On 2/28/2015 1:48 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
The bigger picture is (a) HOW they got this authority--self-defining
it in, and (b) the potential abuse and 4th amendment violations, not
just today's "foot in the door" details!
How they got the authority is through the Communications Act of 1934,
as passed and amended by our elected representatives in Congress, with
the approval of our elected President.
For roughly two decades of having a widely-publicly-used Internet,
nobody realized that they already had this authority... until suddenly
just now... we were just too stupid to see the obvious all those years,
right? And how nice that the people who decided that this authority
suddenly existed, are the ones who voted themselves that authority
(referring to the vote on Thursday), and will be wielding that authority.
Nobody has refuted my statement that their stated intentions for use of
this authority, and their long term application of that authority, could
be frighteningly different. What they say they will do for now... and
what they COULD do in the future if this power grab stands--without
anything more than another one of their little votes amongst
themselves--could be very very different.
FOR PERSPECTIVE... CONSIDER THIS HYPOTHETICAL: Suppose that the EPA was
given a statutory power to monitor air quality (which is likely true,
right)... decades later, a group of EPA officials have a little vote
amongst themselves and they decide that they now define the air INSIDE
your house is also covered by those same regulations and monitoring
directives for outside air. Therefore, to carry out their task of
monitoring the air inside your home, they conduct random warrent-less
raids inside your homes, thus violating your 4th amendment rights. If
the CO2 levels are too high (because someone likes to smoke), that
person then gets fined, or their house gets bulldozed, etc. When asked
about how they get that authority, someone like Lamar Owen points out
that Congress gave them this authority in such-in-such clean air act
past so many decades ago.
I know that hypothetical example is even more preposterous than this net
neutrality ruling... but probably not that much more! (in BOTH cases,
the power grab involves an intrusion upon privately-owned space.. using
a statute that was originally intended for public space)
But the bigger picture isn't what the FCC STATES that they will do now..
it is what unelected FCC officials could do, with LITTLE accountability,
in the future. Arguing for/against this power grab... only based on what
they say they will do for now, is very naive. Future generations may ask
us, "why didn't you stop this?" When we answer, "well, it wasn't
implemented as badly when it first started". They'll reply, "but you
should have checked to see how far this could go once that power grab
was allowed (or ignored!)"
--
Rob McEwen
