Title 2 Regulation Isn't Net Neutrality... but it IS Warrantless Wiretapping...

Since it's coming around again...

...STOP SPREADING THE DELIBERATE FRAUD THAT TITLE 2 REGULATION IS NET NEUTRALITY...

It isn't. It has literally NOTHING to do with net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the SELF GOVERNING principle, that all network traffic between service providers and their customers, is the same. Traffic is traffic regardless of the content... except that certain types of latency sensitive traffic can be prioritized, and certain types of low priority non-sensitive traffic can be deprioritized, for network and bandwidth management purposes, and hostile or harmful traffic can be throttled or blocked, to prevent service degradation and the like.

This has, until recently, always been self enforced. Recently, some very large service providers have attempted to double dip, by trying to charge some very large content providers like Netflix, who use up LOT of bandwidth, but are not those ISPs direct customers for their primary data centers etc... That's double dipping, because those ISPs already charge peering interconnect fees, to the ISPs that Netflix already pays for their internet upload capacity.

Again, up until recently, if an ISP tried to treat any other ISP or organizations traffic worse than everyone else, the other ISPs would do the same for that ISPs traffic... thus nobody broke the rules for very long. That is still MOSTLY true MOST of the time... But a couple of the huge mega ISPs are SO big, that you cant do that anymore or you would slow down very large fractions of ALL internet traffic.

Title 2 regulation does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent that from happening.

Title 2 regulation allows for two main things... The FCC can set the rates large ISPs charge each other for interconnect peering, and it REQUIRES ALL TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE COMPANIES (including email and VPN providers according to the Obama admin proposed regs) TO COMPLY WITH WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING AND METADATA COLLECTION, which is the real reason the government wants it.

The FBI cooked up a plan to collude with other federal agencies, and an at the time cooperative and power grabbing democrat controlled FCC, to rebrand warrantless wiretapping, as net neutrality... which actually is, and always has been, something else entirely.

If you believe in phony net neutrality, its probably not your fault... you have been, and continue to be, deliberately defrauded about the issue.

Two completely different things...

...only connected by both being talks@google, that if you like my blog, you MUST watch:

The first is a google talk by Joe Hall, chief technologist for the Center for Democracy and Technology, basically about how they work with regulators to stop bad laws (sorry, embedding was disabled):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4KQPsrVNv4&feature=share

The second is a talk with man I consider a true genius of common sense and basic wisdom, Nick Offerman:


Trust me on the second... it starts slow, but it's entirely worth it.

Bye Bye 4th and 5th amendment; Obamacare info may be used for Law Enforcement and Audit activities

Well... we knew that the 4th and 5th amendment meant nothing to them... never mind HIPAA... but really?

  Obamacare Marketplace: Personal Data Can Be Used For ‘Law Enforcement and Audit Activities'

Maryland's Health Connection, the state's Obamacare marketplace, has been plagued by delays in the first days of open enrollment. If users are able to endure long page-loading delays, they are presented with the website's privacy policy, a ubiquitous fine-print feature on websites that often go unread. Nevertheless, users are asked to check off a box that they agree to the terms. The policy contains many standard statements about information automatically collected regarding Internet browsers and IP addresses, temporary "cookies" used by the site, and website accessibility. However, at least two conditions may give some users pause before proceeding. The first is regarding personal information submitted with an application for those users who follow through on the sign up process all the way to the end. The policy states that all information to help in applying for coverage and even for making a payment will be kept strictly confidential and only be used to carry out the function of the marketplace. There is, however, an exception: "[W]e may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities." Here is the entire paragraph from the policy the includes the exception [emphasis added]:

Should you decide to apply for health coverage through Maryland Health Connection, the information you supply in your application will be used to determine whether you are eligible for health and dental coverage offered through Maryland Health Connection and for insurance affordability programs. It also may be used to assist you in making a payment for the insurance plan you select, and for related automated reminders or other activities permitted by law. We will preserve the privacy of personal records and protect confidential or privileged information in full accordance with federal and State law. We will not sell your information to others. Any information that you provide to us in your application will be used only to carry out the functions of Maryland Health Connection. The only exception to this policy is that we may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities.

The site does not specify if "appropriate authorities" refers only to state authorities or if it could include the federal government, as well. Neither is there any detail on what type of law enforcement and/or audit activities would justify the release of the personal information, or who exactly is authorized to make such a determination. An email to the Maryland Health Connection's media contact seeking clarification has not yet been answered The second privacy term that may prompt caution by users relates to email communications. The policy reads:

If you send us an e-mail, we use the information you send us to respond to your inquiry. E-mail correspondence may become a public record. As a public record, your correspondence could be disclosed to other parties upon their request in accordance with Maryland’s Public Information Act.

Since emails to the marketplace could conceivably involve private matters regarding finances, health history, and other sensitive issues, the fact that such information could be made part of the "public record" could prevent users from being as free with their information than they might otherwise be. However, as noted, any requests for such emails would still be subject to Maryland's Public Information Act which contains certain exceptions to the disclosure rules.

Read the fine print eh?

 These are such clear 4th and 5th amendment violations I can't believe anyone didn't immediately say "uh guys... we cant actually do this"...

... but as I said, we know that our elected and selected "lords and masters" don't give a damn about the 4th or 5th amendments (or really any of the others ones any time they become inconvenient).

So while I'm sure they were told they couldn't do it, I'm sure they said "ahh well the disclaimer and release is enough, we'll be fine".

 Yeah no.

 And as far as HIPAA goes... In reality these terms of use are not anywhere near an adequate HIPAA disclosure release, so using any of this data in any manner other than for healthcare purposes would be a federal offense.

At this point I'm basically a six, because one is true, except where I have to be a two

I'm not sure how often I can say this...

Or how much I can ephasize it... I've been delivering this message in every privacy and security training class I've delivered for over 10 years....

EMAIL ISN'T PRIVATE.... EVER! UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!

Never put private information, or send communications over the internet, unless it is in a secure, encrypted, controlled, and verified way; and in all steps of the end to end chain from senders eyeball to receivers eyeball, it stays that way. note: If you actually want email privacy, I recommend PGP for starters. 

Email, is almost exactly the opposite of that. The only way email could be any less private is if it automatically remailed itself out to hundreds of people, who might then forward it on to others.

I must have delivered this line 10,000 times by now... Never put anything in an email you wouldn't want published on the front page of the Washington Post....