Is there any way to protect your browsing?
VPN outside the US.
The VPN doesn't have to be outside the U.S., the tracking in question is only by your immediate ISP.
Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
51–60 of 85 posts
Re: Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trying to get caught up on this. How big a difference is this to what Google and Facebook are doing currently?
Well, Facebook doesn't have access to your browsing history. At least not most of it, though it's probably still, you know, more that enough to cause a lot of pain. Google does have access in some situations (chrome + linked profile), but as far as I know they don't sell that access. Of course, both offer some subset of information for users.
Unless you are using an ad-blocker to block the rather commonplace facebook widget, and their other tracking mechanisms, they may well have more of your browsing history than you realize.
Hell, I do use ad-blockers and block assets coming from known Facebook domains, and they probably still have more information about my browsing history than I realize.
Re: Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
#53I would have preferred them to vote the other way, but I'm trying to do a reality check here. Given that on HTTPS sites it's just the domain name + timestamp, and that more and more sites are transitioning to HTTPS, is the mere domain name and timestamp really that useful? I can imagine it being useful to know you order pizzas at 7pm Thursdays, but how useful is it actually to know you e.g. browse Amazon 2pm Mondays,…
If it weren't useful, why would ISPs spend money lobbying to get access to it?
I don't know, that's why I'm asking. I'm wondering if they're just racing against the HTTPS clock or something?
Re: Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
#54I would have preferred them to vote the other way, but I'm trying to do a reality check here. Given that on HTTPS sites it's just the domain name + timestamp, and that more and more sites are transitioning to HTTPS, is the mere domain name and timestamp really that useful? I can imagine it being useful to know you order pizzas at 7pm Thursdays, but how useful is it actually to know you e.g. browse Amazon 2pm Mondays,…
Let's give a few examples of information they could find about you:
Visits nytimes.com, huffingtonpost.com and cnn.com: user is interested in current events and is probably liberal
Visits webmd.com and kaiserpermanente.org: user is probably sick
I'm sure you can extrapolate further. Now let's say I'm a gay person growing up in a conservative house and ads start popping up for all the family members on our shared IP for gay dating sites. That might be problematic for certain people.
Re: Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
They read papers prepared by lobbyists, think "makes sense" and vote for it. That's how law making often works.
I'm having a hard time imagining a compelling case that the lobbyists could present though. Are most of these representatives just willfully corrupt? I hate to vilify people unduly but it is becoming hard to understand the thought process here.
> Are most of these representatives just willfully corrupt?
Yes, but they prefer the terms "lobbying" and "campaign contributions".
While theoretically they are concerned with their constituency so they can keep their job, the big problem with our system is the expense of running campaigns. While serving in congress, our representatives a massive amount of time is spent "dialing for dollars". The parties even require ("encourage") spending time "fundraising".
This makes lobbying easy. Constructing a compelling case isn't necessary. Just promise to free up their time by making various donations to their campaign and/or their party. This is legal as long as there isn't specific quid pro quo, thanks to McDonnell v United States.
John Oliver's overview of the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk
Re: Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
#56We need good p2p mesh network applications! Relatively slow, asynchronous, person to person flow of information was, and arguably still is, the foundation of society, and the technology must be capable of fluidly falling back to this capability without dependence on unstable centralized networks!
Re: Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
#57Is there any way to protect your browsing?
VPN outside the US.
Note that the NSA openly claims authority to actively snoop on (i.e. not just incidentally record, but deliberately examine) your communications in this case, as your connection appears to be a foreign one. The FBI also has a legal strategy around hacking anyone whose actual location is obscured and has some kind of nexus in the US (as they could be presumed to be "crossing state lines" and thus subject to Federal jurisdiction); I'm not sure exactly how the execution of that shook out so far, but I doubt the story is over in any case.
Re: Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
#58Ok trump/republican supporters, please help me understand why this is a good thing.
You appear to be another victim of "divide and conquer", and like many of them, perpetuate it. Life is not as simple as you like to believe: Trump/republican supporters may not necessarily think this is a good thing.
Re: Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
#59I would have preferred them to vote the other way, but I'm trying to do a reality check here. Given that on HTTPS sites it's just the domain name + timestamp, and that more and more sites are transitioning to HTTPS, is the mere domain name and timestamp really that useful? I can imagine it being useful to know you order pizzas at 7pm Thursdays, but how useful is it actually to know you e.g. browse Amazon 2pm Mondays,…
Let's give a few examples of information they could find about you: Visits nytimes.com, huffingtonpost.com and cnn.com: user is interested in current events and is probably liberal Visits webmd.com and kaiserpermanente.org: user is probably sick I'm sure you can extrapolate further. Now let's say I'm a gay person growing up in a conservative house and ads start popping up for all the family members on our shared IP f…
Okay thanks, let me try to dissect this a bit:
1. You fall in the category of, "What if find out private information XYZ about me, based on which domain names I visit? My life would be ruined."
2. You don't fall in that category.
Group 1 has real fears. For some of them, even knowing whether they're home might be a life threat, and I understand that. But I don't imagine ISPs are fighting so hard just for the sake of targeting group 1; I imagine they might even avoid them if they could, for legal fears. They must be reaping immense benefits from gathering domain name browsing history about group 2 as well, and I assume those in group 2 are still terrified at the thought personally (as opposed to only because they're terrified of what would happen to group 1).
So let's leave the first group aside in this discussion. I'm trying to figure out what the most serious (but realistic) things are that people in group 2 are risking, and how ISPs are reaping profits from them. For example, ID theft or burglary is something that can happen to anybody. How much is your ISP recording & selling when you're home increasing the risk of burglary? etc.
Also: if you think group 1 is the vast majority of people and group 2 is the real minority hear, I'd be interested in hearing that argument as well, since I really don't have data on this (data would be welcome). My current instinct is group 2 is the majority.
Re: Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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.
Silent to you. Their lobby speaks volumes when they pay these pricks to take away more and more privacy.
All that is required is that they do not spend money to match the telecom's interest here. I don't see what Google, Microsoft or Facebook have to gain from telecoms getting datasets large enough to compete with their ad buisinesses. I think they probably just figured hey had little to lose and would not fight very hard.