New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood has subpoenaed 14 companies and organizations as part of the state’s investigation into the blizzard of fake public comments over net neutrality that inundated the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), according to The New York Times.
From Underwood’s statement:
The FCC’s public comment process was corrupted by millions of fake comments. The law protects New Yorkers from deception and the misuse of their identities. My office will get to the bottom of what happened and hold accountable those responsible for using stolen identities to distort public opinion on net neutrality.
As far as the identity theft piece of the puzzle goes, the Wall Street Journal cited an anonymous source who’s familiar with the investigation who said that the civil subpoenas are aimed at determining who was behind millions of comments posted with real people’s names but without their permission.
Underwood said in her statement that her office found up to 9.5 million comments that, the WSJ writes, “appear to have been filed using the names and addresses of real people who had no idea they were being cited in the comments.”
The subpoenas went out to telecommunications industry groups such as Broadband for America – a coalition supported by cable and telecommunications companies – and conservative groups such as the political consultancy Century Strategies and Media Bridge, a conservative messaging company whose site boasts about having placed nearly 800,000 comments opposing internet regulation.
Both pro- and anti-net neutrality groups used automated methods to submit comments. In November 2017, a Pew Research Center study found that only 6% of the public comments filed up to that point were unique. The rest came from bots and fake email addresses.
The vast majority – 94% – had similar wording and were submitted up to hundreds of thousands of times, Pew found. In fact, the single most-repeated submission Pew found was a pro-net-neutrality comment that appeared as a submission form on the website battleforthenet.com, a site run by the net neutrality advocacy groups Fight for the Future, Demand Progress and Free Press. Underwood’s office is, in fact, also seeking documents from the pro-net neutrality camp, including from Free Press and Fight for the Future.
The FCC received a record 22 million comments ahead of its decision to repeal the 2015 net neutrality rules requiring internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally.
Although a pro-net neutrality comment was the most-repeated comment from the ranks of automated posts, one recent study from a Stanford University researcher has found that nearly all (99.7%) non-fraud/form letter comments were pro-net neutrality.
Underwood’s probe is an expansion of one launched by her predecessor, Eric Schneiderman. Last December, Schneiderman declared that the public comment process had been “deeply corrupted.”
New York wasn’t the first to state the obvious: Reports of fake and bot-generated comments started more than six months prior to Schneiderman’s launching of New York’s probe, before the official public comment period even began on 18 May 2017, after FCC Chairman Ajit Pai proposed the rollback of Obama-era regulations.
ZDNet reported in May 2017 that more than 128,000 identical comments had already been submitted. Some whose names were on those comments told ZDNet that they hadn’t submitted them – including one “commenter” who said that they didn’t even know what net neutrality was.
Those reports continued regularly through the year, and the flawed comments process, as Naked Security reported in October 2017, was almost embarrassingly obvious.
But while New York’s AG wasn’t the first to call out the comment process for the shambles that it was, its investigation was, as the WSJ reports, “one of the first official probes into lobbying firms that promise special interests they can deliver thousands, even millions of people to back their causes under consideration before the government.”
The New York Times says that the net neutrality comments probe is being spearheaded by a unit of Underwood’s office that’s focusing on online fraud, impersonation and abuse, “including the theft of social media profiles to create and sell huge networks of fake accounts to commercial clients.”
It’s called astroturf lobbying: the farming of fake grass-roots support.
Besides the state’s AGs giving the FCC grief, the New York Times noted that in September the paper sued the commission to obtain “digital records that would help trace the source of the public comments.” The Times is accusing the FCC of covering up evidence of Russia having meddled in the comments process.
c.curtis
The headline here is misleading. It is calling the legitimate use of form letters “fake”.
If PEW is cannot distinguish the use of form letters — a standard practice of advocacy groups for decades — from unethical spoofing of names, that is a serious problem and one which the advocacy groups need to be informed about.
Most advocacy groups present a suggested letter, and while in most cases they offer the opportunity to edit the letter, they do not require the submitter to do so. And they make it easy to send the litter with a single click. But those are still legitimate comments.
It would have been better to focus on how to detect and combat unethically spoofed comments, or if that is impossible, to focus on informing advocacy groups that one-click form letters should not be offered.
I fear that confusing legitimate form letters with unethical spoofing will lead to officials discounting the commenting procedure altogether, which would be a serious blow to the democratic process.
Epic_Null
I agree with the sentiment, though I will say this: it would take an audit of the sending sites to distinguish between the two. Probably not a hard audit to run though.
agfleming1
Surely a distinction has to be made between real commenters with similar responses going through a activist website with a suggested message and bots generating similar messages and using farmed data to fill in the contact info. So many petition websites etc have a suggested message and when presented with that unless they disagree with something in it, they won’t change it. Humans are lazy but that doesnt make their concerns about an issue illegitimate.
Epic_Null
But wait – didn’t battleforthenet have a copy and paste form? It’s been a while, but I believe they provided a script, which may be an alternate explanation for the patterns.
A_Nony_Moose
This is addressed in the article:
“In fact, the single most-repeated submission Pew found was a pro-net-neutrality comment that appeared as a submission form on the website battleforthenet.com, a site run by the net neutrality advocacy groups Fight for the Future, Demand Progress and Free Press.”
Epic_Null
Right, and I’m saying that the fact that those forms existed explain the similar comments without such comments being illegitimate/faked.
Terry
If only the US was a democracy instead of a republic it would, of course, have a binding public vote on net neutrality and every other important public issue – and then implement the democratic outcomes. If only…
Epic_Null
That is a lot to have to vote on, especially for people who have no prior knowledge on the topics at hand… Perhaps to fall in line with the idea of a democratic republic, there could be a way for citizens to petition to have an issue escalated to national vote? A national proposition system as well as a “State requested citizen vote” system (ignore the name’s low quality please) could allow citizens to take direct action in affecting the laws of the country without requiring every citizen to be a legal expert.
Brian T. Nakamoto
If only more Americans would vote to hold their representatives accountable.
Steve
Democracy: two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Anonymous
This never would’ve happened if Ajit Pai or whoever wanted to ruin the internet never went down this rabbit hole..
Bill
The USA is a republic for real reasons that are still true today. The internet thrived for many years without net neutrality. Less government while enforcing the common law of the centuries is the best way. If only…
Epic_Null
Net Neutrality is how the internet worked back then too though. The bills that enforce it came about after ISPs began abusing their power in a successful effort to restore the net.
The former pricing model was time based, with no controls on who you connected to, as per Net Neutrality. The current pricing model is speed based, with ISPs wanting to use throttling between paying customers and customers of other ISPs to get more money out of the deal.
William
Of course, the so called findings favored the isp bought FCC regulations enforced as law (aka dictatorship). Per comment of got along find before – BS. After the fact built tech giants now get to play gods which was foreseeable consequence of the elimination of net neutrality. But that fat cash register still got to keep on ringing up. Another thing which seems to have disappeared; government neutrality, never mind the conflict of financial interest enjoyed by another immune corporate interest – government.