Old Fucking Punk @lwriemen@librem.one

A Third of Voters Who Oppose Impeachment Are Worried About Backlash for Democrats, New Poll Suggests

Voters in the new poll also supported broad and decisive impeachment proceedings, not limited to the Ukraine phone call.

The post A Third of Voters Who Oppose Impeachment Are Worried About Backlash for Democrats, New Poll Suggests appeared first on The Intercept.

Nobody Asked You

What if all justice was dependent on opinion polling?

DC Circuit Offers Bad News, Good News on Net Neutrality: FCC Repeal Upheld, But States Can Fill the Gap

Users, advocates, and service providers have been waiting for months to find out whether an appellate court will bless the Federal Communications Commission’s effort to repeal net neutrality protections, and whether the FCC can simultaneously force the states to follow suit. The answer: yes, and no.  Bound by its interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the FCC’s repeal wasn’t sufficiently irrational to be struck down (many internet engineers might disagree) but, having abandoned the field, the FCC can’t prevent states from stepping in to protect their own users.

We’re disappointed. The FCC is supposed to be the expert agency on telecommunications, but in the case of the so-called “Save the Internet Order,” it ignored expertise and issued an order based on a wrong interpretation of the technical realities of the Internet. But we’re very pleased that the court’s ruling gives states a chance to limit the damage.

What Happened

In 2017, the FCC voted to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order, issuing in its place the so-called “Restoring Internet Freedom Order.” In doing so, the FCC declared that it would no longer oversee broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) and removed strong net neutrality protections.

Net neutrality is a foundational principle of the Internet. It is the idea that all data online be treated in a nondiscriminatory way. In other words, the company providing your Internet access won’t get to determine what you see or how you experience the Internet once you are online. Blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization are famous examples of how companies have violated net neutrality in the past.

Americans overwhelmingly support net neutrality, so the FCC’s decision was not a response to consumer demand but rather a giveaway service providers that complained, without a shred of evidence, that net neutrality rules would impede broadband investment. That lack of evidence has been a theme of the repeal process. In addition to misrepresenting the economics, the FCC misrepresented how the Internet works, in spite of information given to them by Internet engineers, pioneers, and technologists.

The Case

After the FCC’s action in 2017, a number of groups filed a lawsuit arguing that the FCC had no right to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order in that manner. In particular, in light of the facts listed above and more, the FCC’s action is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law [pdf].

The FCC was backed by the largest ISPs—the only ones who stand to gain from the lack of net neutrality protections and oversight. Standing up to the FCC was a large number of public interest groups, local governments, and Internet companies large and small.

On behalf of technologists who helped develop Internet technologies, EFF filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioners. We made clear that the FCC’s ruling is based on an incorrect understanding of how a broadband internet access service (BIAS) work, issuing an order that mischaracterizes a number of functions BIAS providers can offer. We also pointed out that the 2017 repeal order completely ignores the negative consequences for speech and innovation that lifting net neutrality protections would have.

In February 2019, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in this case, Mozilla v FCC. The arguments lasted for four hours, highlighting not just the conditions that existed in 2017 when the order was issued, but also touching on harms that the order itself causes.

In attempting to clear a path for ISPs to avoid complying with net neutrality rules, the FCC also included language attempting to prevent states from enacting their own net neutrality protections. In other words, the FCC issued an order saying that it no longer had authority over ISPs except, apparently, the authority to prevent states from stepping into the vacuum the FCC itself created. That portion of the order, if upheld, could have undermined California’s recently passed net neutrality law.

Since the repeal, the effects of the FCC’s repeal on public safety has also taken center stage, including during oral argument. In 2018, Santa Clara County firefighters found their Verizon Internet service throttled during a state emergency, and when they complained, Verizon told them to buy a more expensive plan. Santa Clara County’s lawyer Danielle Goldstein argued in February that the FCC has a duty to ensure public safety before problems like this occur, rather than just receiving complaints after a disaster happens. While the FCC argued that there was no evidence of concrete harms, Goldstein put it clearly, “The burden is not on us to show that someone has already died.”

The Decision

In short, the D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s ability to repeal net neutrality rules but sent it back to the agency the resolve three major issues the FCC failed to address: public safety, pole attachment rights, and the subsidy program Lifeline.

The court found that the FCC’s factually incorrect assessment of the way that the Internet and its related technologies worked was a “reasonable policy choice.” In other words, whatever outside experts might say about the realities of the Internet, agency the court had to defer to the FCC ’s alternative interpretation of that reality. This is the end-result of an “expert” agency deciding not to listen to experts.

But the biggest news, at least in the short term, is that the court unequivocally rejected the FCC’s effort to do a favor for the big ISPs and preempt state net neutrality laws. The court didn’t mince words on preemption, stating that the “Commission ignored binding precedent by failing to ground its sweeping Preemption Directive—which goes far beyond conflict preemption—in a lawful source of statutory authority. That failure is fatal.”

This means that states can pass their own net neutrality laws without fear that the FCC’s 2017 order stops them from doing so. While there might be other challenges to state laws, there is no FCC ban on them anymore. In particular, California’s S.B. 822—which the state has delayed enforcement of until this case is completely resolved—is in a strong position going forward. In the absence of the FCC standing up for Internet users and in the wake of this decision, other states can and should be following California’s lead.

Finally, the court sent the case back to the FCC to address three issues. On public safety, the court expressed deep concern that the FCC failed to account for the effects of its decision on the life and safety of its citizens.

On pole attachments, the court explained that the FCC’s decision harmed stand-alone broadband providers' ability to get access to the right of way to deploy broadband. This is because the 2018 Order allowed legacy companies like Comcast and Verizon to keep their special federal rights to infrastructure to deploy their services as cable television companies and telephone companies, but fiber broadband companies were out of luck. Prior to the 2015 Open Internet Order that resolved this issue (by declaring all broadband as Title II, thus giving all ISPs equal rights) we witnessed efforts by AT&T to block Google Fiber from deploying in Austin, Texas because they owned the poles. This issue was also raised by dozens of ISPs across the country in opposition to the FCC’s 2018 Order, so it is a good thing the court is requiring the FCC to grapple with this reality.

For the Lifeline program, which many low-income users depend on for communications access, the court notes that the “2018 Order . . . facially disqualifies broadband from inclusion in the Lifeline Program.” In other words, only Title II services are eligible for federal financial support to help low-income users afford communications services and so long as broadband is not a telecom service, low-income users will not receive financial assistance in obtaining access to broadband.

What Happens Now

The FCC must now grapple with the implications of its decisions,, which could result in further litigation. More litigation could continue to prove just how far out on a limb the FCC is going for big ISPs and how much it is leaving the public in the lurch.

Congress also has a responsibility to bring this debate to an end and reflect the super-majority opinion of the public that net neutrality should be the law of the land. The House of Representatives has already done its job with the passage of the Save the Net Act but it remains blocked by the Senate’s inaction, effectively doing the work big ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want. Congress and the states should both be acting to protect the Internet and its users.

EFF will continue to fight for the users and we will continue to fight for laws that are based on how the Internet is built, used, and developing.

Take Action

Tell the Senate to protect Net Neutrality

 

 

House Democrats, Dodging Party Policy, Are Privately Supporting Marie Newman

Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, one of the few remaining anti-abortion Democrats in Congress, barely survived a challenge by Newman in 2018.

The post House Democrats, Dodging Party Policy, Are Privately Supporting Marie Newman appeared first on The Intercept.

So finally it has been confirmed that consent has to be explicitly provided to place cookies in a browser.

#Privacy

High-fructose and high-fat diet damages liver mitochondria

High levels of fructose in the diet inhibit the liver's ability to properly metabolize fat. This effect is specific to fructose. Indeed, equally high levels of glucose in the diet actually improve the fat-burning function of the liver.

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the Working-Class Iowa Test

DES MOINES—A large “People Before Profit" banner hung over the double doors leading into the Iowa Event Center’s ballroom—the state’s largest—September 21 for the People’s Presidential Forum. The event was hosted by the national grassroots group People’s Action and two of its local member organizations, Iowa Student Action and the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action Fund (CCIAF).

More than 2,300 people, most of them working-class—including groups of fast-food workers and tenant organizers—attended the discussion with four Democratic candidates: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Julián Castro. The candidates shared the stage with workers from Iowa and nearby Midwestern states, but also as far away as Honduras. The workers told stories of how they’d been adversely impacted by corporate greed and anti-union government policies, as refrains of “That ain’t right!” rang out from the audience.

The forum’s theme of “movement politics" presented a striking contrast to the day’s bigger-ticket event, the Polk County Steak Fry, where an estimated 12,000 people turned out to hear 17 Democratic presidential hopefuls give briefer, more conventional stump speeches. The all-important Iowa caucuses—the first voting contest of the primary—stands as a test of candidates’ strength in 2020.  

Brian McLain, 42, a member of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) from the Des Moines suburb of Ankeny, appreciated the forum’s focus on universal healthcare, but was unimpressed by Castro and Buttigieg, as both declined to embrace Medicare for All. 

“Medicare for All is a big one for me,” said McLain, who supports Sanders. “It is one of my dealbreakers when it comes to presidential candidates.”

McLain described how he spent a decade of his adulthood in poverty, lacking access to healthcare coverage. That changed, he said, when the union he joined—the APWU—secured benefits for him and his family through collective bargaining.

But with three children now reaching adulthood themselves, McLain worries whether they will be able to access care as Republicans continue their efforts to dismantle what’s left of Obamacare. In Iowa, state Republicans also privatized Medicaid, which has reduced or eliminated coverage for many vulnerable residents, and undermined collective bargaining rights for public-sector unions.

Sanders has made his Medicare for All Act, a single-payer bill that would replace private insurance with a single federal health insurance program, a centerpiece of his campaign. Warren also supports the plan; in response to a questionnaire sent out by CCIAF ahead of the forum, Warren said the country ought to “start treating healthcare like the basic human right that it is.”

During the forum, Sanders said, “I have believed for my entire adult life that healthcare is a human right, not a privilege.” Citing the millions of un- and underinsured Americans across the country, he added, “We have a system today which is not only dysfunctional, it is incredibly cruel.” As of July 2018, more than 176,000 Iowa residents lacked healthcare coverage.

A poll conducted by the Des Moines Register and CNN and released shortly after the forum showed that 41% of likely Iowa caucusgoers support Medicare for All and want candidates to run on the program, while another 28% are “personally comfortable" with the plan but worry it could have adverse electoral consequences. The forum also featured discussion of other hot-button issues defining the Democratic primary, from the Green New Deal to affordable housing and student debt.

”The Green New Deal, if that’s a fad, it’s the last damn fad we’ll have the chance to join,” said Danielle Wirth, 65, a resident of Woodward, Iowa, who teaches courses on ecology at Iowa State University in Ames. “The planet is at risk.”

Wearing a shirt promoting the Green New Deal, a comprehensive plan to combat climate change and transform the economy, Wirth said she and her husband planned to caucus for two of the candidates at the forum—Warren and Sanders, respectively.

“My husband and I would like to see both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren get through the caucuses, because they both represent such fundamental, systemic change,” she explained. “We believe in intergenerational equity.”

Both candidates expressed support for the Green New Deal in the CCIAF questionnaire and were cosponsors of the initial Senate resolution endorsing the plan. Sanders called for moving “away from fossil fuels to 100% energy efficiency and sustainable energy.” Farmers across the state are already feeling the economic impact of climate change as rainier springs and hotter summers threaten crop yields.

The Register-CNN poll showed that nearly half of all likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa support the Green New Deal and want candidates to campaign on it.

“I think Bernie probably set the agenda for all of them,” said Gina Folsom, 69, a retired educator from Ames, referring to the senator’s rivals. “Four years ago, I don’t think any of them were saying these things. She plans to caucus for Sanders for her second time in February 2020.

The Register-CNN poll showed Warren as the top choice of 22% of likely Iowa caucusgoers, overtaking centrist rival Joe Biden for the first time by a 2-point margin. Sanders dropped to third place in the poll at 11%.

Sanders, though, appeared to be the favored candidate among the majority of the forum’s attendees, drawing the biggest audience in the ballroom and receiving the loudest applause. Forum speakers and other attendees recounted helping organize support for him in 2016 ahead of that year’s caucuses, which resulted in a virtual tie with eventual nominee Hillary Clinton.

While Warren’s positions tended to mirror those expressed by Sanders, there was a notable moment that set the two apart. Sanders supports a national rent-control policy, but in a discussion about housing reform, Warren suggested this approach wouldn’t work for all communities. “Writing a rent-control plan in Washington may work for Chicago,” she argued, “but it’s not going to work for Iowa City, or it may not work for Dallas.”

“Warren could be better on this, and we plan to continue engaging her and the rest of the candidates on a national homes guarantee that includes universal rent control,” said Hugh Espey, executive director of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, after the forum. He added that a national standard on rent control “would help states like Iowa and cities like Des Moines protect people against skyrocketing rents.”

In 2016, CCIAF endorsed Sanders for president. The group plans to back a candidate for 2020 in early November, organizer Shawn Sebastian said—but he cautioned against reading too much into a single poll because of the past tendency among Democrats in the state not to settle on a candidate until shortly before they caucus.

CCIAF’s focus will remain on policy issues regardless of its endorsement, Sebastian added.

“What the People’s Forum is trying to show is the enemy is not each other,” he said. “The [enemies are] the big-money corporations and the corrupt politicians who take orders from them, that try to divide us against each other.”

A new concept could make more environmentally friendly batteries possible

A new concept for an aluminium battery has twice the energy density as previous versions, is made of abundant materials, and could lead to reduced production costs and environmental impact. The idea has potential for large scale applications, including storage of solar and wind energy.

The Trump Administration Would Like to Talk to You for a Second About Your Cervical Mucus

Ladies, have you ever wanted to learn the fertile secrets hidden in your cervical mucus? If so, the Trump administration is here to help! The US Department of Health and Human Services has created a webinar entitled “Focusing on Fertility,” to introduce you to the world of “fertility awareness,” a method of natural family planning […]

Trump Attacked the Women of Color Who Led the Push for Impeachment. Then CNN Erased Them.

Instead, CNN promoted a group of white women who came late to impeachment as crucial actors in the fight.

The post Trump Attacked the Women of Color Who Led the Push for Impeachment. Then CNN Erased Them. appeared first on The Intercept.

If you use FOSS software and you really enjoy it, please donate to the developers. We are investing in the future! #foss

Round and Round and Round We Go...

We’re all stuck in the Trump spin cycle.

Gotcha, Greta

So you believe in climate change, but eat FOOD out of CONTAINERS?

#Boris#Johnson’s ‘secret Irish #border plans’ dismissed as non-starter | #Politics | The Guardian

This was his great plan?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/30/hardline-conservative-brexiters-open-door-to-support-for-deal

#UK #Ireland #EU #Brexit

Curbing diesel emission could reduce big city mortality rate

US cities could see a decline in mortality rates and an improved economy through midcentury if federal and local governments maintain stringent air pollution policies and diminish concentrations of diesel freight truck exhaust, according to new research.

Multifactor models reveal worse picture of climate change impact on marine life

Rising ocean temperatures have long been linked to negative impacts for marine life, but a team has recently found that the long-term outlook for many marine species is much more complex -- and possibly bleaker -- than scientists previously believed.

Brave new world: Simple changes in intensity of weather events 'could be lethal'

Faced with extreme weather events and unprecedented environmental change, animals and plants are scrambling to catch up -- with mixed results. A new model helps to predict the types of changes that could drive a given species to extinction.

Senate Antitrust Hearing Explores Big Tech’s Merger Mania

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition and Consumer Rights held a hearing last week to explore the competitive impacts of big tech companies’ massive string of mergers with smaller companies in the last handful of years. Before the Senate committee were experts in venture capital spending, the Federal Trade Commission (the agency tasked with merger reviews), and legal experts in antitrust law. 

EFF believes a hard look and update of mergers and acquisitions policy is one of many actions needed to preserve the life cycle of competition that has been a hallmark of the Internet. In the past, the Internet was a place where a bright idea by someone with modest resources was able to be leveraged from their home into the next big innovation. We have lost track of that as a small number of corporations now control a vast array of Internet products and services we all depend on and now appear to have formed a kill zone around their markets where the incumbents target the new entrants through an acquisition or substitution by the incumbent.

Mergers With Big Tech Have Been Pervasive 

What is undeniable is that big tech companies have engaged in a massive number of mergers over the years. In testimony provided by the American Antitrust Institute’s (AAI) witness Dr. Diana Moss, the number of mergers engaged in by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple are not only prolific but have been on the rise year after year (see below AAI's chart). And yet, big tech mergers according to AAI’s research faced fewer actually challenges from the government than other sectors of the economy. A variety of reasons were brought forth by the witnesses such as the inability of the law to properly screen Big Tech mergers that typically include a substantially smaller company being acquired or just that the impact on competition and innovation were not apparent at the time.

Market Dominance by Big Tech Has Changed Startups and Venture Capitalists

Securing investment from venture capitalists has been a major factor for startups getting off the ground and becoming major corporations. This is because launching a startup is inherently risky, so investment is assessed on risk factors. We actually have some compelling evidence that shows a relationship between risk and investment, one study showed reducing copyright liability in cloud computing increased investment by potentially up to a billion dollars in cloud computing startups. As committee witness Patricia Nakache, herself a General Partner at a venture capital firm with extensive experience in launching startups, noted, they fail on average three out of four times. With an already low odds of success, the added pressure of incumbents dominating a handful of markets has raised the bar for startups raising money when they seek to challenge the dominant players.

Arguably one of the most troubling issues the committee witnesses raised with the Senate Judiciary Committee is the fact that mergers and acquisitions are now seen as a primary driving force to securing initial investment to launch a startup. In other words, how attractive your company is to a big tech acquisition is now arguably the primary reason a startup gets funded. This makes sense because ultimately these venture capital firms are interested in making money and if the main source of profit in the technology sector is derived from mergers with big tech, as opposed to competing with them, the investment dollars will flow that way. This has not happened in a vacuum though, but rather is further evidence that antitrust law is in dire need of an update because lax enforcement has changed investment behavior.

The Lack of Competition Today is Not Frozen in Stone

The United States has been here before. The very existence of our antitrust laws and competition policy in other business sectors have sprung forth as a response to a less than adequate competitive landscape. In fact, antitrust law and competition law played integral roles in the telecommunications market where the then the world’s largest corporation, AT&T, was converted from a regulated monopoly into a regulated competitive market years later. But policymakers gathering a strong understanding of the market’s structure is a necessary first step and EFF will continue to support Congressional efforts to explore ways to improve competition in the Internet marketplace.

 

A new, natural wax coating that makes garments water-resistant and breathable

Researchers have made a non-toxic coating solution with wax obtained from Brazilian palm tree leaves.