Clinton Calls For "Ground Rules" Protecting Internet 205
dbune writes "Hillary Clinton has called for ground rules to protect the World Wide Web against wrongdoing and harm after the world watched as Egyptian authorities cut Internet access during its recent political crisis. She said 'For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness.'"
Talk to your boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary,
Talk to your boss and let him know that a "kill switch" is a bad idea.
Thanks,
The Internet
Re:Talk to your boss (Score:5, Insightful)
and while you're at it, could you talk to him about the whole Patriot Act thing?
Re:Talk to your boss (Score:5, Insightful)
And DMCA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And ACTA?
Re:Talk to your boss (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you all are making the mistake of thinking that what politicians say out of their ass while behind a podium has anything at all to do with what they are really up to...
Re: (Score:2)
We all know better, don't we? Don't we? Yet, so many of us act like it isn't that way. Why do we continue to drink the Koolaid? I guess we like red lips, and I don't mean the ones you normally kiss.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course our country doesn't openly murder citizens.. That's bad for business.. better yet our government likes to do things like let Monsanto do whatever they want so the citizens are killed off slowly..and the best part is the citizens pay all that money for their own deaths. As far as "we get a new person at the top of the chain." Well I kind of see the only difference of Democrats and Republicans is being one is the left horn and the other the right horn.. They both belong to same devil.
Re: (Score:2)
Even though they raise our taxes...quite often...we get most of the things we need done.
Anyone who believes that, needs to listen to this [youtube.com]. Why is it we are still discussing the same things, just WORSE off?
We're not being openly murdered by the government, there is LESS corruption in our government than other countries. We are a democracy.
Ahahaha, hahahaha. Wait, what am I laughing at again? Oh yea, it's really not funny, even though it is dead wrong. A. I would challenge most believe that politicians can and do get people "bumped off". B. We live in a Democratic Republic. Half right maybe, but we have a republic because of the fear of democracy. As it has been said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have f
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, we have elected the wolves.
That's a republic for you! This is exactly what you get when you give too much power to either side. Corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying we're perfect, but we're closer to it than all these other countries.
And you will keep believing the truthyness of it no matter what the facts are.
Re: (Score:3)
First, we are not a democracy, we're a fascist republic. We don't have any real choice in who to elect, as the corporations control the elections, and the approved choices are all in the pockets of the corporations, and not interested in the people's welfare.
And no, there is not less corruption here than in other countries. Well, maybe some countries. We probably have less corruption here than in Mexico, or some other third-world hellholes. Is that something t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We want freedom FROM economics.
Re: (Score:2)
Story over in three comments.
(No kill switch, no Patriot Act, no **AA.)
However, this is just another political Go stone. One stone does not affect a whole policy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Talk to your boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who somehow do manage to hold on to their motivation are such a small minority that they can only vary rarely effect worthwhile change.
It's worse than that. Democracy actively selects for lying asshats, so even if you are smart and have good ideas you'll be beaten by the charismatic psychopath promising bread and circuses paid for with your neighbour's money (or, these days, money borrowed from the Chinese).
Re:paid for with your neighbour's money (Score:2)
It's worse than that. Democracy actively selects for lying asshats, so even if you are smart and have good ideas you'll be beaten by the charismatic psychopath promising bread and circuses paid for with your neighbour's money (or, these days, money borrowed from the Chinese).
Ah, you're talking about Reagan and both Bushs, only instead of neighbors, it'd be all the poor in the ghettos and the middleclass not living near their exclusive ranches or in their gated communities helping the rich get richer. Or did you think their money comes from trees?
Re: (Score:2)
See, it applies to both sides. heh.
Re: (Score:3)
See, it applies to both sides. heh.
That was actually my point and why I have no hope of ever trying to convince anyone of anything discussing politics. It's impossible to compete with self-inflicted brainwashing via tv and radio.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A sad truth about democracy is that one if its largest problems is allowing everyone a say in who makes decisions. For the most part populations are made up of idiots, and half of them are even dumber than that. That's the popular vote for you.
Citation: 2001-2009.
Whats the point of having a qualified candidate when some asshat can convince people to vote for them instead. Of course fixing the electoral system, and eliminating all the money from the equation from the lobbyists, corporations, and wealthy elit
Re: (Score:2)
That doesnt require reforming the enitre system, just putting term limits on congress will keep the "career" politicians out.
They do have children for such an occasion, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Peter Principle (Re:Talk to your boss) (Score:2)
It's the Peter Principle. People rise to their own level of incompetence.
Closing the internet caused the revolution (Score:4, Insightful)
I firmly believe the revolution in Egypt was aided by closing the internet. People walked away from their keyboards and got outside. If they wanted to see what was happening they had the Al jazeera sattelite at a freinds house. But without communncation their imaginations could soar a bit and they could look awayf from the screen.
Circuses are well known to keep the roman masses happy.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much exactly what I said when it happened. If you want to quell a popular uprising (without just killing enough people that they give up) you need to start handing out food or money or drugs or something (I think THC gas would probably work better than tear gas). Shutting off entertainment so that all the people on the fence have nothing better to do but get outside and check out the protests is probably the worst possible move.
Re: (Score:2)
I firmly believe the revolution in Egypt was aided by closing the internet. People walked away from their keyboards and got outside.
Um, they had millions on the streets before Internet access was shut down.
Frankly, the effect of the Net on recent events in Egypt was vastly overstated.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you are right. There will still be more attacks on freedom concerning the Internet in America, however.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Practically there is nothing like a Kill Switch! Only certain ISP's could be asked to make changes in their routers. The term Kill Switch is just a Metaphor
That's probably not what they'd do. They'd ask ISPs and telco providers ahead of time to identify major circuits providing internet connectivity.
And the kill switch would be either sending all the telco providers orders to cut those particular fibers.
OR: CALEA-style requirement for telco characters to incorporate "Lawful Disconnect" techno
Prove it! (Score:3)
'For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness,'
Good. Now tell the RIAA and MPAA to leave us the hell alone.
Bettery Yet.. (was Re:Prove it!) (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Openness != Lawlessness
Precisely. Which is why the MafiAA, who employ illegal tactics, have been caught numerous times engaging in "investigation" using unlicensed personnel who have tainted evidence, have been caught fabricating evidence, have been caught persecuting people that they knew, or should have known had they done anything resembling due diligence, to be innocent (to wit: EXTORTION), and who have been caught on a regular basis defrauding the artists they claim to "represent" not to mention cookin [techdirt.com]
openness (Score:5, Insightful)
> "For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness"
Oh that's good - I'll let Julian Assange know.
Re:openness (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, the veracity of the leaked information has never been called into question. So there is not question of
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up funny please, as many readers seem to need that as an indicator of sarcasm.
Re: (Score:3)
What? Are you going to listen to a rapist? If you support wikileaks, you're not supporting openness. You're supporting rape. Do you want to side with rape? Thought not.
Erm...., expressing sarcasm is via text is an art form. Both the writer and the reader have to be "in on it". As such, sometimes it misses the mark. So if I'm the dullard who doesn't get your sarcasm, bad on me.
Julian Asange is not a rapist. He has been accused of rape by persons with questionable (to understate it a bit) credibility. He has angered a great many powerful people who believe that they have good reason (and who certainly have more than ample resources) to engineer any manner of dirty trick
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It was pretty obvious sarcasm. The italicized words put it over the top, IMHO. But, well, what can you expect from RAPE SUPPORTERS!!!!!1!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are rules for sarcasm, but the first rule is that we don't talk about the rules for sarcasm.
You said "rape" twice... (Score:2)
You said "rape" twice...
Just pointing that out...
Re: (Score:2)
Have you considered that maybe he just really likes rape? Nothing wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Well rape is non-consensual sex, yes? Hard to give consent while you're asleep.
Just playing Devil's Advocate.
Re: (Score:2)
But there's no proof that "sleep sex" ever happened. It's just her CLAIM that it happened, and I suspect she (and the other woman) are jealous lovers writing fiction. After all they didn't file the claim of rape until AFTER they learned about one another.
Assange should be presumed innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just leave the facts out of this. They'll get in the way of getting rid of Julian.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What? I've never heard of the CIA getting involved in dirty tricks involving sex. I think a citation is needed here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:openness (Score:5, Insightful)
This article deserves more than just a link:
QUOTE:
âoea false debate. Fundamentally, the WikiLeaks incident began with an act of theft. Government documents were stolen, just the same as if they had been smuggled out in a briefcase.â That is, WIkileaks isnâ(TM)t really about the internet, but about a crime. Clinton then goes on: "There were reports in the days following these leaks that the United States Government intervened to coerce private companies to deny service to WikiLeaks. That is not the case. Now, some politicians and pundits publicly called for companies to disassociate from WikiLeaks, while others criticized them for doing so. Public officials are part of our countryâ(TM)s public debates, but there is a line between expressing views and coercing conduct."
These comments constitute a remarkable series of lies and hypocrisies.
1 - The US Government has regularly harassed Wikileaks associate and internet activist and Tor founder Jacob Applebaum, subjecting him to extensive and, in the end, almost comical seaches of his electronic equipment whenever he returns to the United States.
2- In further contrast to Clintonâ(TM)s emphasis on âoeenforcing the rules transparentlyâ, the US Governmentâ(TM)s legal campaign against Wikileaks has been secret from the outset. Despite military officials admitting theyâ(TM)re unable to link Julian Assange to anything with which he could be charged, a secret grand jury process in Virginia continues against Wikileaks, aided by a secret Department of Justice subpoena. This was only revealed when Twitter took the commendable step of applying for confidentiality to be removed from a DoJ demand for an extraordinary range of information, including on Applebaumâ(TM)s Twitter account and everyone who is a Twitter follower of Wikileaks.
3- In addition to the Department of Justice attempt to conjure up a charge against Julian Assange, the FBI has undertaken an aggressive investigation of online group Anonymous in relation to its âoeOperation Paybackâ attacks on Visa, Mastercard and PayPal after their suspension of payments to Wikileaks, but there has been no action, indeed apparently no investigation, of the DDOS attacks undertaken on Wikileaks itself, from within the United States, for which an individual has claimed responsibility. Nor has there been any apparent law enforcement action in response to the plan developed by HB Gary Federal, Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies for Hunton and Williams to attack Wikileaks and Salonâ(TM)s Glenn Greenwald.
4- Clintonâ(TM)s attempt to dissociate the Obama Administration from corporate decisions about Wikileaks is sophistry of the highest order.
5- Clintonâ(TM)s comments about the dangers of transparency in diplomacy â" which forms the guts of her straw-man comments on Wikileaks â" have already been refuted by her Cabinet colleague Robert Gates, who stated in December that Wikileaks would not do any âoeserious damageâ to US foreign policy, that its effect was merely to embarrass
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/15/headlines/friend_of_suspected_wikileaks_source_alleges_torture [democracynow.org]
Openness? Right . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Horsepuckey. They're just jealous that the same shutdown ability doesn't exist here in the Untied States.
Re: (Score:2)
we place ourselves on the side of openness
Horsepuckey. They're just jealous that the same shutdown ability doesn't exist here in the Untied States.
The Untied States? That is quite a interesting spelling in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
Florida is drifting away as we speak.
Emotions are mixed on the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It does.
You do know that the NSA has ties into every backbone carrier in the US right?
You do know that they can tap the data at will right?
Only a fool would think that the US couldn't take down not just the US internet but probably a good percentage of all the internet if need be. if the data is already flowing through those devices then only a fool would believe that those devices couldn't shut off that flow.
This kill switch is to allow the isolation of segments of the internet. Laws are already in place t
Read between the lines (Score:2)
The internet must be open and fair to all American companies which have the money to fund our election campaigns, to spread the word of those companies wonderful products and good deeds, to keep the world safe from people we don't like, and to prevent all of those with ideas that differ from ours from speaking out. Can't we all just get behind my version of freedom?
How about you show it? (Score:5, Informative)
For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness
That's quite rich considering your government just shut down 84,000 websites "by mistake": http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-shuts-down-84000-websites-by-mistake-110216/ [torrentfreak.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that's known as guilt by association.
The best way to protect the internet... (Score:2)
For many organizations, the internet is about profit, growth and accessibility. Those organizations have an obligation to ensure the functional operation and security of their systems, if they'd like to say doing what they do. No connection = no revenue. Having government involvement with the internet will hinder one or all of those facets, even if the intent is for the betterment of
Re:The best way to protect the internet... (Score:4, Insightful)
...is to allow the private entities which own the servers, networks, technology, and businesses to manage it themselves.
yes. so at&t can cut off all access to wikileaks, just like how amazon did with its cloud.
amazon also had an obligation to ensure the functional operation and security of their systems. yet they didnt see any problem in censoring a customer, when it was not to their liking.
had it been in the moronic, ayn rand believer way you wanted, at&t, comcast would ensure that no american saw any wikileaks document, thanks to the pressure the banks would put on them.
private does not mean 'good', or 'free'. private means, something is owned by a group of PRIVATE bunch, with no obligations to your freedom, but to their profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Are freedom and profit inherently mutually exclusive?
There are many companies who have chosen to make "bad" business decisions, in favor of "good" moral ones. As a result, those companies build a better reputation than their competitors, and reap greater profits. If there's any sign that ISPs have started blocking access to particular services, it's a perfect opportunity for another company to offer a secure forwarding service. Such places already exist (for privacy reasons, rather than content access). If
Re: (Score:2)
Are freedom and profit inherently mutually exclusive?
Sometimes yes sometimes no, if a large private entity were to offer a major ISP a large sum of money to deny access to a number of sites then protecting the freedom of a user to view that information would be mutually exclusive to profit from that revenue stream. And once that revenue stream is open the laws of market competition strongly encourage other ISPs to follow suit if they want to stay competitive and keep market share.
Of course that's just the theoretical case, the real life case is much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
So a "large private entity" can pay off every ISP, because every ISP will opt to take the money, just because it's available.
What happens when a single ISP declines the deal, or worse, makes the deal public knowledge? Public outrage damages the large entity's profits and every ISP they worked with. That's a pretty big risk to taking the deal.
Perhaps worse, if every ISP does take the deal, that opens the large private entity to blackmail. Any ISP can threaten to open access again at any time. That would like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not mutually exclusive, but in their natural states they don't get along well. Profit is too often made at the expense of freedom. If you don't understand or believe me, you need to learn more history and do some research on company towns, for example. Capitalism, in it's natural state, loves slaves more than employees because they cost less to employ.
Re: (Score:3)
They also tend to produce inferior work, which may or may not (depending on the importance of quality) be profitable for the company. Using slaves is also a PR nightmare.
Consider the case of companies currently operating sweatshops. The sweatshops may be far below American labor standards, but they're far above anything else in the area. Merely carrying the label "sweatshop" is a curse for any operation, so companies are forced to upgrade factories even further beyond the local standard. Of course, this is
Re: (Score:2)
Please remember I'm talking about capitalism in it's natural state, with no regulations. Your counter-arguments are all predicated on a society that is exactly like one in which capitalism is heavily regulated for the benefit of the people. I have serious doubts those two societies would be similar given sufficient time for the people to adapt to the rules governing the society.
Let's not forget that slavery was accepted for a very long time before it was abolished. It's all about societal norms and if al
Cutting off the internet helped the revolution (Score:2)
Some guy that works for Google was on the news the other day saying that cutting off the Internet accelerated the public protests by letting everyone know that the regime was scared. So, taking steps to ensure that a regime like Mubarak's can't do that in future is counter-productive if you consider the protests in Egypt to have been a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
This assumes first that all governments will share the technological limitations of the Mubarak government. What the authoritarian government in Egypt did was very simplistic compared to what Iran does, not to mention China. Iran selectively disables content and Twitter hashtags are no match for the Great FireWall which is a massive content filter designed specifically to maintain its power though suppression of speech and knowledge. Also think about various countries' existing mandates for identified co
Sorry Hillary (Score:2)
but I fixed that for ya.
Same as the old boss... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, nothing to see here...it's "openness" as long as it is in the best interest of the United States. What a load of bs. DNS records all over the world taken over by force, Julian Assange threatened with assassinations, kill switches, patriot acts...just a plantation with a different name.
Good luck with that (Score:2)
Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
I read in the newspaper that the US will help the citicens of Iran to keep the internet running. Obama and Clinton promised that. I find that extremely hypocritic behaviour. Where was the US when Egypt's internet was shut down? Oh yeah, they liked Mubarak so they did nothing. But they don't like Ahmadinejad so now they help the Iranian people. And in the meantime Obama wants a kill switch so he can switch the internet off whenever he wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read in the newspaper that the US will help the citicens of Iran to keep the internet running. Obama and Clinton promised that. I find that extremely hypocritic behaviour. Where was the US when Egypt's internet was shut down? Oh yeah, they liked Mubarak so they did nothing. But they don't like Ahmadinejad so now they help the Iranian people. And in the meantime Obama wants a kill switch so he can switch the internet off whenever he wants.
it's more complicated than that, the us couldn't really state which side they were because egypt owns something very important, the suez canal, so if they helped one side and the other one won it could have blocked the canal for us ships as retaliation
In Iran instead they don't have anything to lose since Ahmadinejad already hate them
Re: (Score:3)
How is that hypocritical? It's doing two different things in two similar but different situations, not saying one thing and doing the opposite. It's just doing what is in you own intererst as opposed to what is "right".
And Obama already has a "kill switch" and hence claiming he "wants" one is a bit silly. Which part of the text of http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3480%3A [loc.gov] do you find to be so troubling and what new "kill switch" power is is granting that the President hasn't had since 1934 anyway
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the US was in a No Win situation, so they did nothing. Wait and see how things turn out.
Basically they can't do anything really to interfere because they are supposed to be about democratic change and more power freedom for the people, so they can overtly support Mubarak.
However, with Mubarak gone, there is a very real chance that the next government in Egypt will be a Muslim one. A government that may not share the same views as the US. Mubarak they could control, just keep throwing US military aid hi
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it will only be switched off for the US population.
The root servers exist everywhere these days.
Positioning for 2012 (Score:2)
Clinton is clearly positioning herself for another Presidential run in 2012. Obama's track record on openness and freedom for the Internet is abysmal, but few if any of his transgressions came out of the State Department. If Clinton can separate herself from her boss on this issue, she can make inroads to the young and energetic netizens who helped Obama so much in '08.
If I'm right, expect her to start making noises about cutting the budget and ending wars in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but you assume that the only goal of such a move would be to gain the nomination and take over Obama's job. I think the real goal would be to garner enough support to be a serious challenger, then force Obama to take her as his new Vice President. Which would put her on even surer ground for 2016.
We don't need another hero. (Ms. Clinton) (Score:2)
Out of the Ruins [youtube.com]
Out from the wreckage
Can't make the same mistake this time
We are the children
The last generation
We are the ones they left behind
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change
Living under the fear, till nothing else remains
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond
Thunderdome
Looking for something
We can rely on
There's gotta be something better out there.
Love and compassion
Their day is coming
All else are castles built into the air.
And I wonder when we are
Hello Anti-piracy laws (Score:2)
What are "ground rules" exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
From Wikipedia:
In baseball, ground rules are special rules particular to each baseball park (grounds) in which the game is played. Unlike the well-defined playing field of most other sports, the playing area of a baseball field extends to an outfield fence in fair territory and the stadium seating in foul territory. The unique design of each ballpark, including fences, dugouts, bullpens, railings, stadium domes, photographer's wells and TV camera booths, requires that rules be defined to handle situations in which these objects may interact or interfere with the ball in play or with the players.
So a "ground rule" that warrants an Internet kill switch in my ballpark, doesn't necessarily mean that you can hit the kill switch in your ballpark.
In other words, the US is allowed to hit the Internet kill switch in their ballpark (ground rule). Egypt isn't (no ground rule).
Clinton? (Score:2)
Internet or WWW? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But really, she just comes from a different age. All of them do. Think about it, the Internet really only became widespread in the 90's. Clinton was in her 40's. She's certainly no geek. So it's like describing how the Internet work to my mother. She tries, god bless her, and minding the gap I think she does pretty well. But she's made an effort to understand what it is I do for a living. Now look at congress, the average age
Oh what's da point? (Score:2)
Even if we make it so the megalomaniacs and powermongers can't touch the Internet, they'll just find a way around it like cutting all power to the grid....
Bold words, Ms. Secretary. (Score:3)
And I applaud them. But will you back them with equally bold actions?
In related news (Score:5, Funny)
On the topic of Clinton and the Internet (Score:2)
There is a debate currently underway in some circles about whether the internet is a force for liberation or repression. But I think that debate is largely beside the point. Egypt isn’t inspiring people because they communicated using Twitter. It is inspiring because people came together and persisted in demanding a better future.
Just who the hell in what circles are even debating that the internet isn't a force for liberation, freedom, information, knowledge, equality, and god-damned apple pie?
No really, I want a list of names and groups so I know who to exile when I'm king for a day. And really, what are their arguments, cause I'm having a hard time conceptualizing how anyone would use the internet for repression. I mean, usually the repression is in terms of denying people access to
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be real for a minute indeed. I suppose you're talking about the "protection" the USA offered to other countries against the evil USSR, even though both countries had enough cumulative fire power to blow up the planet ten times over. How much do you think such a promise was worth? Sorry, but "In case of a global thermonuclear war we'll make sure the planet
Re: (Score:3)
First, the House was controlled by Democrats for 4 years (2 under Bush, and 2 under Obama). If the Democraps really wanted to push something through, they had 2 years to do it while they had control of both Congress and the White House.
Leaving Afghanistan is NOT a bad idea, just like it was not a bad idea to pack up and leave Vietnam. It's a quagmire, and we're doing nothing but propping up a corrupt government, while the insurgents hide just over the border in Cambodia^HPakistan.
Closi
Re: (Score:2)
s/USA/Mubarak Regime/ and it reads a bit different.
Even worse if you consider that 'massive attack' could mean too many Lady Gaga songs being illicitly downloaded for the MPAAs liking.
Re: (Score:3)
However, let's be real for a minute. The kill switch is a bad idea, but we all should know that the government would only use it in the case of massive attacks from a foreign entity
Which 'reality' do you live in where the government would never abuse its power for its own ends?