I think that the report was released for political reasons and for that reason I am against it.
In the other personality I am for the complete and always visible accounting of the actions we take to counter threats which this report does highlight.
This is not about party.
It's about what do we do as Americans to secure our lives and our liberty. It's about security versus government control.
I quote Ben Franklin:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
”If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”
”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
”He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.”
”Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.”
”Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.”
Comcast does offer bandwidth exceeding that offered for other services I can get in the very affluent area of Johns Creek, GA for a very competitive price. Almost matching what I pay to UVerse. But with Uverse I don't pay anything for my modem each month and there are other fees in terms of cable box rentals that I don't pay.
So in the end I would pay more with Comcast. Cost per MB of available bandwidth when you include the rental fees would cost me more on a monthly basis. I can quote numbers but since they like to geo-price things it would not be applicable outside my area so I did not.
But how did that culture of silence happen? And do we really believe that they believe the dissemination of information will help anyone? Sure if it was high level stuff, but not generic statistics.
What would it matter to security if the NSA says tomorrow that it monitors 500 million communications each day? We would be like WTF? Who is be monitored? Is it me? What would matter would be the political fallout where averagely informed people screaming.
But it is a case of the FCC doing what it is suppose to do. Which is to make sure that the american people are served in the best manner first then how businesses can succeed.
I am not trying to be the voice of reason but I am going play the part on the internet.
The conundrum is that trust is a beast that can not be easily seen or assessed.
But...
We can all arguably agree that the government needs some ability to monitor what is going on in the world and that sometimes that monitoring needs to be kept secret.
We can all arguably agree that privacy is a big concern and that there needs to be some safeguards to prevent abuse.
We can all arguably agree that individual rights should be alway paramount and that there must be a legally valid reason anytime an entity decides to impinge on those rights.
We can all arguably agree that when the balance is tipped either way the best interests of all of us are compromised.
Right now I think it typical over-reaction mentality the government has become or acted more like an over-lord or dictator.
To quote:
"After Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933, he moved quickly to turn Germany into a one-party dictatorship and to organize the police power necessary to enforce Nazi policies. He persuaded his Cabinet to declare a state of emergency and end individual freedoms, including freedom of press, speech, and assembly. Individuals lost the right to privacy, which meant that officials could read people's mail, listen in on telephone conversations, and search private homes without a warrant."
I am also quite skeptical as to why it really even matters in a post Snowden era.
We know they are spying, we know they are asking others to spy on us for the Gov, we know they are doing all of this. We just don't know if they are actually caring about me and looking hard at me.
So the only reason I can think of that they would care about the number of requests being exposed is they are worried about the political fallout when it is found out that they are sending like 5 million a year to each every ISP, Website, hotspot operator, bubba backwoods website.
I think in reality it does not matter except they are worried that people will get mad that they are requesting so much so often.
We have to fight tooth and nail to get the NSA, FBI, and the CIA to respect our privacy, rights, et al. Why would we think they would respect anyone's outside our country?
Any regular reader of Techdirt has read article after article of Property rights being eroded in both the digital and physical realms. This is just another case where a power wants to limit your right to what you own.
WTF? Why should Google care. Their job is to provide search results. If someone searches for something they should provide under their methods what they think is the best result. Legal or otherwise. They are NOT, NOT the arbiter of what is or is not legal. And if they are for some reason required to care then those laws need to be changed.
Sudo-monopolies help no one in a developed system, except those seeking to keep monopoly prices.
Frontier only provided the most basic level and was rewarded for it. But should a paid org be rewarded for providing water and bread while the rest of the country is able to enjoy ham and cheese sandwiches?
How can we be sure the people that oversee the FBI in an elected role are able to see what they need to make intelligent decisions??
How can we the people be sure that those people that seek to protect us are doing so in the best interest of us the people without effective disclosure?
So dumb question, but...How can we trust an agency to effectively protect us when they can't do something so simple as coordinate their message and lies?
Lies, Lies, and Damn Lies. There is a reason someone once said "The Truth will set you free".
HAHAHAHA LOL
Why is this a surprise?
Sad, just sad
China, the contradiction in terms. They love the money that capitalism can get them, but they want to control everything. Hmmm sounds like Dem's.
Ok so I am for and against the report.
I think that the report was released for political reasons and for that reason I am against it.
In the other personality I am for the complete and always visible accounting of the actions we take to counter threats which this report does highlight.
This is not about party.
It's about what do we do as Americans to secure our lives and our liberty. It's about security versus government control.
I quote Ben Franklin:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
”If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”
”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
”He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.”
”Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.”
”Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.”
Mixed feelings - Mixed hatred
Comcast does offer bandwidth exceeding that offered for other services I can get in the very affluent area of Johns Creek, GA for a very competitive price. Almost matching what I pay to UVerse. But with Uverse I don't pay anything for my modem each month and there are other fees in terms of cable box rentals that I don't pay.
So in the end I would pay more with Comcast. Cost per MB of available bandwidth when you include the rental fees would cost me more on a monthly basis. I can quote numbers but since they like to geo-price things it would not be applicable outside my area so I did not.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't us all needed an editor?
Re: Re: The voice of reason...not
I do agree with that, but I also like to believe that it's not done with harm in thought. But instead with a delusional sense of helping first.
00
-
Re:
Not according to the democrats or the hard right wing republicans.
Both say trust your gov to do what is best for you.
Re: Re:
Well said, well said!
Re: Re: Skeptically Cynical
But how did that culture of silence happen? And do we really believe that they believe the dissemination of information will help anyone? Sure if it was high level stuff, but not generic statistics.
What would it matter to security if the NSA says tomorrow that it monitors 500 million communications each day? We would be like WTF? Who is be monitored? Is it me? What would matter would be the political fallout where averagely informed people screaming.
Re: Re: Skeptically Cynical
I agree 100% it really does matter.
It is not a democratic situation
But it is a case of the FCC doing what it is suppose to do. Which is to make sure that the american people are served in the best manner first then how businesses can succeed.
The voice of reason...not
I am not trying to be the voice of reason but I am going play the part on the internet.
The conundrum is that trust is a beast that can not be easily seen or assessed.
But...
We can all arguably agree that the government needs some ability to monitor what is going on in the world and that sometimes that monitoring needs to be kept secret.
We can all arguably agree that privacy is a big concern and that there needs to be some safeguards to prevent abuse.
We can all arguably agree that individual rights should be alway paramount and that there must be a legally valid reason anytime an entity decides to impinge on those rights.
We can all arguably agree that when the balance is tipped either way the best interests of all of us are compromised.
Right now I think it typical over-reaction mentality the government has become or acted more like an over-lord or dictator.
To quote:
"After Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933, he moved quickly to turn Germany into a one-party dictatorship and to organize the police power necessary to enforce Nazi policies. He persuaded his Cabinet to declare a state of emergency and end individual freedoms, including freedom of press, speech, and assembly. Individuals lost the right to privacy, which meant that officials could read people's mail, listen in on telephone conversations, and search private homes without a warrant."
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007673
Skeptically Cynical
I am also quite skeptical as to why it really even matters in a post Snowden era.
We know they are spying, we know they are asking others to spy on us for the Gov, we know they are doing all of this. We just don't know if they are actually caring about me and looking hard at me.
So the only reason I can think of that they would care about the number of requests being exposed is they are worried about the political fallout when it is found out that they are sending like 5 million a year to each every ISP, Website, hotspot operator, bubba backwoods website.
I think in reality it does not matter except they are worried that people will get mad that they are requesting so much so often.
Does anybody expect different?
We have to fight tooth and nail to get the NSA, FBI, and the CIA to respect our privacy, rights, et al. Why would we think they would respect anyone's outside our country?
This is just another sign of the assault on Property rights in general
Any regular reader of Techdirt has read article after article of Property rights being eroded in both the digital and physical realms. This is just another case where a power wants to limit your right to what you own.
Maybe they need to change their Motto
From "We Serve and Protect." to We surveil and harass
Why?
WTF? Why should Google care. Their job is to provide search results. If someone searches for something they should provide under their methods what they think is the best result. Legal or otherwise. They are NOT, NOT the arbiter of what is or is not legal. And if they are for some reason required to care then those laws need to be changed.
Re: Re: This shows why oversight is an overrated as a way to protect the public.
Nah, Jesus was biased.
Sorry but no wins here.
Sudo-monopolies help no one in a developed system, except those seeking to keep monopoly prices.
Frontier only provided the most basic level and was rewarded for it. But should a paid org be rewarded for providing water and bread while the rest of the country is able to enjoy ham and cheese sandwiches?
This shows why oversight is an overrated as a way to protect the public.
I am just posting questions.
How can we be sure the people that oversee the FBI in an elected role are able to see what they need to make intelligent decisions??
How can we the people be sure that those people that seek to protect us are doing so in the best interest of us the people without effective disclosure?
So dumb question, but...How can we trust an agency to effectively protect us when they can't do something so simple as coordinate their message and lies?
Lies, Lies, and Damn Lies. There is a reason someone once said "The Truth will set you free".