FCC trying to pass something

[Savage]

Now i heard about this a couple days ago but i wasnt really paying attention but it really caught my attention. The FCC have already tryed to pass this through the supreme court but they are doing it again, aparently they want to install something or whatever so they can monitor what you do and when you do it when you are online. To me thats a total invasion of privacy but I might be wrong about what this new 'law' is going to consist of. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks in advance

[Arlia Janet]

I believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the internet is the same as any other public forum, which makes sense. I remember reading that the parallel they used to explain it:

If you went to a mall to shop, you have a different expectation of privacy than if you were home. Anyone can see what you buy and who you talk to. For example, if you later become a suspect in an investigation, the dectectives can go through store records and question people who saw you at the mall to prove or disprove your alibi.

It's hard to deny that the internet is anything but public. The difference between the mall and the internet is that my actions are only visible to whoever was at the mall at the time I was. On the internet, Joe Blow 9000 miles away can monitor who I work for and how much I make and get my credit card number, etc etc. That's what scares me about the internet.

It's a new frontier, and I'm not sure if there are correct answers about what is private and what is not. There are too many shades of gray.

[Gorefiend]

Well, if it's the same as any public forum, then passing this law would be like letting someone follow you around for no good reason to see what you do as you do it. If that is legal without a warrant, my bad. Otherwise, they shouldn't think of monitoring everyone for no good reason. Just, do me a favor, and someone get a link that copntains the basic idea of this law, or something. Thanks.

[Savage]

well I also heard they could control what you could and could not do, so thats not a good thing for them to be able to do since the internet was designed for free roam for anyone

[Staizer]

how could they control what I can and can't do on the internet? It would have to be a global firewall to even try and stop traffic from going whereever it wants to go, and even then people will still get past it. The idea is completely ridiculous. Everything would have to be password protected, or SOMETHING and the FCC doesn't have enough resources to stop something as big as the internet, at least, not legally, and anything that stopped free communication in the US would also effect free communication in other countries as well. UN would cry bloody murder on the united states for using information warfare on them.

The internet isn't based solely in the US and any program that let them track inside the US would let them track outside of the US, I can't see our allies, or our enemies liking that much . . .

[edit] after having searched for a while, I haven't seen any such move by the FCC, maybe I haven't looked hard enough (which is possible) or the person was just trying to get you riled up against the FCC, which isn't hard to do because they are a bunch of dumbasses anyway. It wouldn't make sense to try and regulate the internet, too large a monster to try and control without getting thrown off.

[Jagos]

You have Spyware Blaster and Norton among other good IP blockers that I can't name off of my head. On top of that, you have computers that can have one IP address and it was sold in another area. Plus, you can always buy a new computer. How can you control the Internet?

I know however that the US won't give over control of servers to an international public.

The announcement marked a departure from previously stated U.S. policy.

Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the U.S. Commerce Department, shied away from terming the declaration a reversal, calling it instead "the foundation of U.S. policy going forward."

"The signals and words and intentions and policies need to be clear so all of us benefiting in the world from the Internet and in the U.S. economy can have confidence there will be continued stewardship," Gallagher said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Government officials had in the past indicated they would one day hand control of the 13 "root" computer servers used to direct e-mail and Web traffic to a private organization with international board members, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

"It's completely an about-face if you consider the original commitment made when ICANN was created" in 1998, said Milton Mueller, a Syracuse University professor who has written about policies surrounding the Internet's root servers.

ICANN officials had no immediate comment.

The announcement comes just weeks before a U.N. panel was to release a report on Internet governance, addressing oversight of the root servers, among other things.

Some countries have sought to move oversight to an international body, such as the U.N. International Telecommunication Union, although the U.S. government has historically had that role because it funded much of the Internet's early development.

Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department, insisted the announcement was unrelated to those discussions.

But he said other countries should see the move as positive because "uncertainty is not something that we think is in the United States' interest or the world's interest."

[Staizer]

that quote is interesting but slightly out of context, could you post the link so I know what proposal I am reading about please? Thanks!

[Viper Daimao]

I believe this is the story JC123 quoted, or at least, they are talking about the same story.

the US refuses to give up DNS to ICANN, which given ICANN's record and how well the DNS has been administered up to now, I dont see any problem with it.

and to the original subject, well, where is the original subject? we're going to need more for a discussion thread than "some guys want to do something, I think, but i cant find any stories or specifics about it". please find a source, or give us some specifics other than idle speculation that the FCC wants to take over our computers and control the internet.

[Lucas]

On top of that, you have computers that can have one IP address and it was sold in another area

Ip addresses aren't based on location, they're based on network. Completely different concepts.

[TheSpacePope]

Absolutely lucas, and as for those you can get a program that ID's you witha different IP every site you log into. There is really no locus of control. Plus, new controls on the internet will just open new doors for bored hackers to go through.....l33t haxzors pwned ur momzors. (sorry, that is only funny to me) It's just hard to control a global network.