PoliticalAction.com Blog

The FCC passed new regulations known as “net neutrality”; however, nothing is going to change in the near term. Law suits are expected to ensue for years.

Here is what the FCC says about net neutrality:

The “Open Internet” is the Internet as we know it. It’s open because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way. The principle of the Open Internet is sometimes referred to as “net neutrality.” Under this principle, consumers can make their own choices about what applications and services to use and are free to decide what lawful content they want to access, create, or share with others. This openness promotes competition and enables investment and innovation.

The Open Internet also makes it possible for anyone, anywhere to easily launch innovative applications and services, revolutionizing the way people communicate, participate, create, and do business—think of email, blogs, voice and video conferencing, streaming video, and online shopping. Once you’re online, you don’t have to ask permission or pay tolls to broadband providers to reach others on the network. If you develop an innovative new website, you don’t have to get permission to share it with the world.

On December 23, 2010, the Commission released the Open Internet Order, which established high-level rules requiring transparency and prohibiting blocking and unreasonable discrimination to protect Internet openness. The FCC’s rules were challenged in federal court, and on January 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the Commission’s authority to regulate broadband Internet access service and upheld the Commission’s judgment that Internet openness encourages broadband investment and that its absence could ultimately inhibit broadband deployment. The court upheld the transparency rule, but vacated the no-blocking and no-unreasonable-discrimination rules. The court also invited the FCC to act to preserve a free and open Internet

In response, the FCC on May 15 launched a rulemaking seeking public comment on how best to protect and promote an open Internet. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking poses a broad range of questions to elicit the broadest range of input from everyone impacted by the Internet, from consumers and small businesses to providers and start-ups. The public is encouraged to comment in this proceeding at http://www.fcc.gov/comments.

The 2010 transparency rule remains in full force and effect, requiring broadband Internet access service providers to disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services. This rule helps consumers make informed choices about their broadband service, and it gives edge providers technical information that helps them develop their business plans and assess risks. If you think there has been a violation of the open Internet rules, you can file a complaint with the FCC.

Is Homeland Security against the law? Many citizens of the United States believe it is against The Constitution. Ironically, the Republicans have got into a fight with the Democrats and threatened to shutdown homeland security.

A folk song has been written about the saga:

This song was inspired by the Republican’s threat to shutdown homeland security over the Democrats immigration policy. Headlines, such as, “Homeland Security facing GOP shutdown threat”

Senators Move to End Deadlock Over Funding of Homeland Security
New York Times‎ – 23 hours ago
… as they searched for a way to avert a partial shutdown of the agency. Senate … Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa and a vocal immigration opponent, said Mr.
House GOP weighs new approach on Homeland Security
AOL News‎ – 5 hours ago
John Boehner presses House Republicans to accept DHS stopgap
Politico‎ – 8 hours ago

Lyrics and Free MP3 Download

The president publicly apologized today to all those offended by his brother’s remark, “There’s more Arabs in this country than there is Jews!”. Those offended include Arabs, Jews, and English teachers.
— Channel 11 News, Baltimore, on Billy Carter

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not
a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it
is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
— Dwight Eisenhower, 1953

* The Arkansas legislature passed a law that states that the Arkansas River can rise no higher than to the Main Street bridge in Little Rock.

* No person shall be permitted under any pretext whatever, to come nearer than fifty feet of any door or window of any polling room, from the opening of the polls until the completion of the count and the certification of the returns.

* A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.

Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now — always.
— Albert Schweitzer

“I know what you’re thinking — `Did he fire six shots or only five?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all the excitement, I kind of lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: `Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do you, punk?”
— Harry Callahan, badge #2211 (from the movie Dirty Harry)

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
— Benjamin Franklin, 1759

The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.
— Alexis de Tocqueville

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is concerned that the U.S. violated basic human rights including the right to privacy.

“The mass communications surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden demonstrates a shocking disregard by the US for the privacy rights of both those inside the country and those abroad,” said Andrea Prasow, senior national security counsel and advocate at Human Rights Watch. “The US review is the perfect time for the Human Rights Committee to make clear that mass communications surveillance, whether against a country’s own citizens or another country’s, violates basic rights.”

From The Voice of Russia:
Andrea Prasow, a senior counsel with the Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program at Human Rights Watch, in an interview to the Voice of Russia says the US review is the perfect time to make clear that mass communications surveillance, whether against a country’s own citizens or another country, violates basic rights.

Could you give us a brief comment on what is expected from that review? Who is to present the US during this session?

The US has sent a delegation of 32 officials, primarily federal officials, although there are some representatives from state and local governments because of course the international obligations are binding on each state as a whole, whether it is a state like the US that has local governments or a unitary state. So, the US is responsible for enforcing and complying with the human rights obligations at every level of the US government. So, those 32 officials will be here to defend the US human rights record, to answer questions from the Human Rights Committee about specific examples of the central violations and to respond to concerns that civil society members have raised over the last week before both the Human Rights Committee and the US delegation.

If the committee concludes US electronic surveillance violates fundamental human rights, what the consequences will be? What actions will it require from the US?

A strong statement from the human rights committee which I think is absolutely appropriate will cause the US, I hope, to reexamine its mass communications surveillance practices. This is the first time that the US is under review or any of the states that are involved in significant mass communications surveillance are under review since the revelations of Edward Snowden of last year. So, this is the first opportunity for the human rights committee to really grapple with these issues. So, we are hoping that they will be pressing the US government on its respect of the rights of privacy both inside the US and outside the US, for US citizens and for foreigners, and ultimately the committee will issue some strong language prompting the US to revisit its practices.

Recently President Obama has introduced a number of curbs on the NSA data use. Do you think that anything has changed since that time? Were these reforms truly substantial?

It is hard to tell because keep in mind that the only reason that public is aware of a significant portion of the mass surveillance is because of the Snowden leaks. So, we still don’t know what we don’t know. It is hard to tell how much the reforms will have made any difference if at all, but the US obviously needs to put forward with disclosing even more information and finding ways to make sure that it does respect individuals rights to privacy.

How much did the revelations about NSA eavesdropping and collection of metadata affected the US image on the international political scene?

Of course, the US is not the only country that in involved in mass communication surveillance. Many countries share information with the US, for the US program, the US shares information with other countries and many countries, particularly countries that suppress human rights are engaged in surveillance of a more targeted form of human rights activists and human rights defenders. So, surveillance is not a US only problem. When 80% of the Internet traffic is going through the US or being connected to the US servers, the US companies, the US is a primary actor in this field. So, I think the revelations from Snowden have prompted an international dialogue on this issue. I think that is important, it is valuable. It should have happened sooner but I am glad that we are able to have this conversation now on the international stage.