Obama Wants Switch To Turn Off Internet
This afternoon, news is coming out that a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 includes language that gives the President authority to seize private networks and essentially have a switch to turn them off.
I’ve actually popped pop-corn and pulled up a chair to my Twitter account to watch all the tech guys who are Obama supporters try and wiggle their way out of this one.? This provides neither transparency nor Net Neutrality.
Not to mention that the entire design structure of the Internet was made to prevent interruption in communication so that it could be used as an emergency communications medium in the event of a nuclear war.? The whole point is that the Internet is not centralized, and therefore turning off one limb off does not prevent communications over the whole.? Giving one individual or administration the power to shut down traffic over the whole is extremely dangerous.
Maybe the better question though is, “In what situation would this be needed?”? Why in the world would our government need control to turn off our communications networks preventing us from communicating?? I can’t stress how dangerous this is.
Remember that little incident in Iran recently?? Remember who controlled the switch to filter or turn off the Internet there?
-nick
?and Net Neutrality for All: An Advisement Against Regulated Broadband Expansion
I’ve recently posted my paper investigating broadband expansion policy within the broadband stimulus portion of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 on bepress.
You can find it here: http://works.bepress.com/nicholas_brown/2/
Here’s the abstract:
Ever since the now YouTube famous Google interview of then Senator Barack Obama promoting broadband Internet deployment nation wide, broadband deployment as part of Obama?s overarching $825 billion stimulus package has been a ready topic of conversation in technology circles. Broadband penetration in the United States is only 25.67% of all Internet connectivity or available to roughly 71 million Americans, ranking the U.S. 19th in the world. Home connections via broadband have risen to 92.4%, creating the argument that the majority of Internet users are engaged in daily activities that require, or at least benefit from, broadband connectivity. Obama has promoted this line of thinking, and believes ?that America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access?. Pushing it even farther, he believes that the Universal Service Fund should be implemented in the expediting of deployment. This line of thinking is more than likely impossible.
This paper looks at the Broadband Stimulus portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to investigate the feasibility of expanding broadband into underdeveloped and undeveloped areas and the forced implementation of Network Neutrality into networks funded by the federal government.
————————-
Be sure to post any feedback you may have. Would love to hear it.
-nick
Obama: 101 Days In Tech Policy
President Obama reached his 100 day milestone yesterday to mixed emotions and reviews across the media spectrum. But what did this milestone mean for technology policy?
The brightest spot could be Mr. Obama’s appointment of Melissa Hathaway to perform a 60-day review of federal cybersecurity procedures. Early reports of her charge have been encouraging. The report, however, remains unavailable to the public. Ultimately, the new administration must provide improved network security for our national infrastructure and bureaucracies while keeping government as far removed as possible from privately held networks and markets. The private sector must take the lead in experimenting with more robust data security and authentication technologies.
Obama’s approach toward intellectual property is one source of concern. Numerous Obama appointees, like the Copyright Czar, hail from large content companies. While there is nothing wrong with appointing individuals with a background in representing major intellectual property owners, the lack of alternative viewpoints in the Obama administration is troubling. Lately, there has been a worrisome trend toward the criminalization of certain online activities and applications, such as peer-to-peer file sharing. Non-commercial copyright infringement is wrong and should be legally actionable, but it should not be a criminal offense-especially not one that involves possible jail time. And file sharing applications, despite facilitating copyright infringement, also have many valid uses and do not deserve to be demonized. Going forward, Obama should consider a range of viewpoints and explore methods of allowing the free market to experiment with new licensing techniques and methods of delivering content that improve the consumer experience and deter content theft without necessitating bigger government.
Mr. Obama’s stimulus package includes roughly $7 billion in funds for the promotion of new broadband networks in unserved and underserved areas. For firms to be eligible for these funds, they must comply with ambiguous FCC rules concerning network neutrality. Neutral network management may be appropriate and ideal in many circumstances, but not all networks should be neutral in all situations. Not all network traffic is created equal, and some network operators may not wish to be all things to all people. President Obama should strip openness mandates from the broadband stimulus package and wait to hand out broadband stimulus funds until the National Broadband Strategy is completed early next year.
Concern exists with the appointment of Cass Sunstein as well. Sunstein has supported the idea of a mandatory “electronic sidewalk” for the Internet, stating that, “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” Sunstein wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.” It has been called “The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet,” by Adam Thiere of The Progress & Freedom Foundation. The new administration should be advised to keep a tight leash on Sunstein and his Orwellian views of the 1st and 2nd Amendment.
Finally, steps taken toward allowing government officials to use cellular site data without a warrant raise serious Constitutional concerns. Justice Department lawyers do not consider the use of this data as a “search and seizure,” and they ignore the serious privacy implications of government agents tracking individuals’ locations via their mobile phone signals. Only with either a court order or the consent of end users should government be able to intercept cellular site data for law enforcement purposes. President Obama should order the Department of Justice to end warrantless interception of cellular site data on the grounds that infringes on Fourth Amendment protections.
-nick
Conservatives Just Don’t “Get It”
You’ve heard this right? Conservatives just don’t “get it” when it comes to technology, social networking, and Internet marketing.
Really?
I’m so sick of hearing this. What secret technology recipe do Dems and liberals hold in this medium? What have they done that is so damn special? Everywhere I turn I’m being fed this line about how liberals have cornered the market on online politics. Why? Because the Obama campaign used Twitter, Facebook, and put a donate button on their campaign website? Please…
MoveOn.org is certainly a big player in some areas of webspace, and they have no equal in the conservative cybersphere…yet. TheVanguard.org argues that they will be the conservative answer to Moveon. This is a promise we have heard before, so I will remain cautiously optimistic. But while we are on the subject, what is it that MoveOn has on it’s website that is so mind blowingly special?
I circled it for you in case you are a conservative/libertarian that just doesn’t “get it”:
The MoveOn page is filled with rhetoric and articles. As an aside if you look closely you will pick out blatant misleading numbers all on one page. Their email sign up claims 4 million members. The article under “Success Stories” claims 5 million members in the title. While just under the title the actual story print claims 4.2 million members. I wish my boss paid me an extra 80% on every 20% of the dollar I made. But I digress.
The big FTW that liberals all other the Internet sipping their techno-lattes are getting all worked up about is how many email addresses MoveOn has collected via what boils down to a newsletter sign up box, a donate button, and a graphic icon link to their Facebook and YouTube fan sites. That’s it folks. That’s what the big liberal Net geniuses are walking around heads in the clouds over. High-five guys! You conquered the Internetz!
What is the actual gain from this? MoveOn had close to $60 million in donations in 2004, and unless usual donors took their money straight to Obama, it’s safe to assume that the number was close to that in 2008.
While not in direct competition, The Heritage Foundation had a similar endowment in 2008 and also holds a similar size contact list. Being that Heritage is a think tank, and not a social club, many of their priorities are different. But there endowment certainly allows them to compete in the same spaces that a group like MoveOn is battling for ground in.
But what are the real numbers here? Why can’t conservatives compete in the webspace like they do in talk radio in meatspace? Why don’t we get it? What aren’t we getting?
WHAT WE DON’T GET IS THAT WE HAVE BOUGHT INTO A LIE THAT WE “DON’T GET IT”.
… in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
?Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X
Look at the numbers:
MoveOn is winning the Facebook war. That’s pure Paris Hilton “hot” right there. You guys can trade pictures and make cute references to the Messiah’s newest portrait in your status bar. But Facebook isn’t the only application in webspace. Liberals claim to be controlling everything. But the numbers don’t add up. The DNC less than half the subscribers or channel views than the much webspace belabored RNC on YouTube. And the RNC easily rivals MoveOn in YouTube channel subscribers, falling behind by only 500 subscribers, but actually having 65,000 more views of channel content. And Twitter, the Internet rage that is constantly talked about by liberals like they invented it is completely dominated by conservative and libertarian organizations! In fact MoveOn and the DNC don’t even have representation on Twitter. And let’s not even discuss individual members of Congress’ Twitter or Facebook adherence. They all have them. No one has an advantage.
So why are liberals and media outlets always saying that conservatives “get it”? Because of Obama.
The Obama campaign’s technology effort which receives ravenous attention didn’t invent these applications or even use them any differently than anyone else in the conservative movement, with the exception of my.barackobama.com which allowed individuals to organize local events online. Ultimately a brilliant strategy. But It is no secret that Obama implemented an 18 month online social networking strategy, while John McCain simply pushed hard at the end, running what amounted to be a 72 hour “get out the vote” train wreck. The reality of what happened last year was that Obama’s team produced an in depth Internet strategy from the very beginning. The Internet was not just a webpage used to promote his candidacy and explain his policies. It was used to connect like minded individuals through various ranges of social networking.
This isn’t something new to conservatives and libertarians.
It was new to John McCain’s campaign staff and John McCain. And by the time McCain got on board with a decent Internet strategy, that ship had sailed, and Obama’s web presence was rolling down a mountain like a Mac truck with no brakes. When liberal pundits are issuing their insults toward the other sides comprehension and use of Internet applications, they are thinking of the Obama campaign specifically, and not the broad strokes. What Obama did with technology and did early was a great move. But the uses of tech in his campaign was not some secret cauldron of witch brew which only liberals had the necessary skills to use. Conservatives have been using the same tools for years. And when we saw them being used by Obama and used successfully, we were sitting around all thinking, “This stuff should be obvious, we are all using it, why isn’t McCain.” Conservatives have it right. They’ve “got it”. In fact if you want a closer look at how well they get it, look to efforts like CEI’s openmarket.org, bureaucrash.com, globalwarming.org, or the Heritage Foundation’s stopspendingourfuture.org, 33-minutes.com or their joint venture ReadTheStimulus.org. Or try RedCountry.com, RedState.com, TopConservativesOnTwitter.com (#tcot), atr.org (Americans for Tax Reform), netrightnation.com; these go on forever.
The RNC’s loss of Cyrus Krohn is a tough blow. But you can’t build an empire with one hammer. And furthermore, the duties of the RNC specifically does not necessarily need to be creating and implementing new widgets and whatzits. It needs to be making sure that the next candidate is. If the RNC was behind at some point then let’s be clear, the RNC is not the conservative movement.
Realistically, there is also more to the story. While conservative get technology and use it effectively, the last campaign was riddled with problems. Mixed messages and feelings over the Bush policy, the party being sporadic with their message, and many conservatives feeling like they were being left behind and no strong voice to represent their political ideology. At the same time, Democrats were very united. Not by Twitter or Facebook, but by a common theme, ‘Paint McCain as another Bush — No more Bush!”
For conservatives to rebound, and additionally re-capture the votes of moderates and libertarians they don’t need to just use technology well. Getting a lot of followers on Facebook or Twitter will not win an election. Conservatives need a unified voice, a return to traditional conservative values, and a common theme.
Which they have found, in Obama.
-nick
?I have heard there are troubles of more than one kind. Some come from ahead and some come from behind. But I’ve bought a big bat. I’m all ready you see. Now my troubles are going to have troubles with me!?
Moar Behavioral Advertising
Originally posted on OpenMarket.org
Back in January I wrote about several advertising industry trade associations coming together to impose self-regulation in an attempt to deter federal regulation of behavioral advertising under the Obama administration. I pointed out that the Federal Trade Commission had advised the advertising industry back in December 2007 that it were pushing the envelope on what the FTC considered to be reasonable behavioral advertising. It seems as though the industry may have viewed this as an idle threat under the Bush administration, but got wind that the new administration would be looking at the issue with renewed vigor.
Last week, the FTC released its Staff Report on the issue entitled FTC STAFF REPORT: Self-Regulatory Principles For Online Behavorial Advertising. The report succinctly defines the issues at hand and examines the stakes of all sides. Importantly, the FTC has refined its Principles for Behavioral Advertising self-regulation within the document.
These Principles, a summary of the issues and concerns surrounding behavioral advertising, are divided up into four key points:
1) Transparency and Consumer Control
2) Reasonable Security, and Limited Data Retention, for Consumer Data
3) Affirmative Express Consent for Material Changes to Existing Privacy Promises
4) Affirmative Express Consent to (or Prohibition Against) Using Sensitive Data for Behavioral Advertising
In other words, these are the concerns that need to be addressed in self-regulation. The FTC concludes its report by saying that the Commission staff will monitor efforts of the industry to self-regulate over the next year keeping an open dialogue with all parties involved.
-nick
The State of the Internet…
…is strong.
But we will be led to think differently in tonight’s faux State of the Union Address. Obama will undoubtedly speak on the subject of what I have decided to call Social Internet Expansionism. This is the extension of networks into rural areas for people that can’t afford or don’t want Internet according to Pew studies, but of whom Obama asserts need it and has determined it will create 300,000 non-farm jobs for every 1 percent increase of penetration. This assertion is of course based on a paper by Robert Crandall, William Lehr, and Robert Litan who have repeatedly stated that their research is being taken out of context. Mainly because the project was completed almost 2 years ago and was looking at 2005 numbers for non-rural areas.
Nonetheless, the Obamulus will pour almost $7 billion into funding projects led by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and to a lesser extent the Department of Agriculture who previously headed the Rural Utilities Service Braodband Grant and Loan Program (RUS).
My top 10 questions for the President regarding Social Internet Expansionism:
1) Will the public or private sector be building your networks?
2) How precisely will bureaucracy define “unserved” and “underserved” areas?
3) If it is the private sector, how will grant winners be chosen?
4) Will the grantee manage the network after it is built?
5) If so, will maintenance costs be solely their responsibility?
6) Will the government pick winners?
7) What if a grant holder does not have a stake in an area, and they begin building a network in direct competition with an existing area network provider who does not have government financing?
What if a service provider who does not have government financing is pushed out of business because of a service provider that has government financing? Will the out of business service provider receive compensation?
9) If a service provider constructs a network in a government mandated rural area and cannot attain service contracts and therefore cannot continue service in that area, will they receive compensation for any privately invested funds?
10) If Social Internet Expansionism proves unsuccessful, will you return the original investors money in form of a tax rebate?
