121–130 of 242 posts
What is the name of the bill? And where can I read it? Thanks.
Just because you call it a right, doesn't make it a right. For instance: I have a right to only be upvoted! Should I call the ACLU on everyone who downvotes this? Recognizing the costs of providing internet service, and then making a suggestion to pay a higher premium for additional service (i.e. privacy) is the logical way to resolve this.
Well, I was going to respond to this, but it's an account that less than an hour old. Seems the trolls are picking up on tactics from Reddit.
Unless I'm missing something bad the OP said.
Is there anything the average user can do to protect their data/privacy from their ISP?
Yes VPN is a good answer here, but another idea to make the data they collect and sell less useful would be something like https://github.com/WhiteBeachStudios/cyberflare to hide your real usage habits among a bunch of artificially generated traffic.
I want a privacy first router. Does such a product exist? Key features: - I pay a subscription for maintenance (so I'm not the product) say $10/mo - Automatically routes all traffic over a VPN. - Smart VPN bypass for performance-sensitive traffic like streaming video and gaming - Provides non-logging DNS service - Automatic advertisement blocking For VPN, DNS, and adblock I want the option to use servers & block list…
It is highly error-prone to maintain (or expect a company to maintain) essentially a large filter list. In the end you'll end up with a product that gives you neither privacy nor performance. For a real world example, try using a smart dns. They suck at dns on its own. And they have to keep up with the cat and mouse of content sellers blocking them. You'll end up with pretty much the same situation with your smart vpn solution. You'll never know reliably what's going over which route (unless you are making the list), debugging will be a nightmare, and you'll have leaks all over.
I want a privacy first router. Does such a product exist? Key features: - I pay a subscription for maintenance (so I'm not the product) say $10/mo - Automatically routes all traffic over a VPN. - Smart VPN bypass for performance-sensitive traffic like streaming video and gaming - Provides non-logging DNS service - Automatic advertisement blocking For VPN, DNS, and adblock I want the option to use servers & block list…
> - Smart VPN bypass for performance-sensitive traffic like streaming video and gaming It is highly error-prone to maintain (or expect a company to maintain) essentially a large filter list. In the end you'll end up with a product that gives you neither privacy nor performance. For a real world example, try using a smart dns. They suck at dns on its own. And they have to keep up with the cat and mouse of content sell…
Install VPN software on the server and become your own VPN provider. On your home router you can setup a point-to-point VPN connection and you're done - all traffic encrypted and bypassing your local telco.
I assume that network-providers are not included in this legislation though...
> In 2016, the F.C.C., which I led as chairman under President Barack Obama, extended those same protections to the internet. Oh how nice of Tom Wheeler to play the good-guy now. It took a lot of public outcry for him to change his tune about Net Neutrality.
That's wrong. He was for net neutrality from day one at the FCC.
You are probably thinking of the first net neutrality rule he proposed, which would have allowed for paid fast lanes, and interpreting that as somehow not being for net neutrality.
When he proposed that rule that was about the strongest net neutrality rule possible without reclassifying ISPs as common carriers. Reclassification was a very risky approach, with probably at least an order of magnitude more chance of not surviving. He did state that he was open to that approach, if the comments on the first proposal indicated that there was enough support for reclassification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were some ISPs which were selling people's data prior to this order (Verizon was one, IIRC, and a few others were actively injecting ads and JS into non-TLS traffic), and many more were considering it. Yes, we've "essentially" just gone back in time, but it's not a positive regression.
> Yes, we've "essentially" just gone back in time, but it's not a positive regression. I agree, but with the way this thing has been reported you'd think we've gone back to the dark ages rather than where we were just prior to the election. I don't recall a lot of discussion on HN about which proxy to use because "OMG my ISP is going to sell my browsing history!!!" back then. That's all I'm getting at. Wondering why…
When the articles about ISPs came up (as Verizon did, fairly frequently; though it was also as frequently buried), there was discussion about using VPNs. We're primarily technology users and creators; our first instincts are to find technological solutions to such problems.
Give this a week, and it will fade from the front pages as well. That doesn't mean it's not still important, or that we accept the new status quo as being right or correct.
> Wondering why the reaction to going back to the status quo
Because, IMO, that "status quo" was not a good place to be, and was getting worse. And is now likely to continue to get worse since we've regressed back to it.
We pride ourselves as Americans as being progressive - trying to make things more fair for everyone. Everyone should have a vote. Everyone should be able to express their thoughts without fear of censorship. Everyone should have the ability to rise above their station. Everyone should have a right to privacy. When our elected government take steps away from these ideals, people (rightly, IMO) complain that we're moving in the wrong direction.
So the only thing I don't understand as far as the fuss about this is concerned -- everything I've read indicates that this is undoing a protection put in place late last year. So essentially we've gone back in time six months ago or so. If ISPs weren't selling our info then when they could have, why does it logically follow that we're now in some uncharted territory of ISPs selling personal info? Or is this simply b…
Here is a less editorialized summary of the bill: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 It repealed 73 pages [1] of regulation on ISPs. Personally, I'd like to see more competition in the ISP space. This bill may help by reducing barrier to entry, but the central problem remains that national carriers have lobbied the state to prevent competition at the municipal level. Furthermore, this bill seems lik…
Please, this just means no protection for an environment where, right now, we have no competition to move to when our ISP decides to do something shitty.
I am a strong advocate for privacy, please understand that before you continue reading this. I don't want ISPs to sell my browsing history, and I am continually disappointed in the Republican opposition to net neutrality and online privacy. I'm even working on an open source project involving cryptography and secret protection, so I have skin in the game. However, this headline is patently false, right? Congress didn…
But weren't the protections only put into place last year because they weren't needed until then?
In other words, they were under the jurisdiction of the FTC previously, so this particular legislation a moot point, because the FTC could just say "hey, you can't do that. case closed."
Now because of the "common carrier exemption" I don't think that would hold up.
This was useful in some quick tidbits about FTC + FCC relationship, previous responsibilities, and current. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...
Funny enough, they talk about how the FCC handles data/privacy breaches, and how they came down really hard on a minor breach that affected a few cox subscribers, nothing with payment data or even any actual damages.
This seemingly means that the FTC takes privacy seriously. But congress won't let them.