Net Neutrality: New Dark Ages or No Big Deal?

What happened:

The sky is falling over net neutrality's imminent demise.

By the sound of the media headlines, civilization as we know it is at risk. Until now, the government has held off the apocalypse with one little regulation called net neutrality.

But in reality, the end of net neutrality just means Netflix might have to pay more for all the bandwidth it uses.

In 2015, the government enacted net neutrality laws. In the internet age it might be hard to think back that far. But if you try really hard, you might remember the internet existed prior to net neutrality. Entrepreneurs created Netflix, and the company grew before net neutrality.

In fact, net neutrality itself limits your choice for Internet Service Providers by classifying them as telecommunications instead of information services. This gives the government broad and arbitrary powers to regulate Internet Service Providers.

Net neutrality allowed the government to treat the internet like a utility. Do you want one electric company, one water company, and one internet company?

What this means:

We could debate the ins and outs of how exactly Internet Service Providers will react to the end of net neutrality. But this debate misses the point.

Businesses should be free to do what they want. If this means charging some websites more to service their traffic, so be it. In a competitive global world, there are plenty of options when you are unhappy with a service.

But in the world of net neutrality and government regulation of the internet, the choices are limited.

Sometimes this is the fault of local governments who restrict access to infrastructure. Sometimes it’s the FCC’s regulations. And sometimes it’s just not worth the money for an ISP to connect where you live.

But net neutrality doesn’t solve those problems. It is merely a bandaid on the first two. The root of the issue is still government intervention. And we want to solve this with more government intervention?

As for the third problem, ISP’s could expand their networks once net neutrality frees them from burdensome and costly regulations.

Upstart competitors will also not face barriers to entry. With net neutrality gone, we could be in for a pleasant surprise of more and better choices.


Without Net Neutrality Could Bitcoin Be a Target?

What happened:

Some media outlets are really pulling out all the stops to make sure the public fears the end of net neutrality.

One corner of the internet despises regulation. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency enthusiasts probably don’t care too much that the government is rolling back internet regulations.

But what if those regulations kept crypto-exchanges on an even playing field?

Some media outlets argue that without net neutrality, cryptocurrency exchanges, and even individual traders, could be an ISP target because of their slower traffic.

Or, an ISP could favor particular exchanges while others are throttled or blocked. What will crypto-advocates do?

What this means:

This is a variation of every other argument to keep net neutrality. What if ISPs favor one website over another?

And technically, an ISP could do this. But why would they? Their entire business is based around making sure consumers get the internet they want. If people are overwhelmingly in favor of net neutrality, then those same consumers can regulate their Internet providers through the market.

This really was not an issue before net neutrality, and it is unclear why everyone thinks it will be such an issue now.

Nice try to get the crypto-fans on board though. But with Bitcoin, we are talking about a global industry where technology is their native language. It seems unlikely that Internet Service Providers will bring them down.


Supreme Court Takes Up Landmark Privacy Case

What happened:

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, people stored their personal information at home. The Fourth Amendment states that everyone has the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

But now we store our data online. And the government argues because we voluntarily send our information to a third party, they don’t require a warrant to search this data.

The Supreme Court will decide if police need a warrant, or just an easier obtained court order to look through your data.

The case stems from police obtaining a man’s location data using court orders to look at Sprint and MetroPCS records. Then they used this data at trial to convict the man of a string of robberies.

The government argues that by agreeing to a third party service, the man had no reasonable expectation the information he gave the companies would remain private.

What this means:

Just because we store data via technology instead of a filing cabinet doesn’t mean we give up our privacy.

The whole argument is absurd. Can the government search self storage lockers without a warrant because we hired a third party to keep our personal effects?

The case is about location data stored with a cell phone company. They argue that sharing information with a company means you forfeit your expectation of privacy. So this means anything we do on the internet is not private, and the government can search this data. After all, we can’t use the internet without going through a third party.

Sure, when we share photos on a public forum like Facebook, there is no expectation of privacy. But what about when you search on Google? If the government prevails in this case, that would be information voluntarily shared with a third party. The government says you should not expect privacy in such a case.

Even when America’s founders penned the Fourth Amendment, some people surely stored important documents with third parties like lawyers and bankers. The documents were still personal property, and still subject to the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

If the Supreme Court goes the wrong way on this, we could lose all sorts of internet privacy.


Not Funny: Congress to Subpoena Comedian Over Russia Investigation

What happened:

He may be a comedian, but Congress’ subpoena is no joke.

The House Intelligence Committee asked Randy Credico to submit to a voluntary interview about the Russia investigation. They want information related to leaks of classified information. His testimony may play into allegations that Russian hackers influenced the 2016 election.

This may sound strange that a comedian would be involved in the alleged Russian plot to hack the 2016 elections.

But Credico is not just a comedian; he is also a journalist and radio show host. Credico is one of the few journalists to meet with Julian Assange while the WikiLeaks founder remains confined in a London-based Ecuadorian Embassy.

Credico declined the request for an interview. In response, Congress said they will subpoena him to force his testimony.

What this means:

This is a sinister development that appears intended to chill certain free speech and freedom of the press.

By intimidating anyone associated with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, Congress can continue to isolate Assange.

Meanwhile, the government sends a message to other journalists: by maintaining certain unwanted contacts, we’ll scrutinize you and your work.

This also lends further credence to the theory that the entire Russia investigation is a tool to punish and intimidate political opponents.

Credico, however, remains defiant. As a comedian, he says he’s worked tougher crowds than Congress.