ISP flip-flops: why do they now support "six strikes" plan? | Hacker News Reader

ISP flip-flops: why do they now support "six strikes" plan?

arstechnica.com

23 pointsevo_912 comments

Three points from the article:

1) The ISP's now have content of their own, so they'll gladly try to stop the illegal sharing of content on their network, because there's now a profit incentive to do so.

2) The White House acted as a "broker" in this deal, probably forcing their hand to accept the deals, unless they wanted more regulation for this.

3) The presumption of innocence is gone. You can now be found "guilty" without any court saying so.

On 3, that's why I think the Big Content industry is by far the most dangerous entity not only to online freedoms, but other freedoms as well. They are the ones pushing most of the online censorship regulations, and they are the ones pushing institutions like ICE, Homeland Security and even FBI to consider people guilty first and take down their websites or servers, without due process.

I wouldn't be surprised if 5-10 years from now they'll try to get the Police to check your iPod or phone for any illegal songs when they pull you over for exceeding the speed limit.

The "Big Content" industry wouldn't be able to do this at all if they had to go thru the courts.

It is government control and government regulation that is the perpetrator here.

The ISPs rolled over because they are dependent on government permission to operate. This is defacto censorship. AT&T wants to buy radio stations? Has to get FCC and anti-trust approval. Comcast wants to introduce a new high speed internet service? Once again, they need regulatory approval.

It wasn't "big content" that made the "ICE" and "Homeland Security" shut down offshore poker companies-- companies that, it is worth noting, were perfectly legal under the laws of the jurisdictions where they operated.

The government of the USA is no different from the governments of Libya, Egypt, Jordan, and China in wanting complete control over the internet. Control over the internet is control over information, and thus control over the population.

The only difference is in the USA, they have to pretend like there's some other justification-- copyright infringement, terrorism, drugs, etc. are the go-to excuses.

But they are never the reason.

  > It is government control and government regulation
  > that is the perpetrator here.

I think that the implication is that "Big Content" is lobbying for the government control/regulation that they want, and getting it. That is why the finger is being pointed at "Big Content." 'Legislation for sale' is just a conduit of 'bad things,' the entity purchasing said bad legislation is that source.

  > The ISPs rolled over because they are dependent
  > on government permission to operate

It would seem more likely that they were afraid of the government enacting legislation that forced them to do something similar with 'copyright notices,' so they decided that self-regulation was better then government-regulation. (Notice that I didn't use the word censorship, which is out of place in this discussion)

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Ahh, I was counting the minutes until somebody chimed in with this quote. Because the Holocaust is /so much/ like downloading Kung Fu Panda 2 off PirateBay. Bravo.

That comment would have made you sound pretty cool 10 years ago before warrentles searches desires became commonplace and people are mercilessly harassed and even tortured because of race or name. why people are cool with torture and the suspension of the constitution is bend me.

I've always thought people cheer on torture because they think they're safe if they're on the side of strength.

And had he spoken out, he would have died.

That is the real problem.

Not if enough people stood with him (even against such an oppressive and confident force).

The problem there being the in his case "enough people" would have been a great many people and contrary to what we tell ourselves us humans don't tend to work so well in large groups especially when you are relying on the rest of the group to stand firm.

That is the point of the quote: many people didn't take action because of the risk to themselves if not enough other people took action too. If everyone speaks out you have some safety in numbers assurance, even if a small proportion of people meet with reprisals. If only a few speak out with you, you are guaranteed to be picked off in short order.

That is not a risk we would naturally consider, and as the quote suggests this locally greedy algorithm for deciding when to act and when to keep shtum falls easily into the hands of a growing oppressive force.

The problem is that you have to organize a large enough force at the same time. Even if you show up a day later, it is too late.

Sometimes things happen at the required scale with more spontaneity than planning (as with the first uprisings that started the collection of public shows of discontent in various countries recently) though it is rare. Once there is enough momentum many people join, but the natural reaction is to preserve yourself by not joining in until there is that momentum, which may never happen unless the circumstances are just right at exactly the right time because everyone else is waiting for other people to get started and create said momentum.

one big problem..

The agreement violates most current anti-trust laws. I wonder how the Whitehouse got the ISPs to agree to face such lawsuits over it being illegal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com