Baby Joseph given a reprieve, re-ignites debate over Obamacare health rationing

The baby at the center of what has become an international flash-fire debate on the right to life and to what extent public authorities (as opposed to individuals and families) should decide who lives and dies and “merits” the graces of the government to receive medical treatment that may prolong their life has received a reprieve and reignited a debate on the risks of health care rationing in modern industrial societies increasingly turning to socialized medicine.

Joseph Maraachli, the son of Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader who originally only wished for their son who suffers from a genetically rare disorder to be given a tracheotomy-- a common medical procedure whereby a breathing tube is inserted to enable breathing by a person who is temporarily unable to breathe through their mouth-- in order to allow him to return home with them and die a peaceful death as his sister who had the same disorder did 7 years ago. (Regarding the tracheotomy itself you'll recall the same procedure was performed on Congresswomen Gabby Giffords after being shot in the head by mentally deranged gunman Jared Loughner in the Tuscon Shootings, see Dubya Dupnik post, Dec. 10, 2010 on this blog).


However, under Canada's social medicine system London Ontario's “Health and Science Center,” a regulated health provider in London Ontario, Canada had refused, claiming the operation would be a "futile" waste of resources on the boy who they claimed was in a terminal “persistent vegetative state.”


Moreover, eager to pull the plug, they went to court in an effort to procure an order to force the removal of all medical assistance from the child resulting in issuance from the London Ontario Superior Court of a court order for the parents to “consent to the removal” of their child's breathing tube. This is where international charitable and right to life organization Priests for Life came in.


PFL began a focused social media effort highlighting such heavy-handed tactics and open contempt of the boy's parents to determine the appropriate treatment for their son and moreover, seemed to force them to violate their consciences by ordering them to “consent” to ending their child's life. (Indeed, such tactics call to mind the tragic Florida case of Terry Schiavo, an American, who, upon expressing intentions to leave her relationship with her husband Michael whom her parents, best friend, and some medical evidence suggested had been abusing her, see here,  and here, mysteriously ended up dead after the suspicious collapse of Ms. Schiavo which was originally assigned to be investigated by homicide detectives got "bumped down" by a police commander who had interestingly donated campaign funds to the Florida judge who ruled over the matter, see here).  Although I realize this may seem a slight digression from the baby Joseph story give me a moment and I'm sure you will see the connection.

The dangers of giving government too much power over health care- The Terri Schiavo and baby Joseph Stories 


  Although widespread media accounts listed the reason for Terri Schiavo's collapse as due to being caused by a "heart attack" brought on by the eating disorder bulemia, not so widespread were the facts of various ongoing state investigations into her husband's alleged abuse which were halted by the court, see here, and the fact there was no way for doctors to conclusively determine the cause of Terri's "heart attack" at the time in light of her husband's absolute control over her medical care and his obstructions of any procedure that could possibly rehabilitate Terri or yield more definitive answers about her sudden collapse.


  Indeed, it was only after her death that an autopsy conducted by Pinellas County medical examiner Jon Thogmartin determined that rather than a heart attack her collapse had been caused by an “external problem outside of the heart causing the heart not to beat,” (see investigative report of the North Country Gazette here).  Moreover, and even more ominously,

       "The autopsy performed in 2005 also definitively ruled out that Terri Schiavo had bulimia as Schiavo has long claimed. The autopsy report states that there was no evidence of bulimia and the assumption of bulimia presented at the medical malpractice trial had simply been accepted and not challenged. The medical examiner said there was absolutely nothing to support the theory of bulimia as presented by Michael’s attorneys. He also ruled out the 15-year fallacy presented by the mainstream media and Michael Schiavo that Terri had sustained a heart attack, saying that her collapse was the result of an “external problem outside of the heart causing the heart not to beat”. He said there was no evidence that she had had any heart problems prior to her collapse and said that the fact she lived 15 years after her resuscitation was testimony to the strength of her heart"- North Country Gazette Feb 5, 2009, see here for article, for results of a more complete and subsequent medical/neurological examination of Ms. Schiavo see here.

  Indeed, the paucity of evidence that Terri suffered from bullimia or any other condition that could have caused a heart attack as she is alleged to have had-- amidst competing suggestions she could have been poisoned-- contrasts sharply with the almost universal concern over Michael Schiavo's near malevolent attitude and conduct in the case, see here.  


  In addition to a former girlfriend of Michael's who plainly stated  under oath that he lied about knowing Terri's end-of-life wishes-- aside from the fact Terri's life was arguably far from "ending"-- and that he only cared mostly about monetary matters, (see here), his possessive and/or possibly abusive nature was attested to by multiple parties in sworn court documents, (see portions of statement of witness Cynthia Shook here, in addition to the sworn statements of at least two others close to the case regarding Mr. Schiavo's callous attitude towards the wife he allegedly "loved" and was legally obligated to protect as her "guardian" here and here).  NOTE: while the purpose of my mention of these things here is not to comprehensively examine all the possible motives, claims and counterclaims of all parties of the Schiavo case, something which would take a much longer discussion, (but see here and here)-- in the end as persuasive as all this is we must admit that we do not and may never know the whole truth regarding this case-- I do believe that in the very least it provides an apt example of the failings of the legal system to protect the rights of the most vulnerable among us and/or always err on the side of caution when it comes to the health-care and due process rights of those unable to speak for themselves.

  Indeed, regardless over the disputed facts and legal outcome in this case, there is little doubt from the record that Terri Schiavo was left in an entirely vulnerable state at the mercy of a husband who, in the most charitable light, had a conflict of interest by virtue of his desire to marry one of the many women he had had affairs with during his marriage to Terri and whose conduct throughout the ordeal suggested a less than pure interest in Terri's welfare, see here, here and here).  (Indeed, he had openly fathered a child with another woman he later married while Terri lay in the hospital, see here and here for details).  And again, while our focus here is on the tragedy of rationing that can occur in such cases vis a vis their relation to the case at hand, we would have been remiss not to mention the Terri Schiavo story for its potential relevance.   


  In short, I detailed the Terri Schiavo story here, as, just in the baby Joseph case, I believe it reveals the dangers of giving anyone-- including a government who in the end could do nothing to insure either a searching examination and/or accounting for all the irregularities in the case OR the right to life of Terri Schiavo-- too much power to decide when to end someone's life and/or cease providing medical care, (often the same thing in critical cases), based on often incomplete or conflicting medical "facts" and for other than altruistic reasons, (i.e., economic). 


 While we leave for another article the general debate on what has become an almost macabre "culture of death" in many states of the Union, it appears as if the baby Joseph case is on its way to a happy (at least as happy as can be) ending.   


Thankfully, with the decision to accept baby Joseph by American and non-profit St. Louis-based Cardinal Glennon Hospital, a children's health organization dedicated to improving the lives of all its patients to the best of its ability, baby Joseph now won't go “quietly into that good night” without giving him every benefit of a medical doubt. (Indeed, let's face it, even doctors don't ALWAYS know why a patient recovers and can't say with certainty whether a person, even a gravely ill one, will live or die; indeed, they have been wrong before, even with those in long term comas, Click here for proof ).


But politically speaking, the case could not have come at a worse time for President Obama and the left wing of the Democratic party who have been engaged in an ongoing public relations campaign to shore up support amongst an increasingly restive American electorate over Obamacare. Indeed public support for repealing this divisive and overarching “health reform” bill has risen to almost 60% in some polls, driven at least in part due to the fears by many that it could result in similar denials and rationing of care in America on a broad scale, (see previous post on this blog “So what's really the problem with Obamacare?”)


Indeed, the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Act, as it's officially called, as well as rising health premiums and cases like Baby Joseph's, has re-invigorated debate over the latter's precise concerns for which former Vice Presidential candidate and Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was mocked in 2008 for warning of possible “death panels” (an apparently apt characterization coined to warn of the Act's possible unintended effects of stripping individuals and insurance companies alike of the decisions re: who receives necessary health treatment and who doesn't by handing them wholly over to government bureaucrats' who it was feared would make such determinations based solely on cold financial calculations).


This case has also reignited, in our view, a badly needed debate over when (and whether) there is ever an appropriate time for governments or insurance companies to engage in a “balancing” of financial costs v. perceived “quality of life” issues in making life and death medical decisions, (determinations many argue are better left to theologians and families, or at least the various State legislatures which could better represent the values of its citizens by enacting appropriate legislation upon full and thorough consideration of all salient issues through the Democratic process).


Indeed, in addition to the legal and moral questions raised by the Maraachli's experience with socialized medicine, concerns that this monumental shift in American health policy was passed by less than savory means without ANY pro-life or Republican support in Congress and with considerable dissension even in the Democratic House at the time only amplify the concerns with rationing already latent in this legislation, (see “So what's really the problem with Obamacare?” post this blog).


So our satisfaction that at least in baby Maraachli's case he will be given the second opinion (and chance) at life-- with Cardinal Glennon hospital announcing that baby Joseph's tracheotomy will likely be performed this week-- is tempered by the fact that thousands of other "baby joseph's" might not be so lucky. (Indeed, if Obamacare is not repealed stories like this could be become more of a standard occurrence all across this great land).


It is due at least in part to such concerns as well as the enormous increase in the deficit that Obamacare is likely to have in its outyears-- as has occurred with every other federal entitlement program in our nation's history-- that the Republican-controlled House has already voted to repeal this ill-conceived legislation. 


 Accordingly, we urge all concerned citizens to work to insure such health care rationing as we see has happened to Baby Joseph can never happen to all of our citizens by contacting their United State's Senators and demanding they go along with the House and repeal this misguided legislation so real solutions to health care that respects the right to life and dignity of all our citizens can be implemented in its place.   jp

Free Speech and Internet Privacy Armageddon- ipv6

Ok, this is my third (and final?) post in the present series re: erosion of internet privacy, (and the necessarily-related and coterminous threat to constitutionally guaranteed Free Speech that it represents).  Coming on the heels of the Tucson Az. shooting spree by a mentally disturbed gunman who killed six and critically injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), (among others, see Jan. 10, 2011 post on subject), the timing of this post, while not planned, is especially apt in light of recent and subsequent calls by various public officials to "clamp down" on alleged "hate-filled," "divisive" and "extremist" rhetoric from the political right which they assert was, if not a causal factor to this act of unspeakable violence, at least a significant contributing factor, (in spite of no evidence whatsoever to back up such assertions, and indeed, much evidence to the contrary, see Jan. 13, 2011 "Dubya Dupnik" posting on this blog by yours truly :). 

Here, however, we are dealing with the potential constitutionally "chilling" effect on free speech that new internet standards rolling out may pose by way of the new technology's ability to conclusively and individually identify every internet-capable device and hence to track and monitor every publicly spoken, (and perhaps not so publicly spoken) utterance made by anyone through the internet, (no matter how lawful, innocuous, or private the nature of such communications).

A lot of the background and "philosophical" underpinning, if you will, that undergirds the right to free speech (and is equally the basis for our entire democratic and free enterprise system by the way) I will not readdress, as it has already been addressed in prior posts and seems to me so basic so as to not require repetition.

Rather, we will now get down to a very real, specific example of how "advances" in the most fundamental technology undergirding how the internet works can be used to track and potentially stifle the Free Speech rights of those with opinions that may dissent from the government or the "majority view" at any given time.  Of course, it goes without saying that the freedom to criticize one's own government without fear of reprisal is the hallmark of a free society, (indeed, so important was a free press considered to our Republic by our Founders that it was specifically referred to at the Philadelphia Consitutional convention even before becoming part of our federal Bill of Rights, see here and often referred to as the "Fourth Branch" of the federal government).

It is important to note before getting into all the details that our concerns are not necessarily with specific reference to the Obama Administration, (although obviously, the recent policy and regulatory changes do concern us, see previous posts); Rather, our focus is on the threat to free speech that these changes in fundamental internet technology pose not just under the present administration but future ones vis a vis how such technology and accompanying or new "security" laws and/or regulations may be interpreted and enforced by courts and future Administrations alike and the resulting danger to our democracy and body politic that could result;

Indeed, if there is anything that history teaches us it is that threats to our freedoms often come from well-meaning laws and government regulations that are not always apparent at the time they are instituted, (essentially the immutable law of unintended consequences).  In that regard we are mindful of the admonition of Benjamin Franklin that "those who trade liberty for security end up with neither" (paraphrased).

So with that in mind, just what is "ipv6" and how could it pose such a threat?  That requires a bit of background and a short primer on computer and "internet protocol" technology and nomenclature.

First, the "ip" part of "ipv6" is short for "internet protocol."  What is this?  Simply put, it is the fundamental way that computer networks and devices identify and "communicate" with each other when you transmit information, (i.e. "surf"), over the internet.  Basically it is the "address" by which other computers know where to send information, (much the way the mailman knows where to send everyone's mail by their home address but in a digitized, electronic format your computer, router or smart phone can interpret, (for more detailed info click here http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/internet-infrastructure5.htm ).

The "version six" in ipv6 represents the development level of the technology the same way that most popular software is designated to identify the version that it is, (say for instance regarding a popular browser, Firefox 3.0 v. 2.0).  Ipv6 replaces version ipv4 which has been in use since the 1980's as the global standard but for which modification was necessary to accomodate growth in internet usage worldwide, (there is an intermediate internet protocol version "5" which was for the most part considered experimental and never widely implemented, and an envisioned version "8" still in the infant stages of development).

Basically, due to the explosion of technology and internet capable devices in use among the world's six billion or so inhabitants, the number of available "addresses" for such devices should be depleted early this year. (While not relevant to our discussion this is partly due to the rise and increased financial clout of the middle class in formerly under-developed countries like India and China, and also the inherent limitations in ipv4's shorter data strings which "only" allow for a maximum of  4.3 billion ip addresses, compared to ipv6 which allows  for a mind boggling minimum of at least a trillion times more, click here for a more detailed explanation http://ripe.net/info/faq/IPv6-deployment.html).

In large part due to the anticipated exhaustion of available "ip addresses" under upv4, the use of "Network Address Translation," a process whereby many different internet capable devices can access the internet under one, main ip address, has become widely implemented with both drawbacks and, depending on the context and who you ask, advantages, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation   ).  

The part relevant to our discussion here is that, regardless of the "internet protocol" version used, every time you get on the internet via computer, ipad, smart phone or any other device, one of these "internet protocol" addresses is assigned to your connection, (either one that is "static" (fixed) or randomly assigned from a "pool" of addresses utilized by your ISP, an addressing paradigm called "dynamic" addressing, for more info on this click here http://www.zytrax.com/isp/faqs/static.htm   ).

However, by the very nature of internet protocol technology, your "ip" address can and does reveal much data about your "connection" that could be "personally identifiable," (such as your or your internet provider's general location, browser, referrer and system info). Which brings us to the penultimate difference (and potential threat to free speech) that the newer "internet protocol" version 6 which is gradually being implemented on an internet-wide scale poses, (slated for implementation as of the first of this year, but due to the immensity of hardware updates that will be required in the networks of countless businesses, educational institutions and government agencies ipv6 will take some time to fully implement).

As alluded to above, due mainly to the numerically limited number of addresses inherent in its technology, under the older "ipv4" system predominantly in use at present, common internet access or "gateway" points such as Internet Service Providers (ISP's) or network routers allow all the computers (or devices) accessing the internet through that ISP or network router to "share" the same ip address for communicating over the internet using Network Address Translation, (i.e. N.A.T., see above).  Because under ipv4 the use (and data) of each particular device or computer on a network cannot be separated individually from the other computers or devices in use on the network, all the individual devices (and device users) are afforded a certain level of anonymity by essentially "hiding in open view" among the other devices accessing the internet on that network.

Therefore, anyone wishing to follow or "snoop" on your activities in cyberspace, (such as posting on this blog :)  could not be sure of your identity by simply "following" your internet activities from your desktop, to ipad, to smartphone, (you could, after all, simply be one person of many on a given network or using your internet service provider's "dynamic" ip assigned you from their "pool" at the time you signed on).

Under ipv6, however, every single internet capable device you own will be assigned its own unique ip address.  Moreover, every internet capable device has, due to its own individual M.A.C. (Machine Access Control) number hard coded into it, the capability to be conclusively identified with a digital "fingerprint" in very much the same way that a human fingerprint can be used to identify individuals.   

In short, and quite simply, through combining identification of your devices's "MAC" address with your ip address and internet history, your internet service provider, (and, in the case of using wireless, virtually anyone with knowhow), could potentially both monitor and individually identify your every move and content of your "transmissions" in cyberspace in a way so as to personally identify you, virtually eliminating anonymity from internet speech and causing the strong potential for an according "chilling" of the speech rights of individuals not willing to risk exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out freely if it means their identity could be positively identified.


One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the implications of this vis a vis the recent decision of the Federal Communications Commission to, for the first time ever, regulate the internet in much the same way they do telephone companies of old, (for examples of how the government has previously exercised its "regulatory" authority over phone companies, including monitoring phone calls of individual citizens through phone companies without any court order or oversight, see the following links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy ,  http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/EFF-Sues-ATT-for-Role-in-NSA-Eavesdropping/ ).

Accordingly, while previously your surfing habits and the content that you email, tweet, im, post on a blog, etc. was between only you and your ISP, for the first time ever the new internet protocol standards now allow such information, at least theoretically, to potentially be accessed by government actors without court orders or probable cause of any crime committed and to track and identify the beliefs, purchases, and internet habits of anyone they choose.

One doesn't need to be imaginative to think of the effect this could have on journalists charged with bringing us the facts we need to be informed citizens, (a task so important the Founders often referred to a free press as "the fourth branch of government,"), whistleblowers of government corruption, crime, or just the ability of the average every-day-Joe to express his disapproval of government policies without fear of retributions or recriminations (from the government or otherwise.  Indeed, during a time in which "conservative political rhetoric" has at least been partly blamed by some on the political left who think Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was "targeted" by the gunman in the Tucson attacks due to her political positions and vote on such things as the Obama Administration's health care "reform" bill, we don't think it's a stretch to posit that a plausible fear from, and perhaps even probability of, recriminations for political expression, whether from extreme partisans who disagree with you-- witness the hacking of Sarah Palin's email by the son of a Democratic leader-- mentally disturbed individuals or more "official" sources such as government agents, could not occur.  (Nor, as must necessarily be obvious to those who suscribe to the political left's initial theories regarding the motives behind the attack on Congresswomen Giffords, is it a stretch that this could pose an actual threat to persons who express "unpopular" or disfavored opinions).  As such there are extremely important public policy reasons to favor anonymity in internet speech.  

Indeed, and of most salient concern to us here at the A.C.L.P., for the first time in the history of the web your beliefs and internet history can now and with precision be attributed to you individually along with personally identifying information such as your real name, actual address, employment, and ultimately whatever other information of yours the government wishes to "harvest," (much in the way marketers are already doing, see http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-digital-privacy.html  ).


Now before you go getting totally freaked out, as is usually the case there is often a beneficial (i.e. "innocent") justification for the change or "advancement" of the technology proffered as necessary, (albeit sometimes with unintended consequences, as above noted), and it is no different here.


Such information "harvested" by the government could undoubtedly be potentially beneficial and have legitimate governmental uses, (such as preventing acts of terrorism).   

However, our concern is that such information, (including any or all of the above-mentioned "personally identifying" information), could also be saved and/or added to information in any number of other government databases such as social security, drivers license bureaus, and the like and used to track the beliefs and expressions of political opinion of literally millions of people to be exploited in unintended and potentially unlawful (or even dictatorial) ways that could jeopardize citizens' right to Free Speech. Indeed, such information could potentially be utilized in ways that would make the oppression under the totalitarian government in George Orwell's classic and famous novel "1984" look tame by comparison.  


And let's be frank.   It is not as if there is no precedent for such things occurring.  

In addition to the scandal during the Bush Administration over certain journalists inexplicably being added to the U.S. governments "no fly" terrorist watch list ( LINK) or phone companies at the governments behest "monitoring" international calls of American citizens without probable cause or court oversight, (see http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/EFF-Sues-ATT-for-Role-in-NSA-Eavesdropping/ ), one need only look at China to see the potential dangers in using such capabilities to oppress its citizens see link http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef0e7d64-9138-11dc-9590-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz1BxlESg00 , http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/state-department-supports-falun-gong-internet-freedom-group-or-not/2010-05-13).   (If you still don't see the danger just ask student protestors or democratic activists whose internet activity was "monitored" before being arrested in order to stop "subversive" demonstrations or activities that could undermine the totalitarian regime).  


Now granted, China is a communist country which routinely tracks and monitors the internet activities of all its citizens and we are a democracy with a First Amendment, but again, history has shown us that whenever government has the ability to expand its power unchecked without restraint it usually ends up doing so to the detriment of its citizens, (and as a result could, at least theoretically, be replicated here or in any modern, industrialized country, see examples above).  


Please understand, we are not saying that this definitely will happen, or even that developers won't fully and properly address whether and to what extent the new ipv6 standards as implemented will in the end actually allow such invasions of privacy, (see developer's debate at                                                      ); but to the extent that international organizations like the United Nations seem unable (or unwilling) to eschew the approval of dictatorial regimes like North Korea or China, (that bastion of open society and freedom of speech), we are concerned, (for what China has to do with the matter at hand see China's publically announced position on this matter at                                                          ).

At this juncture and in the spirit of full disclosure it should be said that full understanding and analysis of all the technological details underlying implementation of ipv6 is beyond both the mission and technological knowledge of the ACLP.   Such matters we gladly leave to others more learned.

And we certainly realize there will be those who, for their own purposes or interests or just because we DO live in a free country which guarantees them the right to see things differently, may disagree with our concerns or conclusions of potential abuse. (Though, as pointed out above, for those who remain unconvinced of the danger or capability of government to individually identify and track the internet activities and political/ free speech of its citizens China is certainly a perfect case study; just ask any of the Tianamen Square protestors, outlawed home bible study leaders or those who have dared to dissent from the official "party line" of the government who used the Chinese "internet" before being subsequently brutally beaten and jailed for merely exercising First Amendment rights which many of us take for granted.).

For our part, all we can do, using this wonderful technological medium which we in the modern age are privy to and the information it provides to those so inclined, is try to effectively publicize the concerns of those more knowledgeable than ourselves in the hopes to stimulate public discussion and debate on such important issues.

So indeed, while all the technical details may be a bit beyond our purview and mission, the wider potential ramifications to society and the freedoms we in the "Western" world enjoy IS within the mission of the ACLP.  Indeed, based on the previously expressed concerns by developers themselves over the privacy implications of ipv6, we remain dedicated to shine a light on such concerns as are raised here so our leaders and those responsible for implementing the new standard will take action to insure that our sancrosanct rights to Free Speech will be protected in the rollout of this new internet technology, (or, for that matter, any other technology that threatens the First Amendment).

In that light, it is our earnest hope that by spurring the ensuing debate and discourse in our body politic which we hope to promote with our small contribution it will lead to our elected leaders and/or those with more technologically savvy and the knowhow and influence to make a difference intervening before it's too late and the cause of liberty suffers to the derogation of our democratic Republic.

Indeed, the serious potential harm to the liberty of our citizens to remain free to express their opinions without fear of reprisal or recriminations, even in spite of all the technological "advancements" and benefits to our modern world that ipv6 promises, would, in our view, be a particularly poor trade, (which is why we have addressed it here).

With your help we can hopefully avert any such problems and render all our concerns moot.  In fact, nothing would make us happier here at the A.C.L.P. than to be assured that the free speech rights of all Americans, regardless of political pursuasion, continue to be fully protected in their expression and that potential collateral encroachment of new technologies such as ipv6 upon our basic liberties would be restricted in this era of ever-expanding governmental power.

It is for that that we strive, and ask all to join us in this worthy cause.  Indeed, with the ever-increasing march of technology and the conflict that sometimes poses to the cause of freedom the future of our sancrosanct liberty to freely speak and criticize our government may just be at stake.   jp

"Net Neutrality" and Freedom of Speech in the Age of the Internet, Part Two

Hello all.  I trust everyone enjoyed their holiday(s) and ate enough fruitcake, pie and the usual fare to last them another year or longer, (in light of the still bleak economic picture, rising inflation and expected draconian increases in food prices from additional government regulation perhaps quite a bit longer).

I do apologize for my delay in getting back to blogging after the holidays, but I had an important project I needed to finish up, and am now ready to get back to regular blogging.

I also have some potentially great news regarding additional media exposure, main web site development (as opposed to this blog, still in the works), and additions to our leadership team, (more on this later).   For now, and as promised, in this (and following posts) I will continue to examine personal privacy in the digital age and the potentially dangerous threats to freedom of speech on the imminent horizon of our national experience in the wake of the "net neutrality" regulatory scheme just approved by the F.C.C. (among other things).

Before I begin however I would like to clarify something, (lest we receive mail from those who may be new to our work and misunderstand).

As an organization we are not always opposed to sensible government oversight.  Indeed, in matters where there is a legitimate and compelling public safety interest that overshadows other public policy considerations the American Center for Law and Policy realizes there is sometimes no substitute for reasonable regulation, (say, for example, in airline maintenance or prescription medications).

However, in line with our overarching goal of maximizing individual liberty and limiting the ever-increasing invasiveness of government over all our lives, in areas of society that do not seriously and directly impact public safety and welfare, (admittedly sometimes a difficult line to draw), we unabashedly support freedom of the individual over that of the interest of "government" just for government or regulations' sake.  It is this category that we feel control and/or regulation of the internet falls, for the most part, into.
With that clarification (and caveat if you will), back to the discussion at hand.

Many of the issues the F.C.C. has cited in support of the passage of the new "net neutrality" rules-- such as ISP's "throttling" of specific internet users deemed to use up too much network bandwidth caused by, say, downloading "excessive" software, videos, or the like-- are indeed real problems.

However, for those of us who believe in adhering to Free Enterprise principles for the solutions to such problems-- solutions that will at the same time preserve maximum freedom and all that is good with the internet-- passing an entirely new regulatory scheme to address the relatively minor problems that may exist is a lot like using a shotgun to kill the flies that get in the house in summertime.  (You might kill the fly you're aiming at, but you might do so at the expense of a new custom made "picture window" in the wall!)

Indeed, when it comes to problems such as throttling, equal access, and even issues such as internet obscenity, (and if you don't know what that means I will, for obvious reasons, refrain from coloring in the details for you), for those of us who are more concerned with preserving maximum freedom of expression and all that is good with a system that, for all its problems, is essentially the world's first and only truly open form of interactive communication in the history of man, we see far more insidious problems than those the F.C.C.'s proffered solution "solves."

Indeed, in what may truly be a case of the "cure" is worse than the disease, regulation of the internet as a "telephone company" was apparently done in seeming oblivion to much simpler solutions.

For instance, in a truly "free enterprise" system, ISP's wouldn't want to alienate a whole block of customers, say those who use large globs of bandwidth downloading whole series of television shows or movies, (legally of course), because if they did, those very same customers could (and likely would) move to a competing company offering better service.

The point?  The simple solution here, rather than regulating telephone and cable company internet providers so as to restrict their entry into the geographical "backyard" of their competitor, (as is still for the most part done with utility and telephone companies), would be to allow truly open competition among ISP's for the customers in the same geographical area.

Ideally, old geographical/ regulatory considerations would give way to those governed by the assets, willingness to risk investment, and physical infrastructure of the companies that wish to compete for customers in a given area, (a true "free enterprise" model in which consumers can only benefit by companies who, eager to steal away market share from their competitors, continually try to "outdo" each other by offering ever-better prices, quality, or selection of services).

In this kind of environment-- which, mind you, could be established without any need for freedom-limiting and innovation-stifling effects of regulation government intervention with its ever-accompanying risk of government taxation-- a company would always be afraid that, if their practices, (say on "throttling" bandwidth hogs disproportionately using their network), offended significant numbers of their customers, those customers might simply switch to another company which doesn't use such tactics, (or, better yet, even caters to the particular needs of such customers for a premium which they might gladly be willing to pay if they could be assured the level of service they desired would be provided).

In this way, then, you can see that an open and unregulated system could easily provide an efficient solution to the problem of throttling without the all the negative and "collateral damage" that additional government regulation often encompasses, (and so it is with most, if not all of the various perceived "problems" with the internet, or really most any endeavor in society).

The problem is that nowhere in the "telecommunications industry," (which the government has just now assured the internet is forever tied to), is such a truly "free enterprise" economic system allowed to exist where companies are allowed to compete in the same geographical areas, (at least not under the "telephone company" paradigm now approved).

And unfortunately, as is the nature of such things, instead of embracing change towards just such a "new" and truly "open" system that might actually allow the free enterprise system a chance to provide solutions to such "problems," government is often slow to realize the benefits of such changes and move from the status quo of what has "worked" in the past, (even it is really didn't or is no longer able to in the light of technological advances).

Of course, free enterprise solutions are not exactly "new" to our great country; indeed, they are the driving force behind the unparalleled innovation, standard of living and myriads of choices Americans have enjoyed for years in a multitude of industries, (from food brands to automobiles), but just because a good solution may appear obvious doesn't mean that government doesn't often miss the forest for the trees, (and the internet is no exception).

It is our job as citizens, with the power of the ballot box and the very freedom of speech we sometimes take for granted, to remind them of this fact.    jp

Expansion of government regulation over internet raises censorship, privacy concerns

In a further victory for the Obama Administration's long term goal of more government oversight over the internet, the Federal Communications Commission voted Tuesday to impose regulatory control over the sprawling worldwide communication network begun by the Department of defense with a 3-2 party line decision in order to impose so called "net neutrality" rules.

In spite of the administration's assurances that "net neutrality" would preserve the free exchange of ideas and vibrant competition that have become the hallmark of this critical "information superhighway" on which millions of individuals and untold organizations have come to depend for everything from intra-company communication to comparison shopping to political debate and discourse, critics worried that the action might hamper one of the country's few bastions of consistent economic growth at a time when the country can least afford it and set alarm bells ringing for many civil libertarians who feel the very nature of the internet as a free and unbridled medium for exchange of ideas could be at risk. 

Indeed, at least for those civil libertarians among us concerned about individual privacy and civil liberties who choose to trust their own judgment and that of the American people rather than bureaucrats in Washington this is just one more step along the road to surfdom and the eventual complete tracking and control by the government of every single aspect of our lives, including everything we say and do online.

Admittedly, the line is not always clear between sound policy in order to advance legitimate public interests and an overarching federal government that seemingly knows no bounds in its efforts to "save us from ourselves."

But coming on the heels of a seeming abandonment by the new FCC Chief of rules that just a few months ago were being considered that would have allowed individuals to "opt out" of invasive marketing by companies that track and compile the browsing habits of internet users without their explicit consent it is indeed worrisome to see the present Administration's FCC appointees so quickly turn in a direction so starkly in contrast to Congress' and the Bush Administration's previously settled hands-off policy perhaps best exemplified in the adage "if it aint broke don't fix it."

From a legal perspective, undergirding this change is the move from the Bush Administration's classification of the internet as "information services" to the Obama administration's view of internet service providers as synonymous with turn-of-the-century telephone companies and which, at least in their view, should be regulated in much the same way.

The problem with that of course is regulation of the telephone industry arose at a time when the internet, blackberries, and cell phones were non-existent (except perhaps in the minds of science fiction writers!), and in an age in which the monopolization of power in just one or a very few telephone companies was the rule rather than the exception, (does the name "Ma Bell" or the old "American Telephone and Telegraph" ring any bells? pun intended!).  Such a "one size fits all" regulatory regime may have been justified when a cohesive set of rules, applicable to just one or two telephone companies, were employed to correct a tendency away from competition and consumer choice.

Not so today when there is healthy competition in the ISP sphere and literally hundreds of choices available to consumers, with more arising everyday.  Oh, sure, there are the "big three," the new ATT, Verizon, and Sprint, but it is the very level of (low) regulation and open nature of the internet which today drives innovation and consumer choice.  Seriously, does anyone really believe that if the government had imposed restrictions and regulation on the nascent internet industry when it was just getting started we would have anything like what we have today in the choices of broad band, cell, dial up, and wireless providers?

In just the last couple years we have witnessed a veritable explosion in increased access to the internet among all socio-economic classes, (witness public library internet access and once paid but now free wireless "hotspots" in numerous Starbucks, Barnes and Noble and Borders bookstores, and even McDonalds!)

And while it is plausible that it is the government's interest in such matters is contained to merely taxing what has become a huge source of economic activity, (as if that weren't bad enough!) it is the alternative explanation and the impact upon every individual's privacy that government regulation could effect upon freedom of speech that is most troublesome  (and if you don't think any modern government could or would attempt to "control" the internet to stifle dissent and/or harass and track political "outsiders" who don't "toe the party line" just look at China).

True, China is a communist country and we have a Constitution which has guaranteed our basic freedoms, including the right to freedom of speech, for over two hundred years.  But as any historian can tell you, equally free and strong civilizations have fallen; indeed, as another has said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Moreover, the "net neutrality" regulations are not the only threat on the horizon of free speech.   Next time I will go into more detail on other policies and potential threats that have the ability to be abused and/or utilized to "chill" free speech and even possibly intimidate and/or "track" people whose political views may not always be the most popular with the powers that be.  I will tell you all about it the next post.  jp