Re: Re: Liberal hysteria
Are you actually not Richard Bennett and instead are trying some kind of double reverse trolling of him? Because you basically just admitted to wanting to have sex and, potentially, make babies with Ajit Pai, something that some of Pai’s and Bennett’s detractors on here accuse them of regularly. It seems odd that you would then come out and admit as much.
If you are Richard, you still suck at insults. Where did calling the AC homophobic come from? Nothing in his comment even goes anywhere near that topic.
Re: Re: Re:2 Liberal hysteria
Richard thinks anyone who points out how subservient he is to Pai must be homophobic, same way how you win Internet arguments by calling the other person a Nazi. It’s as stupid as it sounds, and as Richard sounds.
Re: Re: Re:2 Liberal hysteria
Yeah, there’s at least one person here who posts in that style/form as Richard Bennett without being logged in, apparently purely to troll him.
I think I may actually have seen more “Richard Bennett” posts which appear to be from that troll than from the logged-in Richard himself, lately.
Re: Re: Re:3 Liberal hysteria
Let’s say it is a troll, though I’m not so convinced it is – by Bennett’s own petard, the troll is Bennett.
Works for me either way.
What happened to all the laws?
Arent there laws against Misrepresentation??
Where is the FBI??
I would LOVE to find that MOST of these emails came from NOWHERE, and were injected from internal computers..
Its really encouraging that NO ONE is doing anything about this..It really tells something about our country.
I find it rather satisfying that a few congress critterz got their feathers ruffled over something they have been trying to ignore for some time.
Something something, it is never a problem until it affects us.
Broadband for America certainly liked the bot comments.
They found that if they included all the fake comments made with stolen-but-real identities, and discard all the real comments using email addresses they don’t like the look of, that the 98.5% opposition to Pai’s NN repeal magically turns into 69.9% support.