
FCC Proposes Changing Comment System After WSJ Found Thousands of Fakes - electic
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-proposes-rebuilding-comment-system-after-thousands-revealed-as-fake-1531315654
======
peterwwillis
Some background:

28 senators, and the New York Attorney General, had to tell Pai to stop the
FCC voting on new rules last year because of all the fraudulent comments. The
fake comments were made apparent over a year ago.
[https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-
bots-s...](https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-bots-
senators-letter/)

The FCC refused to provide records to the NY AG in order to investigate the
possibility of fake comments. In other words, the NY AG was the only part of
the government investigating the fake comments, and the FCC actively worked
against investigating them.
[https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/12/10/0037222/fcc-
refuses...](https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/12/10/0037222/fcc-refuses-
records-for-investigation-into-fake-net-neutrality-comments)

Pai's office issued this response to calls to delay the vote:

    
    
      This is just evidence that supporters of heavy-handed Internet
      regulations are becoming more desperate by the day as their effort
      to defeat Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom has stalled.
      The vote will proceed as scheduled on December 14.
    

As promised, the FCC voted to repeal Net Neutrality.

And now, 7 months later, the FCC is saying there were fraudulent comments, and
maybe they should redesign their website.

~~~
craftyguy
So basically, it doesn't really matter if comments are fake or legitimate, if
pai is going to ignore them anyways.

~~~
MBCook
They’re also going to drop unofficial complaints against ISPs. You’ll have to
pay the $230 to make an official complaint if you think they’re doing
something illegal.

~~~
RIMR
Making people pay to report illegal activity is just insane. This is literal
fascism - and I'm not just being hyperbolic.

~~~
andybak
> This is literal fascism - and I'm not just being hyperbolic. reply

Tragic that you have enough insight to realise you might be misusing either
"literal" or "fascism" and not enough to pull yourself back from the brink...

I know "fascism" has been misused to the point of meaninglessness but can we
all agree there has to be at least a small amount of - I don't know - death or
torture involved - before we wheel out the big guns?

~~~
jerkstate
Here's a summary of Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto, lifted directly from
Wikipedia:

Politically, the Manifesto calls for:

Universal suffrage with a lowered voting age to 18 years, and voting and
electoral office eligibility for all age 25 and up; Proportional
representation on a regional basis; Voting for women (which was then opposed
by most other European nations); Representation at government level of newly
created national councils by economic sector; The abolition of the Italian
Senate (at the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by
process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct
appointments by the king. It has been described as a sort of extended council
of the crown); The formation of a national council of experts for labor, for
industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc.
Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative
powers, and elected directly to a general commission with ministerial powers.

In labor and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday
for all workers; A minimum wage; The participation of workers' representatives
in the functions of industry commissions; To show the same confidence in the
labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to
industry executives or public servants; Reorganization of the railways and the
transport sector; Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance; Reduction
of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:

Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive
responsibilities; Armaments factories are to be nationalized; A peaceful but
competitive foreign policy. In finance, the Manifesto advocates:

A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of
concentrated wealth); The seizure of all the possessions of the religious
congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an
enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor; Revision
of all contracts for military provisions; The revision of all military
contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

~~~
Latteland
Okay, but he came with a healthy dose of putting people in prison, murder,
actions in Africa that were reprehensible. I'm not sure I get your point.
Facism's official goals don't match what they did?

~~~
jerkstate
My point is that "fascism" is used interchangably for "oppressive government"
when it's not the same thing. There are many systems of government that put
people in prison, murdered, and did bad things in Africa besides fascism.
What's _your_ point?

~~~
nkozyra
While this is a fair point for general systems of government, in this case you
have to reconcile the creator's words with his actions.

You have to take the whole story here. If I create a document that describes
my system of governance as X but execute it as Y isn't it disingenuous to
ignore Y?

~~~
jerkstate
Really I was making a point about the definition of fascism and how it's mis-
applied these days. But if you want to talk about how it has been executed,
history shows us when people cede so many of their natural rights to the
state, even for good causes or causes that sound good, it's just a matter of
time before those powers granted to the state by its people are abused by
agents of the state.

------
aresant
I think this is an interesting problem to solve.

The FCC, and other government agencies that require input from Citizens, need
to know the comments they are getting are from actual citizens aka taxpayer
id, aka social security #.

As a Citizen I'd want to submit comments with some superficial guarantee of
anonymity. EG the bureaucrats can't attach my comments to my name, only my
comments to a valid US Citizen. (1)

As a mechanism for verification there should be a preliminary "two-factor"
registration system via postal mail to verified citizen addresses. And a
secondary "two-factor" to execute comments.

Will this cut down on the discourse? Dramatically.

Will it improve the integrity of the comments? Absolutely.

Will the politicians still ignore the desires of its constituents vs special
interests? No question.

 __ _This has been a paid ad by the People For Campaign Finance Reform._ __

(1) Of course the NSA is watching everything anyways, and probably reading our
minds with lazer brain topography rays, but we 'll leave that concern out for
now.

~~~
Edmond
They should consider something like this:

[https://www.cipheredtrust.com/using-
irs/](https://www.cipheredtrust.com/using-irs/)

Every citizen can generate cryptographic certs that they can verify their
identities with, even anonymously.

~~~
mjevans
The proper way of doing this is to have a trusted* (because the process is
open, monitored, and audited) observer (probably run by the government) that
consumes messages enciphered to it which contain a signed delegation. It would
then (daily, weekly?) release a signed batch of public keys with designated
metadata.

Metadata might include simple yes/no statements or very short string tags.

    
    
        * Country
        * State/Provence
        * County/Locality
        * City
        * Is Locally Contract Age
        * Is Locally Unrestricted Purchases (alcohol/tobacco/etc)
        * Is a Driver
        * Is a Voter (might not be registered or might be serving time for crimes)
        * etc
    

Ideally someone would have a unique key for each slot, and of course their
primary (high security) civic key could be used for cases where proof of
identity is required anyway.

~~~
inetknght
No. Including this metadata would make it trivial to de-anonymize.

~~~
mjevans
You've misunderstood the way to publish the data:

"These keys are X" (for each type of metadata flag).

If a given user keeps their metadata keys operationally separate from their
full ID, and also updates them at random intervals, then it would be possible
to have unique 'cards' (of sorts) for each given type of check.

The locality specific checks imply outer levels, obviously, but different keys
might still be desired and it would be best practice for all to keep different
keys to make it harder to de-identify by virtue of being one of the paranoid
users.

~~~
throwawaymath
To be clear, in a world where people still haven't solved password security,
you're proposing a solution that has people generating multiple functionally
composable metadata keys in order to retain anonymity on an otherwise massive
public ledger?

The original problem is that it's too easy to make fake comments on a basic
website. You're talking about users keeping their metadata keys "operationally
separate from their full IDs" and "updating them at random intervals." How did
we get here?

~~~
mjevans
Yeah, that's not even the hard part for the average user...

How could (should?) they use these things securely? You need to trust the
hardware that's handling the keys too.

I can't escape the need for something like a no-closed-blobs dongle that
/only/ does digital wallet stuff (and maybe storing files) which MUST have at
least a method for the user to read the text of what they're signing, and if
it has that use that to also control the 'presentation mode' of that device to
the attached system.

------
chasing
I'm glad they're looking into fixing their comment system, but:

Fake. Not fake. The comments wren't a vote -- they were comments. If anything
they should be used to add ideas to the mix. Things that may have been
overlooked. People who might be impacted but haven't been considered. And
smart, well-meaning people should've synthesized those into useful and not
useful piles to _help_ inform their decision.

The core problem is that Ajit Pai was determined to ignore _all_ signal from
people who supported Net Neutrality.

~~~
briandear
However, based on what you just said, the pro-NN people might ought to
consider other views as well. The pro-NN crowd is guilty of one-sided thinking
and has had no interest in actually considering other viewpoints. So the FCC
should consider everyone’s comments, but then regardless of those comments,
uphold NN anyway? Is that what I’m reading?

Regarding the ignoring NN supporters — at least a few of those supporters
engaged in credible death threats against Pai and his children. At that point,
I’d be done. I would give no credence to the pro-NN side if they are going to
threaten my children. As soon as some NN supporters started acting like racist
jackasses, that point of view ceased to matter to me.

~~~
patient_zero
As a pro-NN person, I'd appreciate a _good_ explanation of the benefits of
removing NN that reflects the current reality of the situation. If you could
kindly explain to this one-sided thinker why Pai seems like he just does the
bidding of the companies he used to, likely will again, and (one would argue)
currently works for, that would be a boon to my jackass brain.

Thanks in advance for your hard and thankless work.

~~~
benlorenzetti
Its really a very simple argument, for me at least: this shouldn't be
regulated at the federal level. State and city regulations (or even outright
ownership) are fine though. Heck the cities literally own the streets.

Beyond that, how did the net neutrality policy makes sense? If two parties
want to communicate with each other, why does it matters which side gets what
percentage of the bill? It makes sense for the health of the network for big
companies like Netflix to have business relationships with the ISPs to push
the servers closer to the edges. The main argument for net neutrality is they
are monopolies so we should beat them up, but I fail to see how net neutrality
does that.

You read a lot about the FCC chairman's bad motives (who can say, maybe
true?), yet in the same opinion piece the author will want him to have more
legal power over the conduits of free speech and media.

~~~
brandonjm
> It makes sense for the health of the network for big companies like Netflix
> to have business relationships with the ISPs to push the servers closer to
> the edges.

From what I've read, (I haven't followed it too closely as I'm not from the
US) the issue is that repealing NN enables an ISP to throttle Netflix for
users who don't pay more for (for example) a 'Media' plan WITHOUT even needing
to make a deal with Netflix. Monopolies then become a problem because certain
areas of the US can only get connection with one ISP, so there is no room for
them to choose a better option if their only available ISP starts charging
through the roof for access to specific websites.

I could be completely wrong, but this is what I took away from most of the
pro-NN arguments.

~~~
benlorenzetti
>> >> If two parties want to communicate with each other, why does it matters
which side gets what percentage of the bill? It makes sense for the health of
the network for big companies like Netflix to have business relationships with
the ISPs to push the servers closer to the edges.

>> ...the issue is that repealing NN enables an ISP to throttle Netflix for
users who don't pay more for (for example) a 'Media' plan WITHOUT even needing
to make a deal with Netflix. Monopolies then become a problem because certain
areas of the US can only get connection with one ISP, so there is no room for
them to choose a better option if their only available ISP starts charging
through the roof for access to specific websites.

These are essentially equivalent statements, no? On the one hand ISPs want
Netflix to pay them, and on the other hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them.

Again I want to reiterate, for me this is all about the 1st amendment to the
Constitution. I would love for the telecom monopolies to get broken up.

~~~
wtallis
> On the one hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them, and on the other hand ISPs
> want Netflix to pay them.

Not at all. On the one hand, ISPs want Netflix to pay them because Netflix is
a source of high traffic volume. On the other hand, ISPs want Netflix to pay
them because Netflix is a competitor to their own video services, and Netflix
happens to be a source of high traffic volume because it's a better video
service for the money. _Metered_ pricing isn't the evil we're trying to
prevent, _discriminatory_ pricing is the problem.

If it's just metered pricing on the table, then the market will always choose
the simpler option of the full bill being paid by the last-mile subscriber,
rather than a needlessly complex system of trying to bill at both ends of the
network.

~~~
benlorenzetti
I still find the two statements equivalent if you ignore the positive and
negative sounding spin. As you point out, the market will always choose the
simpler option. How could an ISP have a business relationship with every
server in the world, even those not physically being on its fiber? It can't
its an explosion of complexity, so an ISP has to discriminate against a couple
big, identifiable companies.

If the pro net-neutrality position was something to break up the telecom
monopolies, I'd be all for it.

~~~
wtallis
> so an ISP has to discriminate against a couple big, identifiable companies.

No, they don't. They already have paying customers, and infrastructure to
credit packets to those customers' quota/bill. There's no need to expend any
effort tracking the other end of the connections, even if some targets are
relatively easy to identify. They have everything they need to bill a
responsible party for cost increases due to heavy traffic, without trying to
single out (read: extort) companies like Netflix in a monopoly-abusing
fashion.

~~~
benlorenzetti
Why do you think we have a right to interfere in the business and choose how
they make money and administer the network? Because they are a monopoly? Then
I agree we should break them up. Because they are a utility? Then I agree
cities and states should regulate or own them. Federal Net Neutrality does
none of these things.

What about extremely bloated news sites that clearly spend no effort
decreasing data size? Should end customers just pay for that lack of
incentive?

~~~
wtallis
Why are you unwilling to accept any regulatory recourse to monopoly abuse
aside from breaking up the monopolies?

Last-mile ISPs are always a natural monopoly at the neighborhood level,
regardless of whether they are part of a multi-state conglomerate or a local
entity. The monopoly needs to be regulated no matter what the larger ownership
structure is. Many local governments do not have the capital or technical
capability to build, own or operate an ISP, and there are clear advantages to
consolidating the ownership and administration of the network, provided that
it is still subjected to effective regulation.

~~~
benlorenzetti
So city/state ownership and state level regulation? Sounds good, no first
amendment trouble there.

------
gruez
>Among the changes proposed by the senators and accepted by Mr. Pai was to
require commenters to fill out a Captcha—a system designed to prove humans
rather than bots provided the information.

Great, so instead of costing $0 to post 100,000 fake comments, it costs $200
($2/1000 solves is the going rate on captcha farms)

~~~
sarah180
Don't underestimate the magnitude of the difference in skills & knowledge
required to script an HTTP request vs. buy Captcha solves. Basically everybody
in America would know a friend who could help them submit an HTTP form in a
loop. I don't think everybody in America would know somebody who knows how to
orchestrate the contracting of a Captcha farm.

Any discussion of security should include a discussion of the threat model. A
captcha is quite effective at dissuading abuse by casual or unsophisticated
parties. It's not at all effective against a sophisticated and well-funded
adversary.

~~~
RIMR
[https://anti-captcha.com/](https://anti-captcha.com/)

Done. All I had to do was Google it.

You really don't think that the kind of people who want to swing policies
affecting a multibillion dollar industry wouldn't be able to get some office
workers in India to solve Captchas?

------
javagram
Adding a captcha seems nice but will hardly prevent fake comments.

I doubt there is any online comment system that could prevent people’s names
from being misused really. It’s not like we have a national ID card with
private crypto keys issued to every citizen or something.

How are you supposed to verify someone’s identity online without going through
a laborious and expensive process (e.g. an in person interview, or requiring
upload of a state or military ID number that is then used to send a postcard
to the address on file asking for verification) that would then be criticized
as discouraging public comment?

~~~
swebs
>It’s not like we have a national ID card with private crypto keys issued to
every citizen or something.

Good luck with that. Every so often it is suggested that voters should verify
their identity when going to the polls. Just presenting a drivers license,
passport, state ID or social security card should suffice. It's a similar
policy as in many European countries. And every time, there is a huge number
of people who oppose it. A very surprising amount of otherwise reasonable
people fight tooth and nail against any forms of verification.

~~~
gascan
I know there are lots of rational arguments, but it's still funny to picture a
vocal, outspoken radical voter worrying that if ID was required, the
government might be able to figure out they voted for the vocal, outspoken
radical candidate.

(I assume it's the more outspoken, more radical voters who do most of the
objecting to ID laws- as it is typically those voters that get involved in
just about any policy fight)

~~~
s73v3r_
I've never heard the idea that opposition is because of government finding out
who you voted for. I've always heard it be a case of voter suppression.

------
philipodonnell
> Alex Howard, an open-government advocate and founder of e-PluribusUnum.org,
> which has urged safeguards in the comment system, said the FCC fixes are a
> small step. “Adding a Captcha to try to prevent spam, unfortunately, sounds
> like a solution from the last millennium to a decidedly 21st century set of
> problems,” Mr. Howard said.

What they really need to do is check to see if the referral header is also
from the FCC site to make sure people are using the website and not just
hitting the API.

/s

~~~
tmp3456
Ahh yes! and check the IP to make sure it is not just someone from a single
computer faking the referral header.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/HLBOW](http://archive.is/HLBOW)

~~~
mcguire
Thanks!

------
thecosas
If anyone wants to help make US government systems better:

[https://code.gov/#/help-wanted](https://code.gov/#/help-wanted)

[https://www.codeforamerica.org/](https://www.codeforamerica.org/)

~~~
mr_spothawk
interestingly, codeforamerica has no posted openings for software developers.

~~~
thecosas
Check for other CFA opportunities here:

[https://www.codeforamerica.org/join-us/partner-with-
us](https://www.codeforamerica.org/join-us/partner-with-us)

[https://www.codeforamerica.org/join-us/partner-with-
us](https://www.codeforamerica.org/join-us/partner-with-us)

------
paul7986
Umm this is an internet problem .. as long as their isn’t a verified identity
system on the web then fake comments/news will remain an issue.

Either govt mandated or something the public embarrasses something commercial
like twitter verified identities where posting anonymously no longer holds any
weight vs. using your verified Twitter identity.

------
msumpter
I may be cynical but when I read they want a new system to create 'safeguards
against abusive conduct', I really think they mean they want a system to
suppress the sudden influx of actual public opinions (similar to that of the
rush of traffic Last Week Tonight referred during their segment on Net
Neutrality) and not flood out the machine driven comments supporting their
decisions.

~~~
imglorp
I'll see your cynicism and raise you.

Next up: pay-to-play/kickback-dealing single source contractor (crony?)
brought in to make a new system, over budget and years late.

~~~
iamdave
Is Diebold still around? Gimme five on Diebold by decision.

------
makecheck
Kinda sad that a group with “communications” in its very name was able to let
communication break down so much.

There is no way to “rebuild” a comment system without solving more fundamental
security problems first, as it is simply too hard to believe what you read
online.

Some ideas:

\- Costs have to be _ingrained in the system_. It can’t be “easy” to spout
crap in forums, nor should the hurdles be resolvable through traditional
advantages (like having enough money to pay lots of people). One example would
be: in order to post, you must donate X CPU cycles to Y.

\- Webs of trust, one of which would be run by the government itself, seem
like a reasonable step toward being able to partially verify where stuff even
comes from. The webs must be decentralized so they are hard to bias, where the
reliability of a circle is decided by the network at large. If Anonymous
Poster X doesn’t have many reliable circles associated, that is equivalent to
“take this comment with a grain of salt” (if not “ignore this drivel”).

------
upofadown
The federal government had already decided to get rid of net neutrality so the
number of comments for or against it was irrelevant at that point. So this
strikes me as a whole lot of who gives a damn and is a distraction from the
actual issue.

There seems to be a weird tendency to use the regulator (FCC) as a scapegoat
and to give the actual people making the unpopular decisions a free pass. It's
as if the actual political process has become entirely invisible...

------
duxup
Someone had a site where you could search to see if your name was used when it
came to the Net Neutrality comments. I was horrified to find mine was on there
.... then I realized no wait. I actually did sign a thing about it and it
appeared to be an appropriate comment that was associated with a petition that
I agreed with. I think, it was actually hard to tell....

------
natch
Let me guess... Ajit Pai has a brother / brother in law / sister / somebody
who happens to own an IT consulting firm.

------
jorblumesea
A new comment system won't cure any of their ailments. So long as Pai and
other industry lobbyists remain at the helm of the very organization that
polices them, nothing will change. This is true for every agency of this
administration. A coal lobbyist is running the EPA. A cable lobbyist is
running the FCC. etc etc.

~~~
nojvek
Stuff like this really makes me think the next economic collapse is right
around the corner.

America has become the kind of Govt the founding fathers hated for it to
become.

The issue is, it’s the lesser of evils compared to other countries. We have a
long way to go before we sort out better ways to govern nations of a planet.

~~~
jorblumesea
Victim of its own success. Money and power corrupt both parties. Inability to
rein in corruption produced just more corruption.

------
godelski
But didn't they KNOW which comments were fake? Or that at least an estimate?
Captchas don't stop internal malice. That's why everyone was mad. It was easy
to tell it was happening and a large number of comments could be identified as
fake. This more seems like they are trying to save face.

------
blackflame7000
I guess they discovered you can't really make $8000 a week working from home
part-time online.

------
Reedx
Or maybe, what if policy decisions were made based on experts?

Not internet comments or lobbyists or donors.

~~~
glitcher
Sounds reasonable, except it would still backfire when those in power believe
their "feelings" are more important than widely acknowledged and vetted
scientific data like many appointed in the current administration. And when
need be, any corrupt official can buy an "expert" to tout whatever point of
view fits them.

------
wnevets
After the fake comments Ajit Pai wanted to be submited, now they want to fix
it?

------
baby
Here is another article without a paywall:
[http://thehill.com/policy/technology/396490-fcc-proposes-
to-...](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/396490-fcc-proposes-to-overhaul-
comment-filing-system)

Note that this is an effort to post alernative sources when one is behind a
paywall.

~~~
fwdpropaganda
Firefox extension to bypass WSJ and FT paywall

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/read-ft-
wsj/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/read-ft-wsj/)

~~~
darkstar999
Or just prepend any url with "archive.is/"

[https://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-
proposes...](https://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-proposes-
rebuilding-comment-system-after-thousands-revealed-as-fake-1531315654)

------
dr_teh
Yes because Sybil attacks are trivial to fix right

------
freeone3000
Oh really. No shit. How about that.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

