Internet 3.0: US Policy of Leaving Internet Alone is Over

[TalkingDog]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/27/internet_3_dot_0_policy/


Strickling referred to these roots arguing that it was “the right policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the world.” But, he continued, “that was then and this is now. As we at NTIA approach a wide range of Internet policy issues, we take the view that we are now in the third generation of Internet policy making.”

Outlining three decades of internet evolution - from transition to commercialization, from the garage to Main Street, and now, starting in 2010, the “Policy 3.0” approach - Strickling argued that with the internet is now a social network as well a business network. “We must take rules more seriously.”

He cited a number of examples where this new approach was needed: end users worried about credit card transactions, content providers who want to prevent their copyright, companies concerned about hacking, network neutrality, and foreign governments worried about Internet governance systems.

[Xipe Totec]

1. From the garage to Main Street? Don't you mean from ARPANET to mainstreet?

This is not Apple.

The internet was not spawned in a garage, thank you very much.

[imnKOgnito]

4. Yep

ARPA that is now DARPA. The tinfoil hatter in me thinks the endgame set up was brilliant. ;-)

[DJ13]

2. Here comes the corporate gate keepers

Thanks Obama.

[notesdev]

3. Gimme a break

Let's see some seriousness, howabout cutting off the spambot nets at least? Or is what they are really interested in, regulating what you and I are permitted to say and do online?

[RKP5637]

5. Yeah, let's take more freedom away under the name of good... and call it democracy. n/t

[Odin2005]

6. Here come the fascists.

[Posteritatis]

21. Australia 2.0! (nt)

[Tim01 2.0]

7. I wonder if this will be Obamas legacy. nt

[dysfunctional press]

8. "we can't allow the serfs too much freedom of communication and/or information..."

"if the real truth ever gets out- we're finished..."

[Echo In Light]

16. Eventually, yes. God speed!

[Robb]

9. Fortunately I find Strickling's actual remarks rather thoughtful.

Also to our good fortune, the actual speech is preserved here.

I am not alarmed.

[AdHocSolver]

10. The real purpose of Internet Policy 3.0 is to get rid of Net Neutrality.

The original concept of the Internet was that of a decentralized communication system that was "multithreaded" so that no one could ever bring down the entire network. If one part of the network was compromised, other parts of the network could take over and keep the network functioning.

There was never any concept of a self-regulating "ecosystem". The Internet itself is NOT a social organization, anymore than the radio waves or telephone lines are a social network. That model is total claptrap.

To get to the crux of the matter, the only government involvement in the Internet should be to ensure Net Neutrality. There is no other way for the government to get
involved in operation of the Internet without infringing on people's privacy, freedom, and civil rights. We saw what happened in China when the government decided to "police" the Internet.

Strickling makes some points about the Internet that imply government intervention can somehow "improve" the Internet.

"If you’re a user, you want to know that you can make a transaction online without your credit card information falling into the wrong hands."
"If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won’t use it."

The safety of your personal information has nothing to do with the operation of the Internet.

First, most people are totally lax in guarding their personal information. People use simple passwords that are easily hacked (like "1234"). On the job, I have seen people leave notes attached to their computers with all of their passwords on them. Company computer systems are hacked all the time, including Microsoft. The Defense Department has been hacked. Viruses, worms, and trojans are all over the place. What rules can be imposed on the Internet that would prevent hacking and data theft? If the users and the corporations don't use proper precautions to guard their data, new rules and regulations won't help.

"If you’re a large enterprise, you want your investment to protect against hacking and intrusion to be sound."
"If large enterprises don’t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers."

Businesses getting hacked has nothing to do with the Internet.

In 1980, long before the Internet, I wrote a report on computer crime for a computer class. This was before widespread communication between computer systems. It seems that there was plenty of hacking and computer theft going on back then. Most of it was covered up because the companies that were hacked didn't want the public to know what was happening. A lot of computer crime was committed by employees of the companies that were "hacked", or by computer savvy employees of other companies. As a professional programmer, I worked at several companies where their computer systems were infected with viruses, including a bank.

The safety of the personal data that you give out depends upon the security of the systems of the recipients of that data. It is not a function of the Internet.

"If you’re a content owner, you want to be allowed take action against users that infringe your copyright."
"If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online."

I thought that content owners currently had the ability to sue for copyright infringement. I wasn't aware that online content providers had a major problem with protection of their content. If they don't want to put content online, they don't have to. There are plenty of methods for encrypting content so that content providers can limit access to it. More onerous government regulation, none of which would "solve" the "problems", will not improve the Internet.

Let us get to the crux of the matter. The real purpose of "Internet Policy 3.0" is a back door method to eliminate Net Neutrality, and impose corporate control over the Internet.

[JCMach1]

11. not just net neutrality at risk... look at what Australia is doing

... setting up the great firewall of Canberra.

I would go even more radical. Those states/entities that don't allow free flow of information through the pipes should be cut off.

Opt in/opt out.

[Robb]

12. I don't get that from the actual speech.

The article suggests this, but the speech itself does not.

[AdHocSolver]

19. FYI, my comments are based solely on quotes from Strickling's speech that your link points to.

I did not use any of the article pointed to in the OP to develop my comments.

My comments are based on personal knowledge of the computer industry based on over twenty years as a computer programmer.

I am glad to see that other posters in this thread understand the implications of this speech.

[Posteritatis]

20. The speech seems pretty clear on it to me

"If you are a network owner, you may be against Net Neutrality rules, but that does not mean there are not any rules, it just means the network owners get to create their own rules about whether and when to discriminate."

That and the bulk of the talk is about adding additional layers of regulation and enforcement to the net, each nicely focused on a current moral-panic issue (piracy and protection against "harmful content" are listed next to national bloody security).

It's not as explicitly rights-are-bad or paternalistic as Australian internet policy, but it's lurching that way, between things like that, the dislike of net neutrality, and the fact that it talks about the net almost exclusively as a business while completely minimalizing any academic/cultural/political aspets of it.

[Robb]

13. dupe

[Hubert Flottz]

14. The rich and powerful can't have the truth being told about them.

I knew it was too good to be left alone by the greedy.

[lonestarnot]

15. Apparently a need for wallstreeting it.

[Hubert Flottz]

17. No Cash Left Behind...

The story of the BushCo Banksters.

[lonestarnot]

18. Only uninsured and unemployed left in the wake.

[Trillo]

22. I suspect Internet 3 has already been adopted,

this news item is just part of the public relations campaign to notify the general public.

While I love the Google "card catalog", when it comes to shopping, it seems there's a lot to be desired versus how it worked in the first years. For example, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7822397">in another thread, I ended up self-learning about something labeled either "Wheat Soy Blend" or "Wheat Soya Blend". There are references to it all over the Internet, and it appears it is likely a constituent of one variant of the UN's High Energy Biscuits.

This is one document that describes it:
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/wsb13.pdf
Note that it has some basic vitamin fortification added to it.

Here's the industry group that seems to sell it, but presumably only in very large quantities:
http://www.namamillers.org/int_ex_wsb.html

Yet, if you go to Google shopping, and enter either the phrase "Wheat Soya Blend" or "Wheat Soy Blend" including the quotes for high specificity, not one result is returned. Now there may be very similar products found by eliminating the quotes and changing the keywords slightly, for example, Wheat Soy Flour, however, it appears the phrase "Wheat Soy Blend" refers to a highly specific blend of bulgar, wheat, soy, and vitamins and minerals.

Welcome to Internet 3, where the legal language used by the top is different from the language enforced for everyone else.