FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by shmerl on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @12:34PM (#8998196)

The point is not about content and NSA, but about surveillance. I.e. it's already here, and tools for it are here as well. I wouldn't see it as a far stretch if all the same tools would be used for all kind of unlawful content hunting. Why should they reinvent the wheel?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by pekk on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @01:09PM (#8998455)

No, the question was, verbatim,

"What obligation does law enforcement have to regulate content that you and I, as open-Internet believers, agree is unlawful? Shall we allow illegal content in order to err on the side of caution?"

That question wasn't about surveillance. You keep changing the subject to surveillance, because you're unwilling to address the issue of whether we should allow illegal content.

What obligation does law enforcement have to regulate content? Not surveillance. Not NSA. Law enforcement. obligation.To regulate content.

Show we allow illegal content in order to err on the side of caution? Not should we allow surveillance. Should we allow illegal content. Content. Not surveillance. Stop changing the subject.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by shmerl on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @01:12PM (#8998475)

It was about surveillance. If you don't understand that, think again. To make it easier:

> What obligation does law enforcement have to regulate content that you and I, as open-Internet believers, agree is unlawful?

Translation: what obligation does law enforcement has to police Internet with surveillance in order to catch content that we agree is unlawful? Same can be asked about ISPs.

> Shall we allow illegal content in order to err on the side of caution?"

Translation: should we oppose massive surveillance to prevent power abuse even if it will prevent catching unlawful content?

To that I answered, that current surveillance is already abusive, so the question doesn't really start.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by pekk on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @01:03PM (#8998404)

The question was whether we should allow unlawful content for the sake of erring on the side of caution. You seem completely unwilling to discuss or take any stance on this issue. You want to talk about surveillance, and you say it's the same thing. It's not the same thing. You aren't discussing the question which was put to you.

For example, child porn is an important form of unlawful content that many people do not want to allow. We might decide that the civil liberty issues are so important that we are just going to have to put up with more child porn than we'd have under a more restrictive regime. Or we might not. Either answer would pertain to the question. But end surveillance now, NSA, it's all the same rah-rah doesn't pertain to the question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by shmerl on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @01:06PM (#8998432)

> You seem completely unwilling to discuss or take any stance on this issue.

No, the question was, should we accept surveillance as acceptable way to prevent unlawful content. And my answer was that this question is invalid - surveillance is already here, whether you want to accept it or not. If that didn't imply surveillance, what other caution are you talking about then?

[ Parent | on HN ]