Updated 8/23/2017
While I’ve been signing a number of petitions to make my opinions known about political matters over the past few months, I very rarely comment on them.
While I’ve been signing a number of petitions to make my opinions known about political matters over the past few months, I very rarely comment on them.
However, with this one, I felt a special connection and an obligation to post my thoughts. Below is what I said and why.
Today (May 10, 2017), I signed a petition to protect Net Neutrality. In basic terms, it’s the idea/principle that users should be allowed to go wherever and do whatever they want (striving to stay within the law, of course – and that’s as far as I will go on that), and that Internet Service Providers can’t charge or penalize them for it.
Take this for example: if you want to read about the news online, your Internet Service Providers – ISP – can’t make it harder for you to read on websites like CNN or Politico to make you go to a site they favor, like Fox.
Or for a more literal example: think of the Internet as a series of tubes…
Imagine you use those tubes for something useful – for me, I’m thinking water. This is the Internet. Under Net Neutrality, Internet Service Providers can’t make it harder for users to use their own tubes in favor of the tubes the ISPs want them to. By no means do I consider that a complete representation of what Net Neutrality is, but the basic principle applies.
The latest rulings by FCC head Ajit Pai wants to dismantle that rule.
As I said earlier, I signed a petition opposing Pai’s goal. Most petitions have a box asking if signers want their names and comments displayed on it. I normally check this box but don’t comment, not because I have nothing to say or think my signature is enough; rather, I feel like I would have too much to say in the tiny box allotted.
Here is my comment.
“The Internet gives users access to information for any reason. The UN says disrupting Internet access is a human right violation. If Pai gets what he wants, the FCC will be one step closer to becoming Trump’s Ministry of Truth.”
I kept this opinion brief, mainly because I didn’t know what the word or character count was. I probably could have made it longer, but I wanted my points to be known. Here’s exactly why.
The Internet gives users access to information for any reason.
That’s pretty much the thought in a nutshell. Depending on how you’re connected to it, it doesn’t really cost anything except what your bills say.
In terms of the quantity and variability of content, it’s the greatest repository of information humanity has known to this point.
Users have access to videos, books, historical records, reviews, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, cat videos – more than I can even come up with for this list.
In terms of the quantity and variability of content, it’s the greatest repository of information humanity has known to this point.
Users have access to videos, books, historical records, reviews, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, cat videos – more than I can even come up with for this list.
The UN says disrupting Internet access is a human right violation.
In July 2016, the United Nations’ Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution stating that, “the same rights people have offline must also be protected online.” There are a few different points I want to make.
First of all, the phrase “non-binding.” wiseGEEK.com states that a non-binding resolution is a statement that, despite being offered by a governing body, can’t be made into legislation. Thus, essentially like laws in general, they’re more of a statement or a collection of words telling people what or what not to do that people can choose to listen to or ignore.
In short – and most unfortunate – it’s not an enforceable stance. This is evident by the fact that China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia – known authoritarian regimes, according to Human Rights Watch – called for amendments to the resolution that drastically weakened its impact.
Second, the article references Article 19 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For quick referencing, here is the text below; the text in bold what I want to emphasize.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
The first sentence may as well be a copy of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, since it makes roughly the same point. The points I’ve bolded, however, state that the right of “freedom of opinion and expression” includes the freedom to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media.”
For reference point here, “media” is a plural form of “medium.” Dictionary.com’s seventh definition of medium is “one of the means or channels of general communication, information, or entertainment in society, as newspapers, radio, or television.” The Internet is essentially this.
To save you some clicking, I also read through the HRC’s official Internet Statement (readable here). There is a lot of technobabble, legalese, and other complicated language but in essence, it stands in favor of promoting openness of information without fear of restriction and calls for States and stakeholders to develop policies with that core principle.
With that in mind, here is one example of a violation in action.
In April 2017, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan edged out a narrow victory (51% to 49%) in a referendum to allow him more (unchecked) constitutional powers. Almost two weeks later, a massive crackdown led to the government systematically firing over 100,000 civil servants and blocking access to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The government’s response has been to allege that Wikipedia was banned in a law allowing them to block websites they deem threats to national security - in this case, that Wikipedia “contributed to a smear campaign against Turkey” and that the site created “the perception that Turkey supports terrorist organizations.” *
This isn’t the first time the Turkish government has blocked websites in this manner, nor will it likely be the last. YouTube and Twitter have been frequent targets for the past several years. Privacy News Online’s Caleb Chen warned in 2016 that these blocks are happening more frequently and with increasingly less provocation.
With that in mind, here is one example of a violation in action.
In April 2017, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan edged out a narrow victory (51% to 49%) in a referendum to allow him more (unchecked) constitutional powers. Almost two weeks later, a massive crackdown led to the government systematically firing over 100,000 civil servants and blocking access to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The government’s response has been to allege that Wikipedia was banned in a law allowing them to block websites they deem threats to national security - in this case, that Wikipedia “contributed to a smear campaign against Turkey” and that the site created “the perception that Turkey supports terrorist organizations.” *
This isn’t the first time the Turkish government has blocked websites in this manner, nor will it likely be the last. YouTube and Twitter have been frequent targets for the past several years. Privacy News Online’s Caleb Chen warned in 2016 that these blocks are happening more frequently and with increasingly less provocation.
If Pai gets what he wants, the FCC will be one step closer to becoming Trump’s Ministry of Truth.
On a 2014 episode of HBO’s Last Week Tonight, John Oliver previously called FCC President Tom Wheeler a dingo when it came to opening Net Neutrality rules. More specifically, Oliver said this would be akin to trusting a dingo with a baby.*
First of all, Tom Wheeler may have denied being a dingo, but he never provided proof that he isn’t.
Second, I’m willing to accept Tom Wheeler is not a dingo. But I can say for sure, Ajit Pai definitely is not a dingo.
He’s something far worse.
Precisely what, I can’t say, because sadism and taking pride in it is not a trait that develops naturally among species whose main goal is survival, even at the expense of another animal's life.
He’s something far worse.
Precisely what, I can’t say, because sadism and taking pride in it is not a trait that develops naturally among species whose main goal is survival, even at the expense of another animal's life.
In government discourse, Pai has regularly claimed that he views Net Neutrality regulations as damaging to infrastructure investment. This has been challenged on several occasions, once by Sen. Jeff Markey (D-Mass.), who saw no evidence that the regulations had actually hurt or caused any major problems to ISPs.
In private, though, Pai has been much more open about his intentions, at one point flat out admitting he wants to take a weed whacker to government regulations. Thus, Pai establishes himself more in line with government deregulation fans such as Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos and Jeff Sessions, each of whom staunchly and viciously fought the organizations they’ve been appointed to lead (the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Education and Department of Justice, respectively). With this in mind, it should come as no surprise as to why Trump selected Pai.
Pai and his friend Trump were highly in favor of the House’s ruling to repeal Internet privacy rules in April 2017. Put most basically from my research, the ruling knocked Internet Service Providers from the more stricter FCC guidelines to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s less strict privacy rules.
“What does this mean for me?” I hear you ask. According to Fortune’s FAQ, Internet Service Providers have to notify and receive permission from users before giving out their data.
However, they’re also allowed to change their policies at any moment.
With this in mind, they can set rules in place that allow them to sell users’ information without their permission to marketers and advertisers who would happily take advantage of it. In addition, Internet privacy advocates warn that the opening of software by marketers could also leave websites’ base code open and vulnerable to hackers.
However, they’re also allowed to change their policies at any moment.
With this in mind, they can set rules in place that allow them to sell users’ information without their permission to marketers and advertisers who would happily take advantage of it. In addition, Internet privacy advocates warn that the opening of software by marketers could also leave websites’ base code open and vulnerable to hackers.
That’s all one side of this.
What’s the Ministry of Truth, you ask?
In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Ministry of Truth is one of the major organizations of the Oceania regime. In this case, it serves as the propaganda and information arm. This is the group tasked with altering news and documents to the “correct” (read: the government’s) version.
Essentially, dismantling net neutrality could be seen as a “polite” way of enforcing state-run news, as many authoritarian regimes are known to do. The difference here is that this allows for the illusion of choice on the part of the user. This measure necessarily doesn’t bar or restrict users from obtaining their news from sites like Politico or the Washington Post. It also doesn’t attack them as businesses directly, leaving them (relatively) free to operate and print or report what they want.
Instead, it restricts or makes it impractical for the user to get to the site by making it harder to access or a financial burden.
Thus, by “incentivizing” users to view news on Right-wing news sites like Fox or Breitbart – which Trump has repeatedly expressed support for – or even state-sponsored news, Pai’s assault on net neutrality can play a significant role in damaging the American peoples’ access to information and pushing the country closer to a totalitarian regime where the only news you get is what the government allows you to have.
Footnotes
* Sources state that Turkey's ban on Wikipedia was in response to the site's refusal to remove references to Turkey coordinating with terrorist groups.
** John Oliver’s full quote: “The guy who used to run the cable industry’s lobbying arm is now running the agency tasked with regulating it. That is the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo.”
Footnotes
* Sources state that Turkey's ban on Wikipedia was in response to the site's refusal to remove references to Turkey coordinating with terrorist groups.
** John Oliver’s full quote: “The guy who used to run the cable industry’s lobbying arm is now running the agency tasked with regulating it. That is the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo.”
More Sources & References
- Ars Technica - ISPs and FCC Chair Ajit Pai celebrate death of online privacy rules
- Ars Technica - Senator challenges Ajit Pai over evidence for net neutrality repeal
- Business Insider - House Republicans just voted to let your internet provider sell your browsing history without your permission
- Business Insider - Trump’s new FCC boss could have a lasting effect on the internet — here’s what to watch out for
- Electronic Frontier Foundation - Five Creepy Things Your ISP Could Do if Congress Repeals the FCC’s Privacy Protections
- Fortune - What Really Happens When the FCC’s Online Privacy Rules Are Cancelled
- Gizmodo - The Republican Plan to Kill the Open Internet
- Gizmodo - FCC Chair Ajit Pai Announces Bullsh*t Plan to Destroy Net Neutrality
- Gizmodo - John Oliver Pisses Off ISP Vultures With New Net Neutrality Segment
- The Guardian - Turkey blocks Wikipedia under law designed to protect national security
- The Hill - GOP faces backlash over attack on internet privacy rules
- L.A. Times - FCC Chairman Pai wants to halt Internet privacy rules before they begin taking effect this week
- Webster, David - Freedom Paper No. 1: Free & Independent Media
- The Verge - The FCC’s plan to kill net neutrality will also kill internet privacy
No comments:
Post a Comment