

NITA:"we want to regulate the web" - yanw
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/presentations/2010/MediaInstitute_02242010.html

======
dantheman
I think this is a big mistake there is no need for any more government action,
until there is a serious problem it'd be best to let evolve on it's one. From
the article, here's a quick rebuttal to a few points: (* is there point, -- is
rebuttal)

* If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won’t use it.

\-- If users do not trust the system a new one will be rapidly developed to
ensure their trust; there is too much money involved for this to exist as
problem. Hell it could be as simple as credit cards being issued with a token
that generates valid numbers for given amounts -- one time use, and limit on
how much they can charge. If you don't get they item then you chargeback.

* If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.

\- They may threaten to stop putting it online, but it will only hurt them.
This is backwards thinking -- they're trying told hold back progress. This
seems like a way for them to force draconian drm on the populace.

* If large enterprises don’t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.

\-- This is probably the most responsible thing for them todo. Security is
hard, and if they cannot secure their network I don't see how that is anyone
else's problem. Of course prosecuting the criminals is the responsibility of
the government.

* If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet.

\-- Anyone can run DNS servers so this is not a problem. In fact we might see
new protocols/applications to manage mutli-dns system. Once again this is non
issue, if the machine has an ip address then it doesn't matter how you look it
up. Hell, we could make phone books full of them.

* Those are just some examples but I think this issue of trust applies to every actor on the Internet.

\-- Those are pretty poor examples of how the government might try to wedge
itself into the internet and destroy something awesome.

~~~
scott_s
Your comments make it sound like the author implied "we need to take action
about this." The surrounding text from those points:

 _I say yes but just as emphatically, I say that the government’s role need
not be one of a heavy-handed regulator. There’s little question that our
existing regulatory structures are poorly equipped to deal with these issues.
They are too slow, they are too backward looking, and they are too political
to be effective.

But it concerns me that in the absence of some level of government
involvement, we will lose the one thing that the Internet must have—not just
to thrive, but to survive—the trust of all actors on the Internet.

...

A good place for policymakers to start as we define our role and what our
actions should be is to preserve and maintain trust in the Internet.

...

At NTIA, we’re not a regulatory agency, but as the principal advisor to the
President on telecommunications and information policy, I think we have role
to play in preserving and building trust on the Internet._

He did not present those points above as places for the government to insert
itself. Rather, he identified those as places where trust is important. The
surrounding text states that he does not yet know what role government should
have in maintaining that trust, but it's something that needs to be explored.

~~~
yanw
What's most frustrating about this is that it's about copyright, it's a part
of a world wide trend initiated by the US Gov't that started in South Korea
and NZ, reached the EU with the changes in the UK and France are the most
apparent not to mention the secretive and scary ACTA negotiations. basically
what the gov't is saying is the Internet has done exceptionally well without
our meddling but because of the request of some special interests we will have
to take another approach.

------
electromagnetic
Regulating the internet is as stupid as trying to stop the tide. The internet
is beautiful because it's non-centralizing, simply put you have virtually no
legal jurisdiction to take action against anyone or any website, usually
because most are hosted outside of your country. However, every website owner
has full legal jurisdiction to sue you if they fuck with your website.
Basically put, you might own a few rivers but you don't own the ocean, do what
you want with your rivers but you won't get rid of the ocean.

Legislating against content or quality of service online will serve no
purpose. Someone phishing card numbers will simply move their operation
overseas to a country with no legal interest in the matter (in reality most
phishing operations are hosted from countries most people doubt even have the
internet). Once you start hitting websites of small businesses who can't meet
certain standards (access for the legally blind, etc) or securities or
whatever requirements are arbitrarily assigned, they'll simply host themselves
in a foreign country.

Introducing regulation into the internet will backfire dramatically, likely
forcing major closures of many server hosts in the US. Once even a small
percentage of users switch from US servers to foreign servers, then the US
server prices will begin to spike, once the prices are uncompetitive then the
US servers are closed. You've suddenly lost any ability to regulate anything.
I really can't see the introduction of legislation doing anything other than
making a country a no web development zone.

