2 million people—and some dead ones—were impersonated in net neutrality comments

Not surprised if this is the case. Who in their right mind would be foolish enough to support removing Net Neutrality? I mean there's a small minority but that's it.

An analysis of public comments on the FCC's plan to repeal net neutrality rules found that 2 million of them were filed using stolen identities. That's according to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

"Millions of fake comments have corrupted the FCC public process—including two million that stole the identities of real people, a crime under New York law," Schneiderman said in an announcement today. "Yet the FCC is moving full steam ahead with a vote based on this corrupted process, while refusing to cooperate with an investigation."

arstechnica.com...

There are of course real examples of this such as Margaret Mary Basco who died on June 9, 2017 however her identity was used to submit a comment to the Federal Communications Commission about its proposal to overturn net neutrality in July 2017. We're beginning to see a rise in fake commenters, posters, bots, trying to sway political outcomes. I'm unsure how accurate this number is, 2 million or around. What I do know is that there are indeed real cases of identities being stolen and used to post political views, comments.



I'm disgusted. Who's bankrolling these guys to do this?

You are missing the point.
The point is; anything enacted during the Obama administration = bad.

a reply to: Phage

No the point is democracy in this country is now openly corrupt and no one is doing anything about it.

a reply to: abe froman

Blasphemy! How can a democracy be corrupt?

I assume you understand that our government is a democratic republic and not a democracy. I assume you understand that we don't get to vote on net neutrality.

a reply to: Phage

We are still supposed to have a VOICE, that's the whole point of this.

That voice has been stolen like Ursula the sea witch.

Tentacles and all.

doesnt surprise me. have u looked at any comments section on any webpage anywhere on the net. good bet your gonna find a good amount of bot posts in one form or another. shoot a bet most people dont realize just how many news articles they read that were composed completely by a bot.

Just FYI for those of you interested, this is what was posted under Margaret Basco's identity a month following her death. This comment was directed at the FCC:

"The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation,"

money.cnn.com...

This woman's name is being tarnished.

a reply to: abe froman

We are still supposed to have a VOICE, that's the whole point of this.

Our voice is supposed to be reflected by our representatives.
Have you expressed your voice to your representatives?

No? Too bad for you.
Yes? Now what?

ONLY 2 million?

If it were multiple choice "How many fake or fraudulent comments were made?":

A)500k
B)2 million
C)5 million
D) 8 million

I'd probably go C.

a reply to: Phage

No, on this issue our voice is supposed to be shared openly and heard directly.

Yet, even that trifle has been co-opted.

a reply to: you

What did you think was going to happen when they put the FCC in control...

a reply to: abe froman

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Southern Guardian

What a sick joke, putting empty, political buzzwords in the mouth of a dead woman.

This would be a good time for Trump's supporters to swallow their pride and speak up to their representatives, if they value alternative Internet content.

Just to let you all know where the president stands on this issue:

"Should internet service providers be allowed to speed up access to popular websites (that pay higher rates) at the expense of slowing down access to less popular websites (that pay lower rates)?"

Donald Trump’s answer: "Yes"

www.isidewith.com...

Who is Ajit Pai, the “Trump soldier” remaking America’s internet?

Donald Trump’s new Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai promised last December to bring a “weed-wacker” to the agency that oversees the US’s media and telecommunications industries. He appears to be wielding a chain saw instead.

Since taking the office in January, Pai, 44, a former attorney for Verizon and Congressional aide to attorney general Jeff Sessions, has trashed rules that protected local media competition, eviscerated a program that gives poor people greater access to the internet, and decided that competition exists even when there’s just one internet provider in a market.

The pitcher(exploited people) goes often to the well and gets broken at last.
And the rich, the exploiters, know that, so they want to control everything. That´s why the transform former alleged democracies into surveillance states everywhere. That´s why they live far away from the rabble into gated communities, special protected areas. But for them it is not enough to have cameras around their mansions, they need cameras and microphones right in front of the potential terrorists, everywhere and at every time. And tell us it´s to protect us from terrorism...

And they are pathological greedy. They kill two birds with one stone, with such a thing like net dependency. You can make the web so expensive(making money, bird one) that only the rich can pay for a net as we know it from the past. Because the rich realized that their problems started when people shared informations about their behaviour, over the web. So what could be better if the "rabble", the potential terrorists, aren´t able to afford the web anymore(bird two), if the rich can have the web for them alone.

The only reason everybody is allowed to use the web till now is the fact that the surveillance states, as their creators need tem, are far away from being fully installed and working. So they need us, useful idiots, to tell them everything about us, via the web. Via "smart"phones, spyPhones, via spying platforms like that social media stuff, via the so called Internet of Things and all that surveillance crap people even pay a lot of money for, to be spied on.

If they don´t need us anymore to carry around spying devices, to install spying devices even in our homes, if they don´t need us anymore to self-expose on facebook and co to get our data and to know everything about us, all that voluntarily, the "rabble" will have no legal access to the then "richnet" anymore. Because the potential terrorists could maybe organize and plan something, or share informations about the dirty game played by the greedy rich and only because of that rulers. The internet as it is now, with the "rabble" having access to it, is one of the greatest dangers for the rich and their dirty game of exploiting 99% of the earth population.

How many dirt came to the light since many people on earth have internet access? By leaks, whistleblowers etc. Not enough, but enough to make the rich and their puppets(politicians) fearful of the upcoming revenge for their behaviour. To speed up the installing of police- and surveillance states. They feel that it is at five minutes to midnight. If they don´t need the average people, the potential terrorists anymore as syping agents against themselves, because we can be observed everywhere and at everytime without our own idiotic help, there is no reasonable need for those that control the internet because of their money, to let the rabble still have access to the then richnet, former internet. It´s, as i said before, one of the greatest dangers for the exploiters, liars, warmongerers etc, etc.

Net dependency is the logical consequence in a world where 99% of the people let a system and it´s masterminds survive, that makes life easier, but only for that rich 1%. And where the 99% have to pay for the wealth of the greedy rich exploiters! But if we 99% are that stupid and don´t use our power of overwhelming majority of people on earth, if we even help the exploiters to exploit us, humankind maybe has earned nothing else!

a reply to: Southern Guardian

By small minority you mean EVERY SINGLE elected republican and right wing commentator right???

The question is why are the trump supporters so brainwashed they go for it???

a reply to: abe froman

How is it democracy when it is ONLY a right wing position???

The government ruins everything it has or ever had control of.

The FCC has a 30 year history of allowing media consolidation. Where there once over 500 independently-owned newspapers, radio and tv stations has boiled down to ownership of 6 major corporations. What they call capitalism is anything but a free market. The FCC was created to serve the public interest and to license stations and regulate content on public airwaves and preserve decency standards. I don't see where they have a mandate to give control of the internet to anyone.

originally posted by: Phage
You are missing the point.
The point is; anything enacted during the Obama administration = bad.

I agree with this, but Republicans are idiots if this is the extent of their critical thinking.

I did express my opinion to my representative and the FCC, although it looks like the FCC doesn't care about my opinion and it also looks like my representative cares about my opinion just because she is a Democrat - if I still lived in Idaho (a Republican state), I bet I would write my representative and they would rebuke me with a form letter, that is what happened last time.

The bottom line is that the vote on net neutrality today, which will likely strike it down, will cause vastly increased prices for consumers of the internet (nearly everyone). For example, data caps might not be high enough to account for a family's internet usage. I am a gamer and a Netflix watcher. I use an Xbox One, and games can be 50 gigs or more each, plus DLC. Netflix uses around 3 GB per hour of data on streaming.

A 300 GB data cap would allow for 100 hours of television streaming per month, or about 25 hours a week (3.3 hours a day) - but, that is without online gaming data, or data used to watch videos on Facebook or YouTube, or data used to download games, or data used to surf the web.

Now think about this - that is ONE USER. What about a family of 3? Well, sorry, you only get about an hour of streaming TV per day each.

When 4K televisions with 4K Netflix streaming arrive, as well as services that offer streaming games off of the cloud, it is a sure bet that people using these services will have to pay extra to their ISPs, AS WELL AS EXTRA TO NETFLIX AND OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS, WHO ARE PAYING AN ADDITIONAL FEE TO THE ISPs.

Worse than that, some people might be priced out of being able to use the new technology, and even worse than that, some companies might be priced out of being able to present the population with innovative technology. All of this to benefit shareholders of ISP stock.

I also use the internet to tutor in mathematics via video chat to make money, and this will likely result in me paying more to my ISP. How so? Well, it will affect my data cap and in addition to this, the website I use might have to pay a "fee" to multiple ISPs in order to ensure that their video chat services are not throttled. This could result in the website taking a higher cut of my hourly rate. Even worse, the website I use might not be able to afford the cost of using a video chat service once ISPs can charge extra for it. This would essentially result in me losing my job.