It's a Mouse!

While I like the photo, and the likeness of Muammar is striking - the image perpetuates the misguided notion that the internet caused these revolutions.

While media attention may help to encourage these revolutionaries, it is their actions, and their sacrifices that are responsible, so I think the infectious idea of freedom, and the perseverance of the people involved are much more frightening to a dictator than the internet.

It's merely a tool. It worked for some, but not the Iranians.... yet.

Source: White Mice Know How To Scare Dictators

Hypocrite Hillary

The Blaspheme's Hypocrite of the Week is Hillary Clinton.

She went and gave a speech about setting up a fund to help internet rebellions, (as long as they're not domestic Tea Party types, of course) The U.S. will help “people in oppressive Internet environments get around filters, stay one step ahead of the censors, the hackers, and the thugs who beat them up or imprison them for what they say online,” she said yesterday.

Clinton announced the creation of a State Department office for Cyber Issues that will be headed by Christopher Painter, an official on President Barack Obama’s National Security Council and former federal prosecutor specializing in computer crime.

American government's leadership in the cause of online freedom seems a tad hampered by things like their handling of the Wikileaks situation and even the mere whisper of Congress implementing an Internet kill switch in the US.

Also, if American companies sell firewalls and tough crackdown software to dictators - and the tax dollars on the sale goes to the people being oppressed to fight that cyber oppression that we sold them - does that seem a tad bit off the charts of stupidity? Or is it merely the most convoluted way to spur industry, the way only an American can understand?

Genie Back In the Bottle?

Pentagon Demands Documents Back From Wikileaks, Wants Files Deleted

The Pentagon demanded that Wikileaks hand over classified Afghanistan war documents published leaked to the website.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell at Thursday's briefing said "the only acceptable course" is for Wikileaks to turn some 15,000 documents still being reviewed by the website back to the U.S. government and delete all the files from its website pertaining to the original nearly 92,000 documents posted July 25.

Read more ....

I'm guessing that the Pentagon doesn't understand how this whole internet thingy works?

Google Just Killed Net Neutrality

This morning's report that Google and Verizon are conspiring to create tiered internet service is an about face that redefines "do no evil" as "do the exact thing we've been saying was evil for four years."

It has the potential to forever change how you access the internet—and how much you pay for it.

Think of the internet as a highway. Right now, all lanes are open to everyone. Nice! That means there may be traffic jams sometimes—an Apple keynote, say, or the release of a Snookie-Bieber sex tape—but it's ultimately fair. Opponents to net neutrality—ISPs like Comcast and Verizon—want to create a special high-speed toll lane, where internet providers can decide what you'll be able to see and do on the internet, and how fast.

If that metaphor sounds familiar, it's because I ripped it off. Here's Google CEO Eric Schmidt back in 2006:

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.

So what happened since then? Well, a lot of complaining from corporations, but no real traction until the FCC manned up to make net neutrality the law of the land last fall. And Google was all for it, according their public policy blog:

The Internet was designed to empower users. Its open, "end-to-end" architecture means that users—not network providers or anyone else—decide what succeeds or fails online. It's a formula that has worked incredibly well, resulting in mind blowing innovation, incredible investment, and more consumer choice than ever.

So why is this even an issue? Because the FCC got blocked by the courts, neutering any real chance for net neutrality to be a regulated principle.

And while the government fumbled through alternate paths to preserve net neutrality, Google cozied up with Verizon to make sure those YouTube videos loaded faster than, say, Vimeo. Google couldn't beat the ISPs. So they joined them.

Here's who gets hurt when net neutrality dies: you, because you're forced into a tiered pricing structure (not unlike how you pay for extra cable channels today). Smaller content providers, who can't compete monetarily with monoliths like Google, and will be punished with slower load times for it. And innovation, generally, as control over what you see online gets consolidated even further into the hands of the internet oligarchy.

The only company with a big enough stick to help preserve net neutrality even without the FCC? That's Google. Or was, rather. But hey, at least all those highly relevant ads will be hitting your computer in record time.

In case this doesn't seem like such a big deal, take it from someone who knows a lot more about this than I do:

Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.

Oh, right. That's from Schmidt's letter, too. And what do you know! That number still works.

Send an email to Brian Barrett, the author of this post, at bbarrett@gizmodo.com.

Official New NSFW Advisory System

Internet Sales Tax

Massachusetts Rep. Bill Delahunt (re)introduced a bill called the "Main Street Fairness Act," which, not only is a stupid name for a bill, really ought to be called "Hey guys, I can't believe we're not taxing the Internet Act". The text of the bill still hasn't been released yet, but if passed, it would presumably set up a process where sales tax could be collected on purchases made over the Internet. As anyone who has shopped online over the past decade is probably aware, this has been an ongoing and thorny issue, since billions in online sales tax would provide a welcome revenue stream for States that are so deep in debt, they're making Greek debt look like a solid investment. California, Illinois I'm pointing and staring at both of you. I'll get to you next, New York.

Good old Internet sales tax, that Delahunt introduced way back in 2007 and that it's been an ongoing fight without much forward momentum as Audit the Fed... If you're for it, you can also take heart; as CNET notes, "With states scrambling for new sources of revenue during what may be a double-dip recession, pro-tax lobbyists are hoping that they'll have better luck this year."

"Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes" [CNET]

You know what, Mr. Delahunt, I go out of my way to make my purchases online to circumvent the cousin and cronies corruption tax. If you take that one method of protest away from me, I'm going to have to stop typing and start marching. And organizing. And you know what, you'll be on my list of incumbents to kick as far out of office as possible.

PS, You already got the internet kill switch - is this your idea of 'let's pour salt on it's grave?'

PPS, If you want to kill small businesses and innovation - this is better and quicker than mustard gas.

Internet Kill Switch

Meanwhile, while you were watching soccer...

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

Goodbye free speech. It was fun while it lasted.

Net Neutrality News

Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

Tuesday's ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast Corporation, the nation's largest and most hated cable company. It had challenged the F.C.C.'s authority to impose so called "net neutrality" obligations.

What it means is that a company can do business the way it wants to. What different internet providers worried about was having their info flow turned off for them. That is, a user or provider who uses huge amounts of bandwidth could be denied, and that could kill business.

Google and other big providers wanted the courts to say that the FCC could control the flow and guarantee that everyone has as much bandwidth as they want.

But, instead, the court ruled that a company like Comcast has every right to decide what data it carries.

To further illustrate the ruling, in the case that was before the Court, Comcast had made the business decision that Bit Torrent users were utilizing an undue amount of a limited asset, bandwidth, and in order to protect it’s network and allow the majority of it’s users to be able to do things like check their email without having to worry about the network going down because some 21 year old is using Bit Torrent to download a bootleg copy of Robot Chicken.

Since it’s Comcast’s network, the court has decided that they should have the right to decide how it’s used and to take action to protect it’s property and it’s other customers.

This is a victory for liberty and free speech, I don't understand how any sane person could want to give the FCC more power to regulate the Internet in the first place. But, there will be downsides to this ruling - get ready for a tiered internet bill.

Kanye Meme

We all know Kanye is a Douche, But this is going to far.

And of course, it's already an internet meme...