Net Neutrality and Invasions of Privacy for a Quiet Sunday Afternoon

This weekend's NOW on PBS tackles the whole Net Neutrality issue. They explain it in pretty simple terms, so it's certainly worth a look if you're not sure where you stand. They didn't elaborate on it, but the report did pass along the contradiction in the telecoms' argument for erecting their toll booths on the information superhighway. A telecom representative (whose name I didn't catch) said that, although some Websites that pay for premium service may receive better service than we've got now, no Website will see their service get worse. But at the same time, former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, who's joined the PR barrage for the telecoms, insists that the Internet we have now is getting creaky and won't be able to operate properly unless we upgrade. While I agree that we may need the upgrades, I don't see how prioritizing some Web providers who are willing to pay for the privileges leaves the rest of us with anything other than McCurry's creaky and substandard Internet. But the episode, while not exactly even handed, does attempt to portray both sides of the issue. If you missed the show in your area, they should have a podcast up before too long. I think the show is on Friday nights in most markets, but of our two Chicago PBS stations, one doesn't broadcast it until Sunday at noon, and the other doesn't broadcast it at all, so I apologize for the late warning.

Also on the episode is an interview with a George Christian, Connecticut librarian who, under the Patriot Act, has been given a partial gag order in discussing an FBI demand for library records. The first gag order didn't allow him to talk about the situation at all--even to acknowledge that there had been an FBI request or that there was any sort of situation to begin with, but a judge has lifted part of it so he can talk about the legalities but still can't discuss any details of the original FBI demand. He and three other officers in the Library Connection, Inc., which is a group of libraries in Connecticut, spoke out on the issue for the first time earlier this week. The NOW site has a link to an ACLU press conference held with the librarians earlier this week. In the NOW interview, Christian said that the FBI is making these requests demands of libraries at an average of about 100 per day, and so far he's only aware of one other instance of librarians speaking out (because the law is such that mentioning this to anyone is illegal--Christian probably broke the law even in consulting an attorney on the matter in the first place). One of the other Library Consortium officers described a situation that lays out the dynamics of this situation on our current political dialogue:

It was galling for me to see the government's attorney in Connecticut, Kevin O'Connor, travel around the state telling people that their library records were safe, while at the same time he was enforcing a gag order preventing me from telling people that their library records were not safe. On one occasion, we were both invited to speak at the same event in Hartford, sponsored by the Women's League of Voters. Mr. O'Connor accepted his invitation, but I had to refuse mine because of the gag order.

This is foolishly idealistic of me, I know, but libraries are one of the cornerstones of democracy. They allow the free exchange of information and ideas should let us. They're supposed to let us privately research and learn about issues and subjects of interest to us. Right now, our public servants are lying to us (through commission or forced omission) by telling us that nothing has changed when clearly our privacy has been subverted.

I was going to end this with an arch question: "What else are they lying to us about?" But then I realized that since we can each start a long list of items, my intended "pointed accusation" would simply read as naive.