Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 242 posts

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#161

Post by mdpopescu »

Latty wrote: post #129
programmarchy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a less editorialized summary of the bill: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 It repealed 73 pages [1] of regulation on ISPs.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…

You think that regulation is the relevant barrier to entry to being an ISP? Not the cost of running lines or anti-competitive practices by rivals? 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've had an ISP willing to put 2km of copper wire to get my 15$ / month fee. (Not in the US.) I don't think the cost of wires is significant anywhere in the US either.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#162

Post by EGreg »

edraferi wrote: post #147
pdkl95 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> VPN This is a political problem. Technology like a VPN or alternative DNS is little more than a placebo. With the ISP as a permanent MitM, modern deep-packet inspection, etc , you are probably still leaking a lot of information. Worse, you're only moving the problem to a different location. Even if you were able to hide your traffic from your local ISP, your VPN host or DNS service becomes your ISP de facto . Also,…

> Worse, you're only moving the problem to a different location I agree that's true from a technical perspective. However, the VPN provider has an economic incentive to compete on privacy. I would much rather just trust my local ISP, but at least I have a choice in VPN providers. > privacy shouldn't be limited to people with a technical background Absolutely. That's why I want this as a product that Just Works instea…

Not just that, but being able to choose your VPN+ISP is better than being able to "choose" your ISP.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#163

Post by vancan1ty »

Navarr wrote: post #87
xienze wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Because it is an assault on civil liberties? The status quo was wrong, which is why we passed the law in the first place. The difference, of course, is: * [thing isn't thought about, so isn't made illegal - making it implicitly legal] * Hey, this thing they're doing is bad - now that we know about it, we should make it illegal. * Repeal: Hey, let them do this thing.

No law was passed in the first place.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#164

Post by rayiner »

shawnee_ wrote: post #139
Brendinooo wrote: post #99

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…

However, this headline is patently false, right? Congress didn't sell anything. They removed protections that were put into place late last year and hadn't gone into effect as far as I know. It's nearly impossible to find even one constituent who wrote to their Congresspeople asking for this law to be axed. It was a handful of lawmakers in Congress who accepted bribes, payments[1], and other kinds of lobbying from te…

Given that it's illegal for corporations to donate to candidates, I find your reference rather suspect.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#166

Post by programmarchy »

shopkins wrote: post #145
programmarchy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Furthermore, this bill seems like a minor nuisance compared to the data collected by Facebook, Google, and the NSA. This is the bullshit argument Republicans/ISPs are pushing that anyone technical should immediately realize as such. It's conflating two separate issues. I can choose whether or not to use Google and Facebook, and indeed willingly "agree" to their TOS when I log on. But to even get to those providers,…

Agree with you on Facebook and Google. There's a choice, and at least there is no law preventing competition/disruption. Not the case with the NSA, but that's a tangent.

The root issue is the national providers lobbying the state to prevent competition at the municipal level. Granting more power to the FCC does not solve that problem. Rather, it would only serve to lock in the existing monopolies and further centralize control with the state/corporate nexus.

The state preventing the market from functioning is not a valid reason to introduce more state intervention. In my view, competition will protect the consumer better than regulation in the long run.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#167

Post by Crespyl »

icebraining wrote: post #142
baumandm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are commercially-available routers which support running all traffic through a VPN. That should handle all the devices in your house.

A VPN doesn't actually provide more privacy, it just changes who can snoop on your data.

You're right, of course, but a VPN at least lets you make sure that the service that can snoop on your data doesn't want to snoop on your data, because they know you'll just leave them for another, more privacy conscious, provider if they do.

VPN providers have incentive to compete with each other and commitment to user privacy is an important selling point. ISPs have zero commitment to privacy and almost no reason to compete since users have no choice.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#168

Post by Brendinooo »

shawnee_ wrote: post #139
Brendinooo wrote: post #99

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…

However, this headline is patently false, right? Congress didn't sell anything. They removed protections that were put into place late last year and hadn't gone into effect as far as I know. It's nearly impossible to find even one constituent who wrote to their Congresspeople asking for this law to be axed. It was a handful of lawmakers in Congress who accepted bribes, payments[1], and other kinds of lobbying from te…

I see where your argument is coming from. Lobbyists give money to politicians who push legislation that favors lobbyists. In a sense that could be construed as a 'sale'.

But if we accept that premise, even in that case the only thing that was sold was the potential to infringe on privacy, not privacy itself.

Congressional Republicans don't own my privacy.

They can certainly make it easier for me to protect my privacy and have possibly made it harder after this vote, but they never owned it.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#169

Post by Proof »

galacticpony wrote: post #156
pdkl95 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> VPN This is a political problem. Technology like a VPN or alternative DNS is little more than a placebo. With the ISP as a permanent MitM, modern deep-packet inspection, etc , you are probably still leaking a lot of information. Worse, you're only moving the problem to a different location. Even if you were able to hide your traffic from your local ISP, your VPN host or DNS service becomes your ISP de facto . Also,…

> Those of us that do understand the technology have a duty to help the people without that knowledge and experience. No, we don't. The fact that the "common people" don't value privacy enough led to this whole situation. Those that do value privacy, can pay for it with their money (or their time to learn).

I agree with this! I think, should people value their privacy and want to use VPNs then we can teach them about such matters but merely us trying to convince them should not be our problem.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#170

Post by dsr_ »

If engineers would refuse to implement privacy invasions, they wouldn't happen.

Do you work for Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Time-Warner, CenturyLink, Charter, Cox, Frontier? Don't implement these things. Don't do deep packet inspection, don't log things that shouldn't be logged, don't put in MITM proxies and don't insert cookies in traffic that your customers expected to have unmolested. Explain your decision, and explain it to your coworkers.

Some of you will lose your jobs. I'm sorry. However, you're in high demand. And maybe you can make a difference.

Post reply on HN