From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 809FC3CB37 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 15:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-533d31a8523so112005a12.1 for ; Mon, 02 Oct 2023 12:38:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1696275519; x=1696880319; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=i5/61/tElLPJUFZps2vkrtjaBFSsmuMrECJEbmALCOE=; b=Gbde9cAL/0NNrzHnrg8a02rOt6Ql7xVym6pGC2fs4BVUix1AiYvctDUHvNWG9XXOH/ W8yNdmNgkm1w6lmGdjE5tHxjIpbgJkIw1HLSnKXe3oYHO3MzVsjjS2xewGs2Ru0CA/DM D3Rqu7ifeZVaH82vSi9qXgObObjd/EMllT5k4iEnbLhba2/9le0tYznCnQgJtgbCVrcQ UdOEK8+IDkZVUGRgpZ3rW5Ox/F1LQA46hcJuVxDw6W/9iWjIN0z8KE0Gfhv8pXlWVnz/ dGv17oNsP2KPWXALHIpNU52j7o7hZ+Qk7W+4s/m+KXrWMoaNGtwFOsNEE7GsRm3iNi40 Ia5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696275519; x=1696880319; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=i5/61/tElLPJUFZps2vkrtjaBFSsmuMrECJEbmALCOE=; b=tktjwDlJSaXnEnST/0wONB4dK3mryNR4D8uWg0gKrwP6wzmuA/N1QuNnZOFo0U6S8y 1Svb+NCqJOvan/uUVDmqDklscNuN69U9f2Kh8OpTP2H956sYfMRYUDnYGKvfsCSg6b+J 2ZUxgwNyftllbDDSvDQqrVoAVXElcZ7WUG1lciUTXXyuVMChsmwl6JH3tWJ65BdTVoOa x+cLue5AP6+1X6U/LPyB9KzTgnXZrga4MK0T38WagYDiGyZCeTcPC8iUo6D/iJUtS5/A ZkIIHjRcHwHPJ9V1VPp8ej+0eTsSnYYPkWU0sxTQdIMsJoVW4fQK7q4iV4WhGklGqd8n EZEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxs5p13Vp7cAIDSuKJ/gypiwb98sFkT7X0Obp7CDh9J3Kv2VPNi AJBLsYiZmlWNgqIpN+SfEFlMM1BoiJeEe4ddH5tddpI1pWA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFuE6lw8dyDejwaIJPcCZ8sRsllUSHmJK42LchlaEhzwxhVdKmHemHGkmAVPv+80af5tCdDzTJ1Yxtc8Tmn/TQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:210a:b0:9b2:b149:b818 with SMTP id 10-20020a170906210a00b009b2b149b818mr11797284ejt.70.1696275518889; Mon, 02 Oct 2023 12:38:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: "David Bray, PhD" Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 15:38:01 -0400 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_asp?= =?UTF-8?Q?ects_heard_this_time=21?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bea2d80606c0eb2b" Subject: Re: [NNagain] Introduction: Dr. David Bray X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 19:38:41 -0000 --000000000000bea2d80606c0eb2b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings all and thank you Dave Taht for that very kind intro... First, I'll open with I'm a gosh-darn non-partisan, which means I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution first and serve the United States - not a specific party, tribe, or ideology. This often means, especially in today's era of 24/7 news and social media, non-partisans have to "top cover". Second, I'll share that in what happened in 2017 (which itself was 10x what we saw in 2014) my biggest concern was and remains that a few actors attempted to flood the system with less-than-authentic comments. In some respects this is not new. The whole "notice and comment" process is a legacy process that goes back decades. And the FCC (and others) have had postcard floods of comments, mimeographed letters of comments, faxed floods of comments, and now this - which, when combined with generative AI, will be yet another flood. Which gets me to my biggest concern as a non-partisan in 2023-2024, namely how LLMs might misuse and abuse the commenting process further. Both in 2014 and 2017, I asked FCC General Counsel if I could use CAPTChA to try to reduce the volume of web scrapers or bots both filing and pulling info from the Electronic Comment Filing System. Both times I was told *no* out of concerns that they might prevent someone from filing. I asked if I could block obvious spam, defined as someone filing a comment >100 times a minute, and was similarly told no because one of those possible comments might be genuine and/or it could be an ex party filing en masse for others. For 2017 we had to spin up 30x the number of AWS cloud instances to handle the load - and this was a flood of comments at 4am, 5am, and 6am ET at night which normally shouldn=E2=80=99t see such volumes. When I said there = was a combination of actual humans wanting to leave comments and others who were effectively denying service to others (especially because if anyone wanted to do a batch upload of 100,000 comments or more they could submit a CSV file or a comment with 100,000 signatories) - both parties said no, that couldn=E2=80=99t be happening. Until 2021 when the NY Attorney General proved that was exactly what was happening with 18m of the 23m apparently from non-authentic origin with ~9m from one side of the political aisle (and six companies) and ~9m from the other side of the political aisle (and one or more teenagers). So with Net Neutrality back on the agenda - here=E2=80=99s a simple predict= ion, even if the volume of comments is somehow controlled, 10,000+ pages of comments produced by ChatGPT or a different LLM is both possible and probably will be done. The question is if someone includes a legitimate legal argument on page 6,517 - will FCC=E2=80=99s lawyers spot it and respo= nd to it as part of the NPRM? Hope this helps and with highest regards, -d. --=20 Principal, LeadDoAdapt Ventures, Inc. & Distinguished Fellow Henry S. Stimson Center , Business Executives for National Security On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:15=E2=80=AFPM Dave Taht via Nnagain < nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > All: > > I have spent the last several days reaching out to as many people I > know with a deep understanding of the policy and technical issues > surrounding the internet, to participate on this list. I encourage you > all to reach out on your own, especially to those that you can > constructively and civilly disagree with, and hopefully work with, to > establish technical steps forward. Quite a few have joined silently! > So far, 168 people have joined! > > Please welcome Dr David Bray[1], a self-described "human flack jacket" > who, in the last NN debate, stood up for the non -partisan FCC IT team > that successfully kept the system up 99.4% of the time despite the > comment floods and network abuses from all sides. He has shared with > me privately many sad (and some hilarious!) stories of that era, and I > do kind of hope now, that some of that history surfaces, and we can > learn from it. > > Thank you very much, David, for putting down your painful memories[2], > and agreeing to join here. There is a lot to tackle here, going > forward. > > [1] https://www.stimson.org/ppl/david-bray/ > [2] "Pain shared is reduced. Joy shared, increased." - Spider Robinson > > > -- > Oct 30: > https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > --000000000000bea2d80606c0eb2b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings all and thank you Dave Taht = for that very kind intro...

First, I'll open with I'm= a gosh-darn non-partisan, which means I swore an oath to uphold the Consti= tution first and serve the United States - not a specific party, tribe, or = ideology. This often means, especially in today's era of 24/7 news and = social media, non-partisans have to "top cover".

Se= cond, I'll share that in what happened in 2017 (which itself was 10x wh= at we saw in 2014) my biggest concern was and remains that a few actors att= empted to flood the system with less-than-authentic comments.

In some respects this is not new. The whole "notice and comment"= process is a legacy process that=20 goes back decades. And the FCC (and others) have had postcard floods of=20 comments, mimeographed letters of comments, faxed floods of comments,=20 and now this - which, when combined with generative AI, will be yet=20 another flood.=C2=A0

Which gets me to my biggest concern as a non-partisan in 2023= -2024, namely how LLMs might misuse and abuse the commenting process furthe= r.

Both in 2014 and 2017, I asked FCC General Counsel if I could use=20 CAPTChA to try to reduce the volume of web scrapers or bots both filing and pulling info from the Electronic Comment Filing System.=C2=A0

Both times I was told *no* out of concerns that they might prevent someone=20 from filing. I asked if I could block obvious spam, defined as someone=20 filing a comment >100 times a minute, and was similarly told no=20 because one of those possible comments might be genuine and/or it could=20 be an ex party filing en masse for others.=C2=A0

For 2017 we had to spin up 30x the number of AWS cloud instances to handle=20 the load - and this was a flood of comments at 4am, 5am, and 6am ET at nigh= t which=20 normally shouldn=E2=80=99t see such volumes. When I said there was a combin= ation of actual humans wanting to leave comments and others who were=20 effectively denying service to others (especially because if anyone=20 wanted to do a batch upload of 100,000 comments or more they could=20 submit a CSV file or a comment with 100,000 signatories) - both parties=20 said no, that couldn=E2=80=99t be happening.=C2=A0
<= br>
Until 2021 when the NY Attorney General proved that was exactly what was=20 happening with 18m of the 23m apparently from non-authentic origin with=20 ~9m from one side of the political aisle (and six companies) and ~9m from= =20 the other side of the political aisle (and one or more teenagers).=C2=A0

So with Net Neutrality bac= k on the agenda - here=E2=80=99s a simple prediction, even if the volume of comments is somehow controlled, 10,000+ pages of=20 comments produced by ChatGPT or a different LLM is both possible and=20 probably will be done. The question is if someone includes a legitimate=20 legal argument on page 6,517 - will FCC=E2=80=99s lawyers spot it and respo= nd to it as part of the NPRM?

Hope this helps and with highes= t regards,


= On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:15=E2=80=AFPM Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>= ; wrote:
All:
I have spent the last several days reaching out to as many people I
know with a deep understanding of the policy and technical issues
surrounding the internet, to participate on this list. I encourage you
all to reach out on your own, especially to those that you can
constructively and civilly disagree with, and hopefully work with, to
establish technical steps forward. Quite a few have joined silently!
So far, 168 people have joined!

Please welcome Dr David Bray[1], a self-described "human flack jacket&= quot;
who, in the last NN debate, stood up for the non -partisan FCC IT team
that successfully kept the system up 99.4% of the time despite the
comment floods and network abuses from all sides. He has shared with
me privately many sad (and some hilarious!) stories of that era, and I
do kind of hope now, that some of that history surfaces, and we can
learn from it.

Thank you very much, David, for putting down your painful memories[2],
and agreeing to join here. There is a lot to tackle here, going
forward.

[1] https://www.stimson.org/ppl/david-bray/
[2] "Pain shared is reduced. Joy shared, increased." - Spider Rob= inson


--
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/= 0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@= lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
--000000000000bea2d80606c0eb2b--