The Internet Is About To Change. FCC To "Fix" It, However, It Looks Like The "Fix" Is In!

FCC Sounds Net Neutrality Death Knell

Published Tue, May 6, 2014  |  Christopher Eutaw, Managing Editor

Share on facebook  Share

 

On May 15, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will meet to determine the fate of net neutrality. And based on everything that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said, we’re about to witness the death of the internet as we know it.

You see, until January of this year, net neutrality laws made sure the internet was an even playing field. Service providers had to treat all content, from websites and applications to cloud services, equally.

But on January 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the FCC’s Open Internet Order, laying a huge blow to net neutrality and paving the way for Chairman Wheeler’s current proposal to “fix” internet equality.

Unfortunately, Wheeler’s proposed solution would do anything but fix net neutrality. Instead, it would open the door for an internet “fast lane,” where service providers would be allowed to offer greatly increased speeds in return for a hefty fee.

Needless to say, this would be a huge benefit for the few companies that could afford such treatment. Meanwhile, startups, nonprofits and nearly all of us regular folk would be relegated to the “slow lane,” unable to compete with the hyperdrive speeds available to wealthy corporations.

There’s a More Sensible Solution

The internet fast lane is something that service providers have wanted for years. The profit potential is enormous, and content providers can just pass the increased costs on to consumers – making you and me the biggest losers.

Sadly, the one man with the power to regulate this kind of discrimination seems happy to give the service providers whatever they’d like. It’s not that surprising, either. Chairman Wheeler is a former cable industry lobbyist who, according to Mercury News, “earned a living for more than a decade [by] offering campaign donations in exchange for Congressional favors for big corporations.”

And even though his proposal has faced an incredible amount of backlash, he hasn’t backed away from the plan. Instead, he’s weakly defended his stance, saying that providers wouldn’t be able to slow down other, less preferential content to make up for the boost given to “fast lane” content.

On top of that, Mr. Wheeler says the proposal is better than the alternative – a vague law against “unreasonable discrimination” that would be difficult to enforce and would likely lead to unchecked abuse.

But the real problem here is that Wheeler has completely ignored the most sensible – albeit difficult – solution.

Luckily, Mozilla, creator of the Firefox web browser, has taken it upon itself to point out this solution by filing an alternative proposal. Mozilla’s plan would restore net neutrality without destroying what Chairwoman Mitchell Baker and former CEO John Lilly called “the miracle of the internet.”

“Our petition asks the FCC to adopt a modern understanding of the internet in a way to reach Title II directly and quickly,” said Chris Riley, Senior Policy Engineer at Mozilla. “This will also ensure that the FCC can adopt meaningful net neutrality rules with no blocking and no paid prioritization that will stand up in court.”

Riley is essentially repackaging an old idea with a new twist. The old idea – Title II classification – would make it possible for “common carrier” rules to apply to internet regulation, meaning service providers would be forced to operate under the principles of net neutrality, without discriminating against any content.

So far, Wheeler has said that he doesn’t want to jump directly to Title II reclassification, which is likely just a polite way of saying that he’d prefer to help out his cohorts at the major service providers. We’ll find out on May 15, when the FCC will vote on whether to start formally considering Wheeler’s proposal.

Following the meeting, there will be a “public comment” period of about 30 to 45 days during which anyone can tell both President Obama and Chairman Wheeler how they feel about the proposal.

In the meantime, you can email openinternet@fcc.gov or tweet@TomWheelerFCC to make sure that your voice is heard. The more people who speak up, the better.

Let’s not allow a corporate shill to destroy the internet as we know it.

In Pursuit of the Truth,

Christopher Eutaw

Dennis Prager Writes On The Effects Of The Firing Of Brendan Eich

Uninstall Firefox  by Dennis Prager

Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014

 Share   Tweet   Plus 1

 Email   Print

In 31 years of broadcasting, and 40 years of writing, I have never advocated a boycott of a product.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, when the left attempted to destroy Chick-Fil-A for its owner’s views on same-sex marriage, I suggested on my radio show that the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, stand in front of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant while enjoying some Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. In that way, I argued, he could show one of the great moral differences between the right and the left. Though Ben and Jerry are leftists, we conservatives do not believe that company owners’ views should matter to consumers. We believe that products should speak for themselves. If the ice cream is good, despite whatever repugnance we might feel regarding the views of the makers of that ice cream, we will still purchase it.

The left does not see things that way. The left is out to crush individuals and companies with whom it differs. This is especially so today on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of this took place last week. The governing board of the widely used browser, Firefox, forced the company’s CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign. The Firefox board had learned that in 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign in California. Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In classic Communist fashion, gay rights organizations demanded that Eich publicly recant. When Eich did not, gay rights and other leftist organizations called for a boycott of Firefox. Firefox immediately forced Eich out.

All these years, the left, after coining the term “McCarthyism” in order to disparage the right, had fooled most people into believing that it is the right that suppresses liberty. The truth, of course, has been the opposite. Worldwide, with the exception of Nazi Germany (which was a uniquely race-based totalitarianism, neither left nor right — while it rejected Marxist class-based struggle, it supported socialism (“Nazism” was short for National Socialism), every genocidal totalitarian regime of the 20th century was leftist. And domestically, too, the left has much less interest in liberty than in forcing people to act in accord with its values. A totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA. How you think matters and what you do away outside of work matters: More than 20 states prohibit judges from being leaders in the Boy Scouts — because the left deems the Boy Scouts homophobic.

During the McCarthy era, the left (and not only the left) screamed when people were falsely charged with supporting Stalin and Communism, one of the greatest evils in human history. But the left also screamed when people who really did aid and abet Stalin were dismissed from their jobs. In other words, for those on the left who celebrate Eich’s ouster, it was evil to deprive a man who supported Stalin of a job, but it is right to fire a man who supports the man-woman definition of marriage. Such is the left’s moral compass.

It is important to further note that gay employees at Firefox acknowledge that Eich never discriminated against gays, whether in employment, benefits or any other way. But that doesn’t matter to the left because a totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA.

As Princeton Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George warned on my radio show, today the left fires employees for opposition to same-sex marriage. Tomorrow it will fire employees who are pro-life (“anti-woman”). And next it will be employees who support Israel (an “apartheid state”).

The reason to boycott Firefox is not that it is run by leftists. Nor is the reason to support the man-woman definition of marriage. It is solely in order to preserve liberty in the land of liberty. If Firefox doesn’t recant and rehire Eich as CEO, McCarthyism will have returned far more pervasively and perniciously than in its first incarnation. The message the gay left (such as the Orwellian-named Human Rights Campaign) and the left in general wish to send is that Americans who are in positions of power at any company should be forced to resign if they hold a position that the left strongly opposes.

And right now that position is opposition to same-sex marriage.

Think about that. In the United States of America today, the belief that marriage should remain defined as the union of a man and woman is portrayed as so vile by the left that anyone who holds it is unfit for employment.

A handful of those on the gay (and straight) left have spoken out against the forced resignation of Eich. If their words are to mean anything, they must join in the call to boycott Firefox. Otherwise, their protestations are meaningless, made solely to preserve their moral credibility.

The battle over Firefox is the most important battle in America at this particular moment. If you use Firefox, uninstall it. Instead use Internet Explorer, Chrome, Opera, Safari, or try Pale Moon for Windows, which is based on the Firefox engine and will import all of your bookmarks. For mobile devices, you can try Puffin.

America can have liberty or it can have Firefox. Right now, it cannot have both.

Ironically, Liberals Are The LEAST Open To Dissent And If You Disagree They Go After You Personally. So Much For Accepting Others Opinions.

The Liberal Bigots Strike Again

April 11, 2014 by Chip Wood 

 21 9

 

 0 97

THINKSTOCK

If you support the traditional view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, could that cost you your job? The intolerant left says the answer to that question is a loud and emphatic “Yes!”

Their latest victim is Brendan Eich, an inventor of JavaScript and the co-founder of the Web browser Firefox. Back in 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the campaign for Proposition 8 in California, a ballot measure that said, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Recently, when Eich was named CEO of Mozilla, the company that oversees Firefox, that 6-year-old contribution cost him his job. We’re told that half of Mozilla’s board of directors resigned to protest Eich’s appointment. But that leads to a question: If half the board opposed him, how the heck did he get the job?

The wireless company Credo Mobile launched an online petition demanding that Eich either renounce his beliefs or resign. The petition quickly acquired nearly 75,000 signatures.

OKCupid, a popular online dating service, urged its followers to boycott Firefox to protest Eich’s selection. The company posted a letter denouncing the CEO, stating: “Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies and we wish them nothing but failure.”

Those are pretty harsh words against a person who, in 15 years at Mozilla, had never been accused of demonstrating any prejudice against gay employees — or anyone, for that matter. In one of his few statements on the subject, Eich said: “I don’t want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we’ve been going. I don’t believe they’re relevant.”

How he performed on the job didn’t matter to the gay and lesbian brigade. They wanted his scalp. And they got it.

After Eich agreed to resign, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued a statement that said in part, “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”

So forcing someone to resign because of a private donation made more than six years ago is how you demonstrate that you’ve “stayed true to” yourself? Remember, not a single person claims that Eich did anything on the job to demonstrate any kind of anti-gay bias. By all accounts, he was scrupulously fair to everyone.

And bear in mind that, at the time, most of the public said they agreed with him that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 passed easily in California, one of the most liberal States in the Nation, although it was later overturned by the courts. It won the support of a substantial majority of blacks and Hispanics.

In fact, let me mention two prominent Americans who also opposed same-sex marriage back in 2008: Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. Of course, both now claim that they’ve had a change of heart.

More than 35,000 people donated to the campaign for Proposition 8. Thanks to a court ruling, the names of all the contributors — and in some cases, their addresses and the name of their employers — have been made public. I wonder how many more will become targets of angry and intolerant gays.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas warned of this possibility four years ago. In a 2010 dissent to a court decision requiring such disclosure, he wrote:

I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech,” the “primary object of First Amendment protection.”

Not every gay person agrees with the angry intolerance Eich witnessed. Andrew Sullivan, a well-known gay-rights activist, wrote:

If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.

…

What we have here is a social pressure to keep your beliefs deeply private for fear of retribution. We are enforcing another sort of closet on others. I can’t believe the fanaticism.

Just how bad will could this latest form of bigotry get? On Sunday, during an appearance onABC News’ “This Week,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said what we’re witnessing is the left’s “new fascism.” He warned:

This is just the most open and blatant example of the new fascism, which says, “If you don’t agree with us 100 percent, we have the right to punish you unless you’re like Hillary and Barack Obama and you recant.

…

I think the question I’d ask yourself is: Are you willing to live in an open and tolerant society, or do you have to impose your views at the cost of people’s jobs?

One of the most ironic statements on the controversy came from the gay-rights organization GLAAD. President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said: “Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe and welcoming to all.”

Yes, the GLAAD’s leader actually said “welcoming to all.” What she meant, of course, was welcoming to everyone who will march in lockstep with GLAAD. If you dare to disagree with the gay rights brigade and they find out about it, watch out. They’ll go after you, your family, your job and your employer.

If you’re a Christian photographer who’d prefer to not to cover a gay wedding, they’ll go to court and force you to do so. If you’re a baker who has religious objections to a gay marriage, you’d better not decline to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple or you might get sued.

It seems that it is only traditionalists who must demonstrate “tolerance” these days. Apparently, the gay-rights activists can be as bigoted and intolerant as they want.

Welcome to the Brave New World of America in 2014. If you don’t like it, you’d better do something about it.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Secure Your Website, Don't Get Hacked!

EFF: Websites Must Use HSTS In Order To Be Secure

April 4, 2014 by Electronic Frontier Foundation 

 14 5

 

 1 39

This article, written by Electronic Frontier Foundation technologist Jeremy Gillula, was originally published on the organization’s website on April 4.

You would think that by now the Internet would have grown up enough that things like online banking, email, or government websites would rely on thoroughly engineered security to make sure your data isn’t intercepted by attackers. Unfortunately when it comes to the vast majority of websites on the Internet, that assumption would be dead wrong. That’s because most websites (with a few notable exceptions) don’t yet support a standard called HSTS—HTTPS Strict Transport Security.

Why is lack of HSTS even an issue? To see what could go wrong, imagine the following common scenario. You’re in a coffee shop and you want to check your bank account. You pop open your laptop, connect to the free wifi, load up your web browser, and type in your bank’s URL. No security alerts pop up when you load the page, and there’s even a padlock icon next to the address, so you go ahead and login. Unfortunately, you could very well have just sent your login information to a potential attacker.

The way the attack worked is as follows. When your browser first tried to contact the bank’s server and load its homepage via HTTP, the attacker intercepted the request to connect and prevented it from getting there (perhaps by having his laptop pretend to be that free wifi hot-spot). He then sent your request to the bank’s server himself. When he got the response back (i.e. the webpage to load, the images to display, etc.) he stripped out any links that would initiate a secure HTTPS connection, modified the page so that it would show the padlock icon next to the address (by setting a padlock as the favicon), and sent it back to your laptop. Of course these kinds of attacks have been automated. The result is a page that looks identical in your web browser—the only difference is that it’s not secured, and the attacker can read everything you send to the server and everything that gets sent back.

But why couldn’t your browser detect the attack? The problem is that modern browsers display prominent security alerts only when a website’s security credentials appear suspicious—if a website connects over a secure channel and everything appears OK nothing much happens, and the same is true if the website connects over a normal, insecure channel. Without HSTS, browsers have no way of knowing that a website should be delivered securely, and so cannot alert you when a website that ought to be loaded securely (e.g. your bank’s website) is instead loaded via a normal connection (i.e. the unencrypted version the attacker sends to you instead). HSTS fixes that by allowing servers to send a message to the browser saying “Hey! Connections to me should be encrypted!” and allowing browsers to understand and act on that message.

So why haven’t more websites enabled HSTS? The biggest reason, we fear, is that web developers just don’t know about it.1 Another problem is that support for HSTS in browsers has been incomplete: only Chrome, Firefox, and Opera have had HSTS support for a significant period. This is changing though: we noticed that Apple quietly added HSTS support to Safari in OS X 10.9. For now, Internet Explorer doesn’t support HSTS—which means that there’s basically no such thing as a secure website in IE.

In response to questions from EFF about this situation, a Microsoft spokesperson told EFF that the company would now commit to supporting HSTS in the next major release of Internet Explorer (we aren’t sure whether we have persuaded Microsoft to implement HSTS sooner, though that seems quite likely, and is great news). This means that with the next major release of IE, every major browser will support properly secured websites.

In the mean time, what can users do to make sure their connections are secure? One option would be to use EFF’s HTTPS Everywhere browser extension. HTTPS Everywhere automatically tells your browser to use secured connections on many (but not all) websites that support them; on many domains it functions like a client-initiated equivalent of the serverside HSTS mechanism.

But what if you’re stuck using a browser that doesn’t support HSTS or HTTPS Everywhere, or a website that doesn’t support HSTS? For now all a savvy user can do is to always carefully examine the address of the site you’ve loaded, and verify that it’s secure by checking to make sure it has “https” in the front and is the precise address you want to visit.2 Unfortunately this assumes that you know ahead of time (and remember) whether or not a site should be secure, and are meticulous with every website you visit. This is obviously a huge burden to place on users—it makes a lot more sense to automate the process via HSTS, and it’s about time website operators the world over picked up the slack and did so.