Comments on: Net Neutrality, Free Speech, and Tim Lee’s New Paper http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: “Net Neutrality = the First Amendment of the Internet”? Not Really « RBHall Associates, LLC – Blog http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-72325 “Net Neutrality = the First Amendment of the Internet”? Not Really « RBHall Associates, LLC – Blog Fri, 31 Dec 2010 00:56:06 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-72325 <p>[...] of looking at the First Amendment . . . because it is backward. To quote Adam Thierer in his very compelling blog about the [...]</p> [...] of looking at the First Amendment . . . because it is backward. To quote Adam Thierer in his very compelling blog about the [...]

]]> By: the first amendment - StartTags.com http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-66046 the first amendment - StartTags.com Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:16:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-66046 <p>[...] questions of our time, having an enormous impact on individuals' power to speak with one ...Net Neutrality, Free Speech, and Tim Lee's New Paper ...Beginning in the 1960's, however, a handful of liberal legal theories began concocting a new theory [...]</p> [...] questions of our time, having an enormous impact on individuals' power to speak with one …Net Neutrality, Free Speech, and Tim Lee's New Paper …Beginning in the 1960's, however, a handful of liberal legal theories began concocting a new theory [...]

]]> By: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-63945 The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:17:45 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-63945 <p><strong>Net Neutrality Regulation & the First Amendment ...</strong></p> <p>One of the more troubling aspects of the contentious debate over Net neutrality regulation is the way some proponents have sought to cast Net neutrality as "the Internet's First Amendment." As a die-hard free speech advocate, I find this truly......</p> Net Neutrality Regulation & the First Amendment …

One of the more troubling aspects of the contentious debate over Net neutrality regulation is the way some proponents have sought to cast Net neutrality as “the Internet’s First Amendment.” As a die-hard free speech advocate, I find this truly……

]]> By: Net Neutrality Regulation & the First Amendment — Technology Liberation Front http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-63942 Net Neutrality Regulation & the First Amendment — Technology Liberation Front Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:09:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-63942 <p>[...] this truly outrageous and a complete contortion of the true purpose of the First Amendment.  As I have argued here before, it is incredibly dangerous thinking that puts our real First Amendment liberties at stake by [...]</p> [...] this truly outrageous and a complete contortion of the true purpose of the First Amendment.  As I have argued here before, it is incredibly dangerous thinking that puts our real First Amendment liberties at stake by [...]

]]> By: The World Condensed » Blog Archive » Marvin Ammori: What Sotomayor Could Mean for Network Neutrality and the First Amendment http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-60668 The World Condensed » Blog Archive » Marvin Ammori: What Sotomayor Could Mean for Network Neutrality and the First Amendment Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:38:29 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-60668 <p>[...] newspaper, or online phone call or movie. You have “editorial discretion”, and a First Amendment right, to control the Internet. One cable company made this argument regarding the FCC’s Free [...]</p> [...] newspaper, or online phone call or movie. You have “editorial discretion”, and a First Amendment right, to control the Internet. One cable company made this argument regarding the FCC’s Free [...]

]]> By: Marvin Ammori: What Sotomayor Could Mean for Network Neutrality and the First Amendment http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-60015 Marvin Ammori: What Sotomayor Could Mean for Network Neutrality and the First Amendment Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:01:27 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-60015 <p>[...] newspaper, or online phone call or movie. You have “editorial discretion”, and a First Amendment right, to control the Internet. One cable company made this argument regarding the FCC’s Free [...]</p> [...] newspaper, or online phone call or movie. You have “editorial discretion”, and a First Amendment right, to control the Internet. One cable company made this argument regarding the FCC’s Free [...]

]]> By: Get your News » Marvin Ammori: What Sotomayor Could Mean for Network Neutrality and the First Amendment http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-60014 Get your News » Marvin Ammori: What Sotomayor Could Mean for Network Neutrality and the First Amendment Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:10:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-60014 <p>[...] newspaper, or online phone call or movie. You have “editorial discretion”, and a First Amendment right, to control the Internet. One cable company made this argument regarding the FCC’s Free [...]</p> [...] newspaper, or online phone call or movie. You have “editorial discretion”, and a First Amendment right, to control the Internet. One cable company made this argument regarding the FCC’s Free [...]

]]> By: environmental policy http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56928 environmental policy Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:16:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56928 <p><strong>environmental policy...</strong></p> <p>The term “ISO” refers to the International Organization for Standardization. You may be curious about the difference between the names of the organization: International Organization for Standardization (http://www.iso.ch/infoe/intro.htm), and the ...</p> environmental policy…

The term “ISO” refers to the International Organization for Standardization. You may be curious about the difference between the names of the organization: International Organization for Standardization (http://www.iso.ch/infoe/intro.htm), and the …

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-65577 eee_eff Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:22:45 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-65577 <p>Steve:<br><br>Great comment, to which I would add just a couple of points.<br><br>First, to the extent that a corporation that may provide the "pipes" is separate from one that provides the content, there would be no incentive to filter. When the economic incentives are tied together, some strange things begin to happen. For example, NBC provided very little coverage of the Chernobyl accident, and it was no accident that NBC was then owned by General Electric, maker of nuclear power plants. So the incentive can exist, and when coupled with the fact that in many communities there is only one available high speed internet provider, the opportunity and the motive both exist.<br><br>Second, there have in fact been many examples of suppression of free speech by large corporations, in particular AT&T, so there is evidence that when motive and opportunity both exist, abuses, do, in fact occur.<br><br>Third, there is a reason why the FIRST amendment came FIRST. Because the freedom of speech was considered a paramount freedom. But to those at TLF it appears not to be very important, and any suppression of the right to express is seen as a trifling concern. Many of the comments defending Tim's position center around the line of thinking that maybe some abuses will occur but they won't be that bad and the market will eventually sort out this issue. But this forgets the very important point that <b>free speech delayed is free speech denied.</b> If, for example important information can't be distributed before an election the damage to society is done, and it is TOO LATE to turn back the clock.<br><br>The First Amendment is important; don't abandon it.</p> Steve:

Great comment, to which I would add just a couple of points.

First, to the extent that a corporation that may provide the “pipes” is separate from one that provides the content, there would be no incentive to filter. When the economic incentives are tied together, some strange things begin to happen. For example, NBC provided very little coverage of the Chernobyl accident, and it was no accident that NBC was then owned by General Electric, maker of nuclear power plants. So the incentive can exist, and when coupled with the fact that in many communities there is only one available high speed internet provider, the opportunity and the motive both exist.

Second, there have in fact been many examples of suppression of free speech by large corporations, in particular AT&T, so there is evidence that when motive and opportunity both exist, abuses, do, in fact occur.

Third, there is a reason why the FIRST amendment came FIRST. Because the freedom of speech was considered a paramount freedom. But to those at TLF it appears not to be very important, and any suppression of the right to express is seen as a trifling concern. Many of the comments defending Tim's position center around the line of thinking that maybe some abuses will occur but they won't be that bad and the market will eventually sort out this issue. But this forgets the very important point that free speech delayed is free speech denied. If, for example important information can't be distributed before an election the damage to society is done, and it is TOO LATE to turn back the clock.

The First Amendment is important; don't abandon it.

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-62235 eee_eff Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:22:45 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-62235 <p>Steve:<br><br>Great comment, to which I would add just a couple of points.<br><br>First, to the extent that a corporation that may provide the "pipes" is separate from one that provides the content, there would be no incentive to filter. When the economic incentives are tied together, some strange things begin to happen. For example, NBC provided very little coverage of the Chernobyl accident, and it was no accident that NBC was then owned by General Electric, maker of nuclear power plants. So the incentive can exist, and when coupled with the fact that in many communities there is only one available high speed internet provider, the opportunity and the motive both exist.<br><br>Second, there have in fact been many examples of suppression of free speech by large corporations, in particular AT&T, so there is evidence that when motive and opportunity both exist, abuses, do, in fact occur.<br><br>Third, there is a reason why the FIRST amendment came FIRST. Because the freedom of speech was considered a paramount freedom. But to those at TLF it appears not to be very important, and any suppression of the right to express is seen as a trifling concern. Many of the comments defending Tim's position center around the line of thinking that maybe some abuses will occur but they won't be that bad and the market will eventually sort out this issue. But this forgets the very important point that <b>free speech delayed is free speech denied.</b> If, for example important information can't be distributed before an election the damage to society is done, and it is TOO LATE to turn back the clock.<br><br>The First Amendment is important; don't abandon it.</p> Steve:

Great comment, to which I would add just a couple of points.

First, to the extent that a corporation that may provide the “pipes” is separate from one that provides the content, there would be no incentive to filter. When the economic incentives are tied together, some strange things begin to happen. For example, NBC provided very little coverage of the Chernobyl accident, and it was no accident that NBC was then owned by General Electric, maker of nuclear power plants. So the incentive can exist, and when coupled with the fact that in many communities there is only one available high speed internet provider, the opportunity and the motive both exist.

Second, there have in fact been many examples of suppression of free speech by large corporations, in particular AT&T, so there is evidence that when motive and opportunity both exist, abuses, do, in fact occur.

Third, there is a reason why the FIRST amendment came FIRST. Because the freedom of speech was considered a paramount freedom. But to those at TLF it appears not to be very important, and any suppression of the right to express is seen as a trifling concern. Many of the comments defending Tim's position center around the line of thinking that maybe some abuses will occur but they won't be that bad and the market will eventually sort out this issue. But this forgets the very important point that free speech delayed is free speech denied. If, for example important information can't be distributed before an election the damage to society is done, and it is TOO LATE to turn back the clock.

The First Amendment is important; don't abandon it.

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56752 eee_eff Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:22:45 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56752 <p>Steve:<br><br>Great comment, to which I would add just a couple of points.<br><br>First, to the extent that a corporation that may provide the "pipes" is separate from one that provides the content, there would be no incentive to filter. When the economic incentives are tied together, some strange things begin to happen. For example, NBC provided very little coverage of the Chernobyl accident, and it was no accident that NBC was then owned by General Electric, maker of nuclear power plants. So the incentive can exist, and when coupled with the fact that in many communities there is only one available high speed internet provider, the opportunity and the motive both exist.<br><br>Second, there have in fact been many examples of suppression of free speech by large corporations, in particular AT&T, so there is evidence that when motive and opportunity both exist, abuses, do, in fact occur.<br><br>Third, there is a reason why the FIRST amendment came FIRST. Because the freedom of speech was considered a paramount freedom. But to those at TLF it appears not to be very important, and any suppression of the right to express is seen as a trifling concern. Many of the comments defending Tim's position center around the line of thinking that maybe some abuses will occur but they won't be that bad and the market will eventually sort out this issue. But this forgets the very important point that <b>free speech delayed is free speech denied.</b> If, for example important information can't be distributed before an election the damage to society is done, and it is TOO LATE to turn back the clock.<br><br>The First Amendment is important; don't abandon it.</p> Steve:

Great comment, to which I would add just a couple of points.

First, to the extent that a corporation that may provide the “pipes” is separate from one that provides the content, there would be no incentive to filter. When the economic incentives are tied together, some strange things begin to happen. For example, NBC provided very little coverage of the Chernobyl accident, and it was no accident that NBC was then owned by General Electric, maker of nuclear power plants. So the incentive can exist, and when coupled with the fact that in many communities there is only one available high speed internet provider, the opportunity and the motive both exist.

Second, there have in fact been many examples of suppression of free speech by large corporations, in particular AT&T, so there is evidence that when motive and opportunity both exist, abuses, do, in fact occur.

Third, there is a reason why the FIRST amendment came FIRST. Because the freedom of speech was considered a paramount freedom. But to those at TLF it appears not to be very important, and any suppression of the right to express is seen as a trifling concern. Many of the comments defending Tim's position center around the line of thinking that maybe some abuses will occur but they won't be that bad and the market will eventually sort out this issue. But this forgets the very important point that free speech delayed is free speech denied. If, for example important information can't be distributed before an election the damage to society is done, and it is TOO LATE to turn back the clock.

The First Amendment is important; don't abandon it.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56733 Richard Bennett Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:32:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56733 <p>Slippery slopes are everywhere, so I wouldn't worry about them. These <br>issues about probably cause only apply to the government, as I <br>understand them, but IANAL. Assuming there were something to it, the <br>fact that you're hogging the pipe would probably constitute probably <br>cause in any case, and inspection of content without retention doesn't <br>have privacy implications.<br><br>And if it did, all it would take is a small act of Congress to nullify <br>these objections.</p> Slippery slopes are everywhere, so I wouldn't worry about them. These
issues about probably cause only apply to the government, as I
understand them, but IANAL. Assuming there were something to it, the
fact that you're hogging the pipe would probably constitute probably
cause in any case, and inspection of content without retention doesn't
have privacy implications.

And if it did, all it would take is a small act of Congress to nullify
these objections.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56737 Richard Bennett Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:28:04 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56737 <p>Apparently I can reply to your comment via e-mail. We'll see if this works.</p> Apparently I can reply to your comment via e-mail. We'll see if this works.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56736 Steve R. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:13:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56736 <p>Same here. My response to you hasn't shown up.I guess Disqus doesn't want to get anyone upset.</p> Same here. My response to you hasn't shown up.I guess Disqus doesn't want to get anyone upset.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56732 Steve R. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:00:54 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56732 <p>Ok, they have a right to protect their legal rights, but there are limits to that right. Their quest to protect their so called rights does not entitle them through the ISP to inspect my packets. Furthermore this violates due process. By analogy, they believe that they have a right to break into my house at their whim and search it just on the arbitrary belief that they may find something. <br><br>Or to use another analogy, you should not be able to force a third party who just happens to be standing on the street corner to "protect" your property. If the content industry can somehow coerce the "third" party ISP to "protect" their so-called property rights, the concept of net neutrality will be a sham.<br><br>Furthermore, if it is OK to inspect packets for the benefit of one special interest group for acts that may considered illegal, it doesn't take much of an imagination to see it expanded to other acts considered illegal in order to "save the children". It's a slippery slope.</p> Ok, they have a right to protect their legal rights, but there are limits to that right. Their quest to protect their so called rights does not entitle them through the ISP to inspect my packets. Furthermore this violates due process. By analogy, they believe that they have a right to break into my house at their whim and search it just on the arbitrary belief that they may find something.

Or to use another analogy, you should not be able to force a third party who just happens to be standing on the street corner to “protect” your property. If the content industry can somehow coerce the “third” party ISP to “protect” their so-called property rights, the concept of net neutrality will be a sham.

Furthermore, if it is OK to inspect packets for the benefit of one special interest group for acts that may considered illegal, it doesn't take much of an imagination to see it expanded to other acts considered illegal in order to “save the children”. It's a slippery slope.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56734 Richard Bennett Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:13:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56734 <p>The first thing to understand about piracy mitigation is that the goal isn't 100% detection, it's simply a significant reduction in piracy. That being said, the goal can be accomplished - and is accomplished today for the most part - by snagging File Hashes on the piracy indexers such as Mininova and Pirate's Bay. Join a swarm that's downloading a popular title and you have a list of all your peers, all out in the open. <br><br>There will always be methods of so completely hiding a file that nobody can detect it, and some of these will never be addressed. But that's OK, the search for perfection isn't essential.</p> The first thing to understand about piracy mitigation is that the goal isn't 100% detection, it's simply a significant reduction in piracy. That being said, the goal can be accomplished – and is accomplished today for the most part – by snagging File Hashes on the piracy indexers such as Mininova and Pirate's Bay. Join a swarm that's downloading a popular title and you have a list of all your peers, all out in the open.

There will always be methods of so completely hiding a file that nobody can detect it, and some of these will never be addressed. But that's OK, the search for perfection isn't essential.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56735 Richard Bennett Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:09:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56735 <p>I doubt it. P2P is trouble because of two things: its bi-directionality and its consumption of transit resources. YouTube and Hulu aren't bi-directional, and YouTube at least enters ISP networks at peering points, so there's no extra charge for the larger ISPs for transit. This is the way your ISP would prefer you to get your video streams.</p> I doubt it. P2P is trouble because of two things: its bi-directionality and its consumption of transit resources. YouTube and Hulu aren't bi-directional, and YouTube at least enters ISP networks at peering points, so there's no extra charge for the larger ISPs for transit. This is the way your ISP would prefer you to get your video streams.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56730 Richard Bennett Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:48:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56730 <p>Via e-mail, Disqus tells me Ryan has responded to a couple of my comments with his own comments on fingerprinting and piracy bandwidth hogs, but I don't see the comments when I look for them here. Disqus is the Sarah Palin of blog commenting systems, unfortunately. I'll respond when Disqus feels like it's safe for me to do so.</p> Via e-mail, Disqus tells me Ryan has responded to a couple of my comments with his own comments on fingerprinting and piracy bandwidth hogs, but I don't see the comments when I look for them here. Disqus is the Sarah Palin of blog commenting systems, unfortunately. I'll respond when Disqus feels like it's safe for me to do so.

]]> By: Ryan Radia http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56729 Ryan Radia Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:16:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56729 <p>Sure, but that's only because pirated content is a major hog of network resources. As network congestion becomes less attributable to illegal file sharing and more attributable to Hulu, Netflix, and YouTube, ISPs will have fewer reasons to target P2P and more reasons to simply implement across-the-board usage caps, per-byte billing, etc.</p> Sure, but that's only because pirated content is a major hog of network resources. As network congestion becomes less attributable to illegal file sharing and more attributable to Hulu, Netflix, and YouTube, ISPs will have fewer reasons to target P2P and more reasons to simply implement across-the-board usage caps, per-byte billing, etc.

]]> By: Ryan Radia http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56728 Ryan Radia Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:13:55 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56728 <p>Filtering some, or even most, illegal traffic can be done if ISPs simply block all P2P. But what if they switch to HTTP? Or FTP?<br><br>Digital fingerprinting becomes next to useless when full payload encryption is applied to the data. It doesn't make it impossible to figure out the protocol (that's what end-to-end tunneling is for) but encryption makes legal P2P traffic indistinguishable from illegal P2P traffic. Pirates have plenty of methods of trading infringing files without using easily identifiable protocols like Bittorrent. The same goes for pretty much any content that an ISP might have an interest in filtering.</p> Filtering some, or even most, illegal traffic can be done if ISPs simply block all P2P. But what if they switch to HTTP? Or FTP?

Digital fingerprinting becomes next to useless when full payload encryption is applied to the data. It doesn't make it impossible to figure out the protocol (that's what end-to-end tunneling is for) but encryption makes legal P2P traffic indistinguishable from illegal P2P traffic. Pirates have plenty of methods of trading infringing files without using easily identifiable protocols like Bittorrent. The same goes for pretty much any content that an ISP might have an interest in filtering.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56727 Richard Bennett Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:55:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56727 <p>There were other issues in the FreeConference situation relating to interconnect fees, so it doesn't say anything about content-based suppression of speech. And similarly, piracy mitigation isn't a free speech issue. Illegal activities are not protected by law. <br><br>The studios and the RIAA are entitled to protect their legal rights, that's not really in dispute.</p> There were other issues in the FreeConference situation relating to interconnect fees, so it doesn't say anything about content-based suppression of speech. And similarly, piracy mitigation isn't a free speech issue. Illegal activities are not protected by law.

The studios and the RIAA are entitled to protect their legal rights, that's not really in dispute.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56722 Steve R. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:32:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56722 <p>In the ideal situation where the ISP is just providing the "pipe" there is no economic incentive to filter. However, when telecoms (as one example) are part of the network flow, there are economic incentives to filter. <a <a href="http://href=%22http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070327/154203.shtml%22%3EFreeConference.com">href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070327...</a> Sues AT&T For Blocked Phone Calls</a><br>Then there is the ye olde intimidation tactic: <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081120/1214592902.shtml">Movie Studios Sue Australian ISP For Not Waving Magic Wand And Defeating Piracy</a></p> In the ideal situation where the ISP is just providing the “pipe” there is no economic incentive to filter. However, when telecoms (as one example) are part of the network flow, there are economic incentives to filter. <a href=”http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070327… Sues AT&T For Blocked Phone Calls
Then there is the ye olde intimidation tactic: Movie Studios Sue Australian ISP For Not Waving Magic Wand And Defeating Piracy

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56721 Steve R. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:50:47 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56721 <p>On th humerus side, just heard on the radio that Exxon, due to the falling price of oil, just laid off three congressmen!!!</p> On th humerus side, just heard on the radio that Exxon, due to the falling price of oil, just laid off three congressmen!!!

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56720 Richard Bennett Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:12:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56720 <p>ISPs actually do have an incentive to filter certain types of pirated content, namely to free up network capacity.</p> ISPs actually do have an incentive to filter certain types of pirated content, namely to free up network capacity.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56719 Richard Bennett Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:11:09 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56719 <p>I agree with Adam that the ISPs have no economic incentive to filter political speech, I'm just saying we shouldn't rule it out in technical grounds. Filtering illegal downloads is easy as pie today, and it's a harder problem than filtering speech would be if somebody set his mind to it.<br><br>Here's a thought for free speech advocates: invent a really cool technique for suppressing free speech and patent it. Don't license the patent, and you're golden, democracy rules. All hail the patent system!</p> I agree with Adam that the ISPs have no economic incentive to filter political speech, I'm just saying we shouldn't rule it out in technical grounds. Filtering illegal downloads is easy as pie today, and it's a harder problem than filtering speech would be if somebody set his mind to it.

Here's a thought for free speech advocates: invent a really cool technique for suppressing free speech and patent it. Don't license the patent, and you're golden, democracy rules. All hail the patent system!

]]> By: Ryan Radia http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56716 Ryan Radia Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:30:07 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56716 <p>As long as we maintain a safe harbor for providers, there will be no widespread adoption of content filtering by ISPs. AT&T knows it is fighting a losing battle, and the only people likely to be affected by any filtering effort are those unable to perform a Google search. <br><br>Besides, ISPs that employ content filtering to the detriment of their subscribers will only push people toward competing providers that don't filter.</p> As long as we maintain a safe harbor for providers, there will be no widespread adoption of content filtering by ISPs. AT&T knows it is fighting a losing battle, and the only people likely to be affected by any filtering effort are those unable to perform a Google search.

Besides, ISPs that employ content filtering to the detriment of their subscribers will only push people toward competing providers that don't filter.

]]> By: Ryan Radia http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56715 Ryan Radia Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:10:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56715 <p>With regards to P2P, of course high-bandwidth streams can be identified by ISPs as such, no matter the obfuscation, and Bittorrent's fairly unusual TCP characteristics make it pretty obvious regardless of the application layer. (Although perhaps an IPSec VPN tunnel to a "friendly" endpoint, with some random padding data added in for good measure, might make it extremely tough for an ISP to tell the difference between various P2P protocols)<br><br>What Adam's post is addressing, I believe, is the question of whether ISPs will ever be able to detect and suppress speech. Net neutrality advocates get people worked up by claiming that new laws are needed to prevent ISP censorship, but the fact is that such censorship is basically impossible. There is no valid basis for arguing that ISPs will ever be able to distinguish between a pro-abortion data transmission from an anti-abortion one. The days of communicating in plain-text are numbered, and ISPs surely realize that if they can't even successfully fingerprint pirated videos, it's a waste of time and money to attempt to stifle unwanted speech.</p> With regards to P2P, of course high-bandwidth streams can be identified by ISPs as such, no matter the obfuscation, and Bittorrent's fairly unusual TCP characteristics make it pretty obvious regardless of the application layer. (Although perhaps an IPSec VPN tunnel to a “friendly” endpoint, with some random padding data added in for good measure, might make it extremely tough for an ISP to tell the difference between various P2P protocols)

What Adam's post is addressing, I believe, is the question of whether ISPs will ever be able to detect and suppress speech. Net neutrality advocates get people worked up by claiming that new laws are needed to prevent ISP censorship, but the fact is that such censorship is basically impossible. There is no valid basis for arguing that ISPs will ever be able to distinguish between a pro-abortion data transmission from an anti-abortion one. The days of communicating in plain-text are numbered, and ISPs surely realize that if they can't even successfully fingerprint pirated videos, it's a waste of time and money to attempt to stifle unwanted speech.

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56713 Don Marti Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:10:00 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56713 <p>When a length of fiber optic cable runs through land taken by eminent domain, then that property was taken "for public use." Its unwilling seller and the rest of the public are entitled to neutral access. If you're going to respect private property, respect private property.</p> When a length of fiber optic cable runs through land taken by eminent domain, then that property was taken “for public use.” Its unwilling seller and the rest of the public are entitled to neutral access. If you're going to respect private property, respect private property.

]]> By: MikeRT http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56712 MikeRT Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:32:16 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56712 <p>Your example here is one of the government passing legislation at another industry's behest. In general, ISPs have hitherto shown little desire to really police their users for copyright infringement because it's just not something that makes business sense for them to do. It's just not their problem, so why bother.<br><br>Furthermore, I think the simplest reason why they wouldn't censor opinions they may disagree with is that it would get them negative publicity. More people are likely to leave them over that than come to them.</p> Your example here is one of the government passing legislation at another industry's behest. In general, ISPs have hitherto shown little desire to really police their users for copyright infringement because it's just not something that makes business sense for them to do. It's just not their problem, so why bother.

Furthermore, I think the simplest reason why they wouldn't censor opinions they may disagree with is that it would get them negative publicity. More people are likely to leave them over that than come to them.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-tim-lees-new-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-56710 Steve R. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:36:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=14272#comment-56710 <p>Adam, good article. My concern is the flip side, that is that there is virtually no call for the ISPs to act in an ethical manner or to invoke standard business practices that assure the consumer receives fair value . Basically the discussion is one sided, the flaws of government involvement are highlighted, but the short comings of private side are conveniently being glossed over.<br><br>Richard makes a very good observation: <i>"In general, arguments that service providers can't do this or that as a practical matter are founded on sand. Advances in technology make many things practical tomorrow that are utterly impossible today, and we can more or less expect that to happen."</i> The entertainment industry, for example, has been demanding that ISP "filter" content to prevent what they assert is unauthorized content transfer. The technology now exists to do this and we have now seen entertainment industry demand that the ISPs protect their interests. We even have the entertainment industry pushing for legislation to require ISPs to act as their private law enforcement are. From the free-market perspective, the ISP have no obligation to filter content to protect the interests of the entertainment industry. The following quote from John Perry Barlow highlights this process at work <i>""The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent."</i>.</p> Adam, good article. My concern is the flip side, that is that there is virtually no call for the ISPs to act in an ethical manner or to invoke standard business practices that assure the consumer receives fair value . Basically the discussion is one sided, the flaws of government involvement are highlighted, but the short comings of private side are conveniently being glossed over.

Richard makes a very good observation: “In general, arguments that service providers can't do this or that as a practical matter are founded on sand. Advances in technology make many things practical tomorrow that are utterly impossible today, and we can more or less expect that to happen.” The entertainment industry, for example, has been demanding that ISP “filter” content to prevent what they assert is unauthorized content transfer. The technology now exists to do this and we have now seen entertainment industry demand that the ISPs protect their interests. We even have the entertainment industry pushing for legislation to require ISPs to act as their private law enforcement are. From the free-market perspective, the ISP have no obligation to filter content to protect the interests of the entertainment industry. The following quote from John Perry Barlow highlights this process at work “”The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent.”.

]]>