Net Neutrality Hypocrisy over Government Monitoring
How could the government actually enforce net neutrality’s mandate requiring equal treatment of Internet traffic without mass government monitoring and surveillance of average Americans’ Internet behavior? Hypocritically, those most indignant about the Bush Administration’s NSA phone call database monitoring are often the most vocal supporters of government mandated and enforced net neutrality. If government monitoring and surveillance of communications is not warranted to fight terrorism, how do they justify it to enforce a lesser priority of ensuring commercial net neutrality for e-commerce websites?
Net neutrality proponents have yet to explain how the government would be expected to detect, deter, enforce and/or prove unfair treatment of Internet traffic without systematic monitoring and surveillance of Americans’ Internet behavior? The House Net Neutrality Bill announced recently by Rep. Ed Markey would protect e-commerce interests from network competitors, but it has no mention of safeguards for Americans privacy from unwarranted government monitoring or surveillance.
If net neutrality proponents really do care about American’s privacy, why are there no net neutrality privacy safeguards in their legislation? Given Americans concerns for their privacy, how would net neutrality work in practice? What limits would there be on government monitoring and surveillance of an average American’s Internet behavior?
Good Point
I agree all the proponents of net neutrality say is that they want the government to step in and monitor the internet. They have not set clear parameters as to how much government involvement will be involved if the legislation passes. That means that the government good cite this legislation any time they want to step in and get involved in every little "problem" they find.
Effectiveness of NN
I agree, it would be just about impossible to try and enforce some sort of net neutrality legislation. In a best case scenario the FCC would rely upon complaints by content providers (though this could easily become despotic). In a worst case scenario it would require a massive oversight program the likes of which would cost billions in tax payer money with the only effect being higher costs for the consumer.
Lesser of all evils?
Who trusts the noble intentions of a corporation? More and more, not even the people working for that corporation. But who has faith in the government to manage anything? Their high-minded idealism has given us several well-managed systems already... Medicare, Social Security... Worse, the government has no one to answer to but itself (and the vast monies received from special interests). Who do we run to if they abuse the power we give them over the Internet?
It's not that I doubt that there are some in our government who actually have the best interests of the citizenry at heart, but bureaucracy is bureaucracy, and less altruistic segments of the government have wanted to get their hands on the Internet for years.
Corporations have the consumer to answer to. If they abuse the powers they're given, the consumer will punish them. If they abuse it too much or too often, then the government can always be called in as a last resort. But I think it's important to keep the Feds up our sleeve, because once we let them in the game it'll be impossible to get them out again.
Great Post! I think it is
Great Post! I think it is fitting that the left would be perfectly content with monitoring and regulating personal internet use, especially when no problem currently exists, but through a fit if the right did the same thing to preserve national security.
Thanks for the posting.
Thanks for the posting. This puts a different spin on this topic from other sites I have seen and really hits home for people like me - the consumer! But then again, why aren't we surprised? This isn't about privacy at all, but about control of the Internet, and my question is, do we really want that in the hands of the government? Since when did they become experts on the Internet?
Just think...
of the bureaucracy that we'd need to enforce something like that! We don't need that much government...it's a shame that so many people still see it as the answer to any problem. The internet is working just fine, I agree with all of you folks that government can only make it worse.
Another reason
Yet another reason to oppose net neutrality. I hadn't considered the issue from this perspective but I think you make a lot of sense. Thanks.
I hadn't thought about it
You make a good point. I hadn't considered net neutrality in terms of consumer privacy before. It's funny how our elected officials seem more interested in protecting the rights of their corporate partners, but have conveniently forgotten to take their constituents' rights into consideration. I hope more people begin to see the risks associated with allowing the government control of the internet.
Agreed
I agree completely. It is very ironic that those who are willing to entrust our entire Internet economy to governmental forces are so leary about that same government monitoring, say, terrorists. It's time for folks to see this issue for what it is, simply another example of those who do not believe in the value of free markets trying to secure more regulatory control over another industry. We oughtn't buy into this plan.