The Internet Police

Since the inception of the Internet, there have been issues with people illegally downloading and/or sharing copyrighted material.  In the January 17, 2008 issue of c|net news.com (http://www.news.com/Should-ATT-police-the-Internet/2100-1034_3-6226523.html?tag=nefd.lede), Marguerite Reardon wrote an article about AT&T's investigation into testing different methods to "filter traffic" within their systems to cease the flow of illegal downloads. AT&T is looking into this technology to assist the company with its peer-to-peer protocols since that is the most common way that illegally copyrighted files are often transferred.  With a possible new policing system in place, AT&T is hoping that the use of such technologies will help them while they are in contract negotiations with both NBC Universal and Disney.

There are a couple of concerns that people have regarding the policing of the Internet, not only by AT&T, but by the Internet as a whole.  AT&T is not the only ISP company that is investigating this technology.  Verizon Communication, Quest Communication and Time Warner have all declined comment regarding Internet policing.  The primary concern with AT&T is a trust issue.  Some question 'why now'?  AT&T spent millions of dollars just a few years ago to keep from doing this exact same thing and now they want to be in the forefront?What's in it for them (besides the money)?  AT&T also was fundamental in passing a law that held them exempt from prosecution should copyrighted material be downloaded illegally through their ISP.  Would the responsibility of filtering all content rest solely upon their shoulders?  If so, AT&T could be held legally responsible for any material that fell through the cracks.  It kind of seems like AT&T has realized there is money to be made somewhere by policing the Internet.

The BIG, HUGE, PINK ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM issue is privacy laws.  It has been compared to the police checking everyone they see for weapons, just in case.  What information will be gathered by these so-called "filters"?  Who controls them?  Who can and cannot have access to the information they provide?  There  are currently talks between some of the larger media companies regarding what laws need to be put into place before filtering even begins.  What other laws will have to enacted to cover up the mistakes that will be made? Is anyone exempt from the "filters"?  Can we trust AT&T, or any other ISP to use the information they gather only for the purpose of filtering illegally downloaded materials?Probably not.

Please don't get me wrong.  I will only say this once.  ILLEGALLY DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS WRONG!!!  The people who take the time to make their music, words, logos, films, tv shows, books, artwork, etc. available to the public are only asking to be compensated for their work.  These people are, for the most part, hardworking, extremely talented people.  And if you disagree, let's see you get out there and do as well, if not better. And yes, sometimes, we the public do not get what we paid for.  But, this is a capitalistic society.  If you don't like paying $20.00 for a CD or $10.00 at the theater, then don't by it or don't go.  Better yet, do something about it.  Write a letter, start a campaign, get involved in an organization.  Just don't sit on your ass, complaining and doing nothing. 

My fear is that these large media conglomerates will use these filters to gather information about our individual preferences.  Things like which websites we visit most often, what our on-line spending habits are, where we bank, our credit card numbers, who are the people we send e-mails and IM's to and all of their information.  Will they use that information to then try and sell us services we either don't need or don't want?  Will they be able to turn this information over to other companies as "data gathering" for "research purposes"?  Will those companies PAY to receive that information?  

I am not a computer or a term paper.  You do not need to "research" or "compute" anything I do.  If I want you to have that information, I will provide it to you.  Until then, stay out of my computer!

And one more thought...  Who is going to police the police?  The FCC?  They're doing such a bang up job with net neutrality and media consolidation that I am sure they will have no problem handling this issue.

Media Consolidation

America, we have a problem...  Multi-media conglomerates are buying up everything in their paths.  And the only people who suffer, are, oh, wait US, the American people.   

Recently, Jon Monday of the Fallbrook Village News (http://www.freepress.net/news/29478) reported that media consolidation is an issue that affects both liberals and conservatives.  Monday points out the origination of the FCC was to regulate broadcasters and ensure diversity of ownership and opinion, to serve the public interest and to serve local needs. However, in 1966, the FCC deregulated media ownership causing a massive buyout of many local media. In 2003, the FCC made an even worse move by allowing crossover ownership of media outlets, allowing conglomerates to own multiple media channels.  

Currently, six multi-media corporations own a significant majority of all the media outlets within the United States.  They control what we watch on television and in the theaters, what we listen to on the radio and what we read in print.  They feed us information they feed we need to know and delete the information they deem unnecessary.   Consolidation affect everyone.

One of the major effects that mass media consolidation has had is the offering of local programming and public affairs have greatly decreased.  National stories such as presidential elections are given far more television airtime than local elections.  Disasters in small or rural towns are often unable to be reported over some radio stations because the local station is often owned by an out-of-town, often out-of-state company that have fixed programming.  Some formatted stations, such as those owned by Clear Channel, are continuously overlapping songs on different stations.  Their formats have become so predictable that you can almost set your watch by them.

Political bias has also had a large effect on the media.  It allows the company owners to change or squash stories that do not adhere to the management’s political beliefs.  They can refuse to air documentaries, news stories, films, songs, speeches and advertisements.  This allows companies to control everything we see and hear.  

By allowing one company, or a small number of companies, to control multiple forms of mass media, we are allowing the companies to dictate to a democratic society biased or slanted views and opinions.  It gives a small number of people a large amount of control over what we learn, what we see and what we hear.  Consolidation causes a lack of diversity in opinions and fewer opportunities to voice those opinions through the media.

This country was built on diversity, opinions and perseverance.  We struggled to gain independence from oppression and tyranny.  If we, the people, do not stand up to FCC and we allow media conglomerates to control every stitch of our media we might as well rename the country Big Business because that is who will rule us.