Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducimus
Personally, i fail to see how this is a bad thing.
|
Ususally bitter pills are sugar-coated.
While I was looking for the proposal, wondering why I couldn't find it, I found this (good) comment:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...sh-to-regulate
Quote:
|
With so much competition, freedom, and fluidity in the Web universe, it’s hard to believe the Federal Communications Commission may vote Tuesday on a largely secret proposal to impose tough strictures on the Internet.
|
secret proposal doen't sound good...
now I know why I couldn't find the proposal, even on the FCC site...
Here is a describtion of the rules they try to propose:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...exemptions.ars
Quote:
|
Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
|
This may sound ok on the first read, but the second half makes my stomach ache. For example this could lead that encryption could be made illegal...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betonov
Yeah !!! Media is bought, the internet is the only free source of unbiassed information (if you know how to dig trough junk). ******* the politican sweet talk, any law is writen so it can be abused when their political asses are in danger
|
Yup, but I like to differ: Any idiot can make a photo with his cam phone, write something under it and put it up on the web. Who of us has the resources to work on a story for several months, do the research, try to include several pov's, etc? This is what the quality media used to do, and some of it still do. The paper, which I cited before (CSM), was one of the few US newspapers that had their own net of correspondents and did not only copy agency news - a "journalism" which is common today.