If it’s right for them to regulate content of TV and radio, then why not newspapers and blogs and the Internet in general?  Why are they different?

Governmental regulation of these has nothing to do with anything except controlling a mass medium of information dissemination.  They can shut down anything they need to when they need to when it comes down to it. Do you want them to have that same control over the Internet?  Too many people are looking at this in a shortsighted way.  They don’t want companies to be able to prioritize traffic, yet they don’t want the FCC or any other government agency to control any other part of the Internet.  You don’t get it both ways when dealing with the government.   Haven’t you learned that yet?  Apparently not.

It’s just like the Patriot Act.  You are willing to give up your freedom for some sense of security, and you are willing to give up the free and open internet for some sense that you have some control over mass media companies like Google and Verizon.  Either way you won’t have the control you want but the government will.  It’s simply a very bad idea.

Last month, 35 Tea Party groups came out against net neutrality in a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The letter accused the FCC of “relentlessly pursuing a massive regulatory regime” that would stifle the growth of the Internet.

The FCC is considering a move to boost its authority over broadband providers through a controversial process known as reclassification. The process could give federal regulators the power to impose net-neutrality rules, which would prevent Internet access providers from favoring some content and applications over others.

via Net-neutrality group challenged by ties to MoveOn.Org, ACORN – The Hill’s Hillicon Valley.

On the misuse of information for criminal or anti-social purposes:
“The only way to manage this is true transparency and no anonymity. In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it.”

via Google CEO Schmidt: “People Aren’t Ready for the Technology Revolution”.

Will the Web get faster, or just more expensive? That’s the issue at the heart of the “net neutrality” debate.

Content providers and creators are teaming up to optimize the delivery of certain types of information, notably bandwidth heavy video files. This may ease demand on over-taxed service providers, but could lead to a tiered Internet, where consumers pay more for certain types of content.

And Google and Verizon

may be working to make it happen.

The companies are close to finalizing a proposal for network

neutrality rules, which would dictate how broadband providers treat Internet traffic flowing over their lines, according to a story in the New York Times.

A deal could be announced within days, said a person familiar with the deal, who did not want to be identified because negotiations are still ongoing.

A Google spokesman promptly refuted the story, however.

“The New York Times is quite simply wrong,” wrote Mistique Cano in an e-mail to Computerworld. “We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet.”

via FOXNews.com – Google, Verizon Near Plan to Created Tiered Internet.

In that situation, shut down your browser as soon as possible, then do a full virus and malware scan of your computer before you do anything else.  I use Zonealarm Extreme Security on all my computers and it does a good job of blocking virus and malware attacks from websites, Internet worms, and email.  It also has a junk mail filter that works really well included.  As a backup, I also use Malwarebytes Anti-Malware from malwarebytes.org.  The free version works great and will find most things that a lot of other programs may miss.

After you’ve cleaned up your system, you should always report the site to at least Google so that others don’t stumble upon the website and get infected as well.  You can report hacked websites to Google here.

Another great site to report hacked websites to is badwarebusters.org.  They act as a repository for sites like this and notify other companies and sites via regular updates.

Are you worried about your rights being violated?  You are in the minority apparently if you answered yes.

Sprint, it turns out, has been routinely handing over GPS information on its customers to law enforcement for some time. So commonplace is the practice that Sprint has setup an automated system for law enforcement to check on subscriber whereabouts (apparently even without a court order).

Sprint coughed-up GPS information to law enforcement eight million times last year. Not on eight million users, Sprint is quick to point out. Rather law enforcement can request GPS information on any particular user every three minutes for up to 60 days. (After that Sprint doesn’t say what happens.)

And Sprint isn’t the only one handing out information about you.

Yahoo and Verizon also provide law enforcement access to customer information. Neither company will discuss the nature or extent of law enforcement surveillance for fear their customers would be “shocked” or “confused” by what types of surveillance law enforcement is permitted. Verizon further justifies its secrecy in the matter saying it doesn’t want to commit resources to dealing with customers that might be concerned with its practices.

The willingness, if not eagerness of companies, such as Yahoo and Verizon, and Comcast and Cox Communications, to ‘rat’ you out is easily explained: they get paid for the service they provide. Comcast, for example, in 2007 charged $1,000 for the first month of a wiretap, and $750 each month after. Cox Communications charges $2,500 for a 60-day pen register/trap-and-trace order, with each successive 60-day interval going for $2,000. Yahoo wouldn’t divulge its pricing scheme, claiming it was “confidential commercial information.” All-in-all, it’s better than 30 pieces of silver.

(Law enforcement’s activities here may well be legitimate. But how can we be certain if, as it appears, there is no system for accountability?)

Pretty Awesome if you ask me:

Security firm FireEye has reportedly struck a massive blow against spam. The so called “Mega-D” or “Ozdok” spam botnet was effectively dismantled by these intrepid security researchers. After studying the beast, FireEye launched an attack by notifying ISPs, having command and control (CnC) domains removed, and then registering unused CnC domains.

Almost immediately, the spam ceased. No small feat, considering Ozdok was probably responsible for one third of the world’s spam. This takes the load off ISPs which were forced to filter the spam from this botnet. Individual users probably won’t notice much difference.

Americans in particular are so used to freedom that we freely give out information that can very easily be used against us.  For instance, security questions to change email passwords can be found on most people’s personal websites or blogs or even just by asking them.  Hey, what’s your mother’s maiden name, etc…

Be careful out there.

The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see “fishy” information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say.

“The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it,” Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday.

“There’s also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can’t try to rewrite history by pretending it didn’t receive anything,” he said.

“If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute.”

Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon’s resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.

This president more than any in history has feared and tried to squash dissent.  If you disagree, you are the enemy and are to be feared.  When will it become a crime to speak out against our great savior or should I say “Great Leader”?  only time will tell I suppose.  After he becomes our “Eternal President”?

It’s also completely free by the way. Protect your family and your computers from the Internet by using this free service like I do.