31–40 of 85 posts
Is there any way to protect your browsing?
A VPN you trust not to keep logs, and/or TOR.
What a bunch of sell-out traitors. Is there no party that values privacy, individual liberty, or the constitution? I thought these "Senators" took an oath to protect the constitution. From the way they vote, it seems they never even read it!
(1) Don't bet on many of them understanding their vote. It was billed as a removal of an unfair restraint on the free market. (2) Oddly silent were folks like Google, Microsoft, etc. I fully expect to have to pay for privacy, or to have to choose whom I trust with my data: Comcast or Google. Its a shitty time for privacy, period.
What a bunch of sell-out traitors. Is there no party that values privacy, individual liberty, or the constitution? I thought these "Senators" took an oath to protect the constitution. From the way they vote, it seems they never even read it!
uh, no Democrat voted for this. "The Senate" didn't vote for this. The Republicans did.
If you do talk with your representatives, remind them this essentially means their browsing history, and the histories of their families, their constituents, and their constituents families will be available for sale at best, or once collected and sold are highly likely to be in a databreach before long. The aggregate of that information will be used to treat those people differently in some aspect or another.
Trying to get caught up on this. How big a difference is this to what Google and Facebook are doing currently?
In a market where everyone has a wide variety of ISPs available and people can start one without massive infrastructure work (for instance, with widely available fiber infrastructure and a choice of who to light it), then we don't need as many restrictions on ISPs can do; people can handle that by selecting an ISP that meets their requirements.
But until we can make ISPs less of a monopoly, and make it possible for others to easily enter the market, then it's reasonable to restrict what those monopolies can do.
I won't be surprised if AT&T revives its "Internet Preferences" targeted ads program[1]. Most customers apparently didn't care and were willing to put up with it for a $29/mo discount. AT&T never indicated why they canceled it, but my money is that it was due to the FCC regulations that were put in place. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/att-t...
Is there a good reason why a representative would vote in favor of this?
If you're a telco, you can walk into the office of a politician in Alabama and say: "Hey, we employ 5,000 people in your state. Google employs 100. Why the hell would you support legislation that allows Google to make money this way but bans us from doing it?"
(This is, incidentally, why the conventional wisdom about money ruling politics is bunk. Tech is one of the richest industries that exists. But it's relatively politically ineffectual because it employs so few people, and it does so primarily in a handful of rich, coastal states.
A professor of mine once pointed out to me that in the environmental area, it's the environmental groups that need to do lobbying. The power company can just call up a Congress-critter and remind them of the thousands of jobs in their district that are tied to that company's well-being.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uh, no Democrat voted for this. "The Senate" didn't vote for this. The Republicans did.
Do you have a source for this? Not arguing. Just looking for data.
Scroll down to "Grouped by Vote Position".
EDIT: Better link
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think companies profiting on privacy is a bad thing, but how exactly is it unconstitutional?
It should be pretty clear that privacy against government agencies is protected by the Constitution. Of course our government ignores that and tramples all over the spirit of the Bill of Rights, if not the letter. As far as corporations? Not unconstitutional, but I don't think passing laws in the interest of the People's privacy against corporations would be unconstitutional either, so if our government had our best…
That is still a debatable issue though. I completely agree with you, but there are possible world views in which one might think allowing ISPs to sell your viewing data will provide a better product to the end user. Of course this assumes trust that these corporations will act ethically with your data (i.e. anonymize the data before selling and not allowing any leaks of non-anonymised data). That's a dream world to me, but a lot of people seem to be living in dream worlds to me these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uh, no Democrat voted for this. "The Senate" didn't vote for this. The Republicans did.
Do you have a source for this? Not arguing. Just looking for data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uh, no Democrat voted for this. "The Senate" didn't vote for this. The Republicans did.
Do you have a source for this? Not arguing. Just looking for data.