Topic

politics

956 petitions

Update posted 1 hour ago

Petition to Gary Peters, David Perdue, Debbie Stabenow, Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Karen Handel, Johnny Isakson, Ajit Pai

Save Net Neutrality

     Net neutrality preserves the right to communicate freely on the internet. Net neutrality requires internet service providers (ISPs) to give everyone equal access to everything you use on the internet-- email, watching videos, reading news articles, and listening to music. It prohibits ISPs from slowing down, speeding up, or blocking content on the internet. It is how the internet has always worked. Unfortunately, this is being threatened by the FCC- the Federal Communications Commission.     If the FCC ends net neutrality, then how we’ve used the internet changes completely. ISPs will be able to block content, slow down internet access, and favor websites over others. It will also end the Title II of the Communications Act, which charges ISPs for blocking content or slowing down internet and creating “fast lanes.” “Fast lanes” would allow certain internet service providers to give internet access faster than any other service providers. Ending net neutrality could have global impacts and change the way the world shares information and changes how information is processed.     As high school seniors about to enter into the real world, we cannot imagine what life would be like if we did not have net neutrality. Net neutrality allows us to use our freedom of speech on a platform that is like no other. I can go on the internet and research something without the fear that an ISP has favored a certain website that is completely biased one way or blocked certain websites.     If you believe we should have free access to the internet, sign this petition to show your support. This issue is time sensitive and must be addressed. Support free and open internet! Thank you for your support, Katie Lemon and Virginia Rowlett    

Katie Lemon
32,621 supporters
Update posted 21 hours ago

Petition to Ajit Pai, Donald Trump, Cheryl King

Internet Privacy and Net Neutrality

While many of you may think that you are secure on the internet, none of you are. How many of you have a Gmail? How about a Google plus or a twitter account? YouTube? These programs are tracking you. Public law 115-22, passed on April 3, takes privacy protection to a whole new level. On December 16, 2016, the Obama administration and The FCC (Federal Communications Commission), passed a law relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”, or FCC 16-148. While you can feel free to Google that, it’s a 72-page document, so I’ll just give you the gist of it. This new law protected Net Neutrality and customer privacy. Internet Service providers such as Verizon now had to protect their subscribers from cyberattacks, report any cyberattacks, protect their subscriber’s privacy, and could not sell user data. Consider this: you pay for Internet. You don’t pay for Google or Twitter. Google and twitter’s services are free. Google only makes $32 dollars off you. If you had been willing to pay just $32, you could get Google without trackers! But in the early 2000’s, the consumers decided that they didn’t want to pay for internet services. So, websites like Tripod (The precursor of Myspace, which was the precursor of Facebook, etc.), started placing ads on their pages. This worked great for a while, up until some executive decided that they could make more money if they targeted specific users. (Ad Networks pay-per-click, which means the more clicks on an ad, the more the website makes.) And so tracking was born! But back to Public law 115-22. No only does this law remove online privacy protections, but it also means that ISPs no longer have to report cyberattacks, so your passwords, Social Security Number, and more could be compromised, and Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Bell, or whatever ISP you use, wouldn’t even have to tell you! And guess what? That data that ISPs now have access to means that they are making even more money by selling your data that you pay them to acquire. Not to mention, Net Neutrality is down the toilet as well, which means that the internet could be more like a TV service, where you pay for individual sites, or websites like Netflix would have to pay to deliver their content to customers on that ISP. So what can you do? You can sign my petition, or talk to your local congressman. And to protect your data, you can sign up for a VPN like Tunnel Bear, or use TOR, i2p, or freenet. You can also look for a green lock on the upper left hand corner of your browser to ensure that the site that you are browsing is secure. But most importantly, you need to stay aware of what you are sharing online, and who you are sharing it with. And remember, your data isn’t yours anymore when it’s on the Internet.  

Daniel Meskin
91,137 supporters
Update posted 21 hours ago

Petition to Barack Obama, President Donald Trump

GRANT FELIX WALLS an EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY

Oct 30, 2015 — Petition For Commutation of Sentence/Clemency TO : The President of the United States The undersigned petitioner, Felix Walls, Reg. No. 02414112, date of birth January 19, 1942, a United States citizen, who has no prior filing of said petition, being a federal prisoner; convicted for a violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 and 846 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan sentenced to life imprisonment on February 3, 2003, on a plea of not guilty. Having sought review by the Supreme Court prays for commutation of sentence and/or clemency and in support of my petition I ask that you please take into consideration the fact that this petition also falls under the “Compassionate Release’ as I am a senior citizen with deteriorating health, I can barely move around and barely see at times. I have done over 20 years of imprisonment and such time has been served for a non violent offense. Further, I have a biological daughter who is in desperate need of a kidney donor. I, as her biological father may very well a potential donor for her. I ask that it is taken into consideration that I may very well be her only chance for being a match for her. Further, in support there of the petition I state as follows; All Subsequent Indictments are in clear violation of the Speedy Trial Act. The delay between the arrest and each superseding trial is in clear violation of the Speedy Trial Act. Had the supeserseding indictments been timely made (though they were not ) they are defective as a superseding indictment may narrow, but not broaden, the charges made in the original indictment. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3288-3289; United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) The complaint that resulted in the petitioner’s arrest contains a charge not contained in the original indictment but added in a superseding indictment, which is not filed within thirty days of the original complaint; the charge is subject to dismissal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 3161(b),3162(a)(1) The original criminal indictment is a fatal, defect, the original indictment does not pass constitutional muster, an indictment “must allege lucidly and accurately all the essential elements of the [crime] . . . charged.” The original indictment failed to meet this requirement, it suffers from a fatal defect and cannot support a conviction. Fatal defects in indictments are jurisdictional, and may be raised at any time. Further the indictment failed to allege drug amounts or penalty statutes, in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey ,530 U.S. 466 (2000). See also FRCP Rule 7©(1). See Also U.S. v Landham, 251 F.3d 1072, 1082 (2001) Any factor other than conviction that increases the Defendant sentence must be determined by a jury. See Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)* this includes the constitutionality of any prior convictions See Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 The petitioner’s “valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal” is within the protection of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, since it is that “right” that lies at the foundation of the federal rule that jeopardy attaches when the jury is empanelled and sworn. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. Also, The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a criminal defendant from multiple successive prosecutions for the same offense that arise from prosecutorial overreaching engaged in with the deliberate intent of depriving him of having his trial completed by a particular tribunal or prejudicing the possibility of an acquittal that the prosecutor believed likely . Double Jeopardy as well as collateral estoppel precluded further institution of charges as well as successive punishment. An accused may not be sentenced on the basis of materially false assumptions or misinformation, but must be based upon reliable and accurate information. See Townsend v Burke, 334 U.S. 736, see also Morrisry v Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). CERTIFICATION AND PERSONAL OATH I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that the information as provided above and contained herein is true and correct. I understand that any intentional misstatements of material facts contained in the petition may cause an adverse action and may subject me to penalties, criminal and/or civil.

Phyllis Bell
588 supporters