How The New Internet Rules Could Undermine Net Neutrality
Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress report:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will release proposed draft rules on Thursday that will “allow content companies to pay Internet service providers for special access to consumers,” the Wall Street Journal reports, potentially undermining the principle of net neutrality on the Internet.
Under the new rules, broadband providers (ISPs) like Verizon or Comcast would be able to charge companies like Netflix or Amazon separate fees to deliver video or other services in a special faster lane on the “last mile” of broadband “that connects directly to consumers’ homes.” Content companies may then pass on those additional costs to consumers. ISPs would be prohibited from blocking or discriminating against specific websites and would be required to spell out “commercially reasonable” terms that would be available to all interested content providers. The FCC would review each deal on a “case by case basis,” the Journal notes.
The new guidelines — which the New York Times describes as “a complete turnaround” for the commission — come after a federal court decision in January that struck down a rule that required broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic the same regardless of the source.
Read the full story here:
After January’s court decision, Netflix was forced to pay an ISP toll to Comcast in order to reverse what Neflix politely refers to as “an unacceptable decline” in their members’ video experience on the Comcast network. What it really was was a case of corporate extortion. Read more about it here.
How many businesses will be held to ransom like Netflix under the new non-neutral Net Neutrality rules?
And how much of the cost of these ISP preferred access bribes will be passed on to YOU, the consumer?
F.B.I. Informant [Sabu] Is Tied to Cyberattacks Abroad
Mark Mazzetti of the NY Times reports:
Shortly after the Stratfor incident, Mr. Monsegur, 30, began supplying Mr. Hammond with lists of foreign websites that might be vulnerable to sabotage, according to Mr. Hammond, in an interview, and chat logs between the two men. The New York Times petitioned the court last year to have those documents unredacted, and they were submitted to the court last week with some of the redactions removed.
“After Stratfor, it was pretty much out of control in terms of targets we had access to,” Mr. Hammond said during an interview this month at a federal prison in Kentucky, where he is serving a 10-year sentence after pleading guilty to the Stratfor operation and other computer attacks inside the United States. He has not been charged with any crimes in connection with the hacks against foreign countries.
Mr. Hammond would not disclose the specific foreign government websites that he said Mr. Monsegur had asked him to attack, one of the terms of a protective order imposed by the judge. The names of the targeted countries are also redacted from court documents.
But according to an uncensored version of a court statement by Mr. Hammond, leaked online the day of his sentencing in November, the target list was extensive and included more than 2,000 Internet domains. The document said Mr. Monsegur had directed Mr. Hammond to hack government websites in Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey and Brazil and other government sites, like those of the Polish Embassy in Britain and the Ministry of Electricity in Iraq.
An F.B.I. spokeswoman declined to comment, as did lawyers for Mr. Monsegur and Mr. Hammond.
Read the full story here:
Gag order lifted, documents unsealed in USA v. Barrett Brown -
Today district court judge Sam Lindsay issued an order unsealing documents and vacating the September 4, 2013 gag order in Barrett Brown’s case. A veil of unnecessary secrecy that loomed over this case has finally been lifted. Here are some critical previously sealed documents:
Private Spies Deserve More Scrutiny -
It turns out being the only imprisoned journalist in the United States doesn’t get you on CNN or MSNBC. If you’re Barrett Brown, a firebrand with an outlandish style, a penchant for insulting those very outlets and a history of working with hacktivist collectives, you can consider yourself lucky to get written up in Rolling Stone and the New York Times.
The drama of Brown’s case and cancelled trial is all but over, but the media and the public has dropped the ball on what he was trying to expose. That’s the secretive world of private intelligence contractors—an estimated $56 billion-a-year industry consuming 70 percent of America’s intelligence budget.
The graph demonstrates the extreme selective enforcement of our drug laws ~