Mostrando postagens com marcador Neutralidade da Rede. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Neutralidade da Rede. Mostrar todas as postagens

quinta-feira, 26 de setembro de 2019

'Temos de proteger a privacidade e a saúde mental das pessoas', diz Mark Zuckerberg


Resultado de imagem para estadao logo

Em entrevista exclusiva ao 'Estado', presidente executivo do Facebook assume responsabilidades, diz que empresa não tenta influenciar eleições, se defende de acusações de concorrência desleal e projeta futuro da computação com realidade virtual
26/09/2019 | 16h00
 Por Bruno Capelas, Menlo Park (EUA)* - O Estado de S. Paulo
Postado por Mídias Globais PUC Rio às 18:41 0 comentários
Marcadores: , , , , , ,

quarta-feira, 16 de maio de 2018

Senate votes to reverse FCC order and restore net neutrality

Resultado de imagem para techcrunch logo
The Senate today voted 52-47 to disapprove the FCC’s recent order replacing 2015’s net neutrality rules, a pleasant surprise for internet advocates and consumers throughout the country. Although the disapproval will almost certainly not lead to the new rules being undone, it is a powerful statement of solidarity with a constituency activated against this deeply unpopular order.
To be clear, the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” is still set to take effect in June.
Ed Markey✔@SenMarkey
BREAKING: The Senate just voted to restore ! We won.

To all of those who kept fighting and didn’t get discouraged: you did this. You raised your voices and we heard you. Thank you.

Now the fight continues. On to the House!
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Senate Joint Resolution 52 officially disapproves the rule under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to undo recently created rules by federal agencies. It will have to pass in the House as well and then be signed by the president for the old rules to be restored (that or a two-thirds majority, which is equally unlikely).
On the other hand, forcing everyone in Congress to officially weigh in will potentially make this an issue in the upcoming midterms.
“‘Do you support net neutrality?’ Every candidate in America is going to be asked that question,” said Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) at a press conference after the vote.
Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) related that a Republican colleague of his told him that their office had received more than 6,000 calls from people expressing support for net neutrality and the FCC’s original rules, and 10 opposed.
“People who use the internet all the time realize what this is about. Millions of calls, we don’t get that on every issue. People intuitively get this,” said Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at the press conference.
Until yesterday Senate Democrats, who brought the resolution, had 50 supporters, including one Republican, more than enough to force the issue to be voted on, but not enough to actually pass.
Two more Republicans, Alaska’s Lisa Murowski and Louisiana’s John Kennedy joined Maine’s Susan Collins (the first to cross the aisle) to vote aye on the measure, making the final tally 52-47. (The missing vote belongs to Sen. McCain, who is absent while fighting cancer.)
“We salute them for their courage,” said House (not Senate, as I wrote here earlier by mistake) minority leader Nancy Pelosi at the press conference.
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel commended the Senate’s action.
“Today the United States Senate took a big step to fix the serious mess the FCC made when it rolled back net neutrality late last year,” she said in a statement. “Today’s vote is a sign that the fight for internet freedom is far from over. I’ll keep raising a ruckus to support net neutrality and I hope others will too.”
Chairman Ajit Pai, however, was less congratulatory in his own statement.
“It’s disappointing that Senate Democrats forced this resolution through by a narrow margin,” he said, “But ultimately, I’m confident that their effort to reinstate heavy-handed government regulation of the Internet will fail.”
Both he and Commissioner Carr cited a “three-Pinnochio” fact-check of Democratic claims regarding net neutrality that’s a good guide to avoiding the hysteria occasionally encountered in this debate but provides precious little support for Restoring Internet Freedom, which is itself plagued by technical misunderstandings.
Representative Mike Doyle, who has been working on the corresponding effort in the House, said he is taking the next step tomorrow morning.
With the Majority Leadership in the House opposed to this bill, the only way to bring it before the full House for a vote is through a discharge petition. Under the rules of the House, a bill must be brought to the House Floor for a vote if a majority of Representatives sign a discharge petition demanding it. I’m filing a discharge petition to force a vote on the legislation to save Net Neutrality, and we just need to get a majority of Representatives to sign it. I’m sure that every Member of the House will want to know where their constituents stand on this issue.
As everyone notes above, the fight continues. Be sure to contact your member of Congress.
Postado por Mídias Globais PUC Rio às 08:41 0 comentários
Marcadores: , , ,

terça-feira, 2 de janeiro de 2018

Fim da internet neutra nos EUA pode estimular 'fake news' e criar distorções




Resultado de imagem para logo folha sao paulo
Silas Marti, NY

Uma visão distorcida do mundo pode surgir em breve na tela de computadores, tablets e celulares americanos. Depois da revogação das leis que protegiam a chamada neutralidade da internet, em dezembro, o Vale do Silício e consumidores do país se preparam para enfrentar uma era em que a via expressa da informação corre o risco de se tornar uma viela cheia de pedágios e pistas enganosas.

"Estou decepcionada e horrorizada. Estamos entregando essa infraestrutura coletiva nas mãos do monopólio burocrático que são as companhias de telefone e de televisão a cabo", diz Lisa Gansky, uma das maiores investidoras de empresas de tecnologia na Califórnia. "É o começo do fim da internet." O medo é que as empresas, que em tese ficarão livres para cobrar taxas de sites para que seu conteúdo apareça mais ou de forma mais veloz, possam moldar a experiência de quem usa a rede para ler notícias, fazer compras e ver filmes e programas de TV -ou seja, quase todo mundo.

Desde que a internet surgiu, na década de 1990, provedores do serviço não podiam priorizar um site em detrimento de outro -o cliente pagava um preço para acessar a rede e via o que quisesse com a mesma qualidade. Há três anos, no governo de Barack Obama, os Estados Unidos aprovaram uma lei para preservar essa proteção, mas a medida acaba de ser anulada pela administração de Donald Trump, que vem prometendo desregulamentar setores da economia desde sua corrida para ocupar a Casa Branca. O republicano vem, de fato, relaxando restrições ambientais e defendendo medidas que os economistas enquadram como retrocesso.

CONSEQUÊNCIAS

Mas nada até o momento tem o poder de fogo do fim da neutralidade da rede, decisão que pode aprofundar a polarização ideológica do país e abrir um precedente perigoso para o resto do mundo —teles brasileiras, por exemplo, já tentam negociar uma mudança das regras. "Enquanto o mundo caminha para defender a neutralidade da rede, os Estados Unidos vão na contramão", diz Joacim Tag, pesquisador do Instituto de Economia Industrial, em Estocolmo. Nos EUA da internet controlada, as "fake news" poderão crescer e se multiplicar em ritmo ultraveloz, já que qualquer empresa de mídia vai poder pagar para fazer seu conteúdo aparecer mais ou ser até bloqueada em lugares onde a companhia dona da banda larga não concorda com sua visão política. "É um retorno a uma economia velha. É uma tentativa de controlar informação que vai além das 'fake news'. Virou um esforço para moldar a realidade", diz Gansky.

Embora a briga esteja longe do fim, com processos se acumulando na Justiça para tentar reverter a decisão da agência que regula as telecomunicações nos Estados Unidos, o clima é de apreensão. Num mercado concentradíssimo, dominado por empresas como Comcast, AT&T e Verizon, especialistas não descartam a possibilidade de ver surgir um panorama limitado de informações, em que a visibilidade de uma notícia está atrelada aos interesses econômicos dos provedores. "Vamos ver um quadro distorcido no lugar do que vemos agora", resume Nicholas Economides, um pesquisador da neutralidade da rede na Universidade de Nova York. "Empresas de mídia vão pagar para aparecer mais enquanto outras vão ficar em desvantagem. É uma complicação séria para a disseminação da informação", acrescenta. "E mesmo que essa seja uma decisão dos americanos, ela pode ter um impacto mundial, já que muitos países imitam nossa legislação."

VALE DO SILÍCIO

O fim da internet neutra também pode estancar o crescimento do Vale do Silício. Pequenas empresas, como aplicativos de comércio on-line, vão ter mais dificuldade para acessar consumidores se tiverem de pagar essa espécie de pedágio a provedores. Enquanto a indústria da tecnologia floresce a todo vapor na Europa –a Finlândia debate classificar o acesso à internet como um direito humano e a Estônia pôs todo seu governo on-line— e em países emergentes, como México, Índia e Nigéria, a Califórnia corre o risco de virar um deserto para os tipos criativos. "Não foi Deus quem decidiu que os Estados Unidos seriam os líderes tecnológicos do planeta. Isso tem a ver com nossa política. Se mudam as regras, podemos pôr tudo a perder", diz Benjamin Hermalin, da Universidade da Califórnia, em Berkeley. Esse risco, aliás, joga luz sobre modelos alternativos de regular esse mercado. O Reino Unido, por exemplo, proíbe que as empresas donas da infraestrutura da banda larga, como os cabos de fibra óptica, sejam as mesmas a explorar esses serviços, o que garante maior competição.
Neutralidade na rede


Para compartilhar esse conteúdo, por favor utilize o link http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2018/01/1947386-fim-da-internet-neutra-nos-eua-pode-estimular-fake-news-e-criar-distorcoes.shtml ou as ferramentas oferecidas na página. Textos, fotos, artes e vídeos da Folha estão protegidos pela legislação brasileira sobre direito autoral. Não reproduza o conteúdo do jornal em qualquer meio de comunicação, eletrônico ou impresso, sem autorização da Folhapress (pesquisa@folhapress.com.br). As regras têm como objetivo proteger o investimento que a Folha faz na qualidade de seu jornalismo. Se precisa copiar trecho de texto da Folha para uso privado, por favor logue-se como assinante ou cadastrado.
Postado por Mídias Globais PUC Rio às 08:50 0 comentários
Marcadores: , ,

quinta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2017

The FCC just killed net neutrality

Resultado de imagem para the verge logo

It’s over

By Jacob Kastrenakes  

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

Net neutrality is dead — at least for now. In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission approved a measure to remove the tough net neutrality rules it put in place just two years ago. Those rules prevented internet providers from blocking and throttling traffic and offering paid fast lanes. They also classified internet providers as Title II common carriers in order to give the measure strong legal backing.
Today’s vote undoes all of that. It removes the Title II designation, preventing the FCC from putting tough net neutrality rules in place even if it wanted to. And, it turns out, the Republicans now in charge of the FCC really don’t want to. The new rules largely don’t prevent internet providers from doing anything. They can block, throttle, and prioritize content if they wish to. The only real rule is that they have to publicly state that they’re going to do it.

Opponents of net neutrality argue that the rules were never needed in the first place, because the internet has been doing just fine. “The internet wasn't broken in 2015. We were not living in some digital dystopia,” commission chairman Ajit Pai said today. “The main problem consumers have with the internet is not and has never been that their internet provider is blocking access to content. It's been that they don't have access at all.”
While that may broadly be true, it’s false to say that all of the harms these rules were preventing are imagined: even with the rules in place, we saw companies block their customers from accessing competing apps, and we saw companies implement policies that clearly advantage some internet services over others. Without any rules in place, they’ll have free rein to do that to an even greater extent.

READ THE DISSENTING STATEMENTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC FCC COMMISSIONERS

Supporters of net neutrality have long argued that, without these rules, internet providers will be able to control traffic in all kinds of anti-competitive ways. Many internet providers now own content companies (see Comcast and NBCUniversal), and they may seek to advantage their own content in order to get more eyes on it, ultimately making it more valuable. Meanwhile, existing behaviors like zero-rating (where certain services don’t count toward your data cap) already encourage usage of some programs over others. If during the early days of Netflix, you were free to stream your phone carrier’s movie service instead, we might not have the transformational TV and movie company it’s turned into today.
One of the two Democrats on the commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, called today’s vote a “rash decision” that puts the FCC “on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American public.” This vote, Rosenworcel says, gives internet providers the “green light to go ahead” and “discriminate and manipulate your internet traffic,” something she says they have a business incentive to do.

“​This is not good,” Rosenworcel says. “Not good for consumers. Not good for businesses. Not good for anyone who connects and creates online.”
Commissioner Clyburn, the other Democrat, said the implications of today’s vote are “particularly damning ... for marginalized groups, like communities of color, that rely on platforms like the internet to communicate.” No one will be able to stop internet providers if they allow the social media services these groups rely on to slow down, blocking the dissemination of information, Clyburn said.

WHAT PUBLIC LIBRARIES WILL LOSE WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY

Both Rosenworcel and Clyburn also criticized the FCC’s handling of the public comment period that proceeded this vote, saying that the administration acted inappropriately in ignoring millions of voices in support of net neutrality. “It is abundantly clear why we see so much bad process with this item: because the fix was already in,” Clyburn said. Rosenworcel said the commission showed a “cavalier disregard” for the public and a “contempt” for citizens speaking up.
The vote comes after a contentious and messy public comment period. After opening the proposal up for feedback earlier this year, the commission received a record-breaking 22 million comments. But many of those comments were spam — 7.5 million, according to the commission — and the FCC has refused to help investigations into what happened. The commission was also quiet about website problems that caused its comment form to crash briefly in May.

Those comments are likely to play a role in whatever lawsuit hits following this vote. Net neutrality supporters are almost certain to sue the commission in an attempt to invalidate this proceeding and restore the 2015 net neutrality rules. While the commission is allowed to change its mind, it isn’t allowed to change rules for “arbitrary and capricious” reasons. In court, the FCC will have to prove that enough has changed since 2015, and that there’s enough evidence in the record of comments, to back up the conclusion that it ought to revoke net neutrality.

NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY VOTE WOULD COME AFTER A “CORRUPTED” COMMENTS PROCESS

Since the beginning of this proceeding, the commission has made it very clear that it isn’t really interested in most public comments either, despite a requirement to accept and consider them. The commission has stated time and again that it only values legal arguments, so we may see complaints that millions of consumer comments were ignored. Even if they don’t include the spam, the net neutrality proceeding was still the most commented ever at the commission.
This is the first time in more than a decade that the FCC has actually been opposed to net neutrality. The FCC has been promoting open internet rules since the mid-2000s, though it wasn’t until 2010 that they were turned into formal regulations. In 2014, those were overturned in court after the FCC was sued by Verizon. The court said that the FCC could try again using Title II, and so it did that in 2015. Those rules, which have been in place for two years, are the ones getting overturned today.

The vote ran over over an hour, with extensive speeches from the five commissioners, particularly from the two dissenting Democrats. In an highly unusual moment, the commission’s meeting room was evacuated briefly “on advice of security.” Cameras that remained on and streaming showed dogs being brought in to search the room.
Now that the vote is over, the commission will take a few weeks to make final adjustments to the rules. They’ll then be filed with the Federal Register and appear there in a few months. At that point, net neutrality will officially be off the books, and these new rules (or really, the absence of any) will take effect.
So what can you expect to change now that net neutrality is over? Not all that much — not overnight, at least. Rather than large swaths of the internet suddenly becoming unavailable or only offered for a fee, internet providers will likely continue to explore subtler methods of advantaging themselves and their partners, like offering data to use certain services for free or speeding up delivery of their own content.
These are things that may initially sound good. But in the long run, they disadvantage upstarts that don’t have the money to pay up. The problem is that, eventually, we may not know what products and services we missed out on because they never made it through the mess.

IN THIS STORYSTREAM

Net neutrality: the fight to keep the internet free

Postado por Mídias Globais PUC Rio às 08:24 0 comentários
Marcadores: , , , ,
Assinar: Postagens (Atom)