Live data from Hacker News

Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

nytimes.com

201–210 of 242 posts

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

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's amazing how quickly the left dismisses logic and reason. Stay in your bubble.

Clearly, government ordained rights is the only way to stop data from being sold to evil marketing companies! To believe other viable options exist is crazy, you must be a troll! /s

That's how partisan worldviews work, my ideology is good, to believe otherwise is unfathomable / malicious / the agenda of a conspiratorial paid shill. There's some great literature on this subject, the left is particularly susceptible as their worldview tends to start from a smug all-knowing-esque position. But the right is hardly immune to this either.

45% of the top websites online have TLS by default and growing. Most home internet is shared among various people and most valuable data (ie, identifying data) is almost always encrypted these days. I can't imagine it's very valuable as it is and clearly the value is diminishing as privacy activists like myself push for TLS adoption and better OS defaults.

Yet despite previous ISP privacy laws, there's still a massive billion dollar marketing data industry collected from ads, rewards cards, credit card usage, etc, etc. This is like creating a huge fuss about a fly while a jumbo jet gets let through.

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

#202
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are probably thinking of the first net neutrality rule he proposed, which would have allowed for paid fast lanes That was the second; the first he got passed did not, but it was struck down by the courts for exceeding the power the FCC had without Title II reclassification. The draft of the replacement might have allowed paid prioritization (it was clearly not intended to, but it was limited because it attempte…

The one that got struck down was passed before Wheeler was on the FCC.

Yeah, I was somehow projecting his chairmanship back to beginning of the 3/5 partisan pro/anti-neutrality split.

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

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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…

For the nerds among us this shouldn't be too hard. A Virtual Private Server can be rented for a few dollars a month. I have seen examples that charge less than $4 for unlimited bandwidth. 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-pro…

what's a good vpn software to install on a server?

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

#204
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A moderator replaced the original title (which was absolutely as linkbait as they come) with a representative phrase from the article. This topic has been discussed extensively already, so this article received many user flags as well as the standard penalty for follow-on posts. Related discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13942345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13981184 https://news.ycombinator.co…

Thank you for being transparent. It seems nearly everyday I see articles rise to the top of HN only to disappear when I return. With no explanation or transparency for the reason. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13939514 For example was on the front page for less than 2 minutes before disappearing with zero discussion nor reasoning. Even though it contains extremely Hacker News friendly analysis and discussion.…

> HN needs to come clean, is the no politics rule continuing? Or are the politics of the moderators or the "politics deemed appropriate" going to continue to rule?

You're not asking this question fairly or charitably, but that story wasn't touched by moderators. The detailed mechanics of the site are not completely transparent for obvious reasons. On the flip side, we're happy to explain when the community has specific questions. The best way to ask those is via email at hn@ycombinator.com.

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

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, you're right, we should make list of people who think their "rights" are important. Let's start with gun owners.

Please point me to the amendment that guarantees a right to internet privacy. Gun owner's actually have a right: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amen... Perhaps you should try to better understand the system of rule of law we have here in the United States before participating in discussion.

If you're so convicted about your beliefs, perhaps you shouldn't be too chickenshit to post from your main account. Drop the troll tactics.

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

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's amazing how quickly the left dismisses logic and reason. Stay in your bubble.

I have yet to see either logic or reason in your posts. However, using a fresh account with a username clearly meant to incite is not exactly a subtle tactic.

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

#207

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…

I was mulling over a service like this. Was thinking I'd set it up roughly like so:

1. Create Terraform / Ansible scripting to boot up fresh DigitalOcean droplets with OpenVPN and encrypted DNS / pi-hole to strip out ads.

2. Bulk purchase cheap dynamic DNS domains (or just generate sub domains on command and hit some kind of load balancer).

3. Create scripting to shuffle the various VPN boxes every x time (each night, week, whatever).

I'm not an expert, so I might be missing things here. But I'd pay for that, and I think all you'd have to do as a client is put OpenVPN client on your router and point it to whatever static domain you're assigned by the service.

EDIT: I also figured I'd donate some % of proceeds to OpenVPN / Pi-Hole.

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

#208
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how quickly the left dismisses logic and reason. Stay in your bubble.

Clearly, government ordained rights is the only way to stop data from being sold to evil marketing companies! To believe other viable options exist is crazy, you must be a troll! /s That's how partisan worldviews work, my ideology is good, to believe otherwise is unfathomable / malicious / the agenda of a conspiratorial paid shill. There's some great literature on this subject, the left is particularly susceptible as…

> Clearly, government ordained rights is the only way to stop data from being sold to evil marketing companies! To believe other viable options exist is crazy, you must be a troll

You're from Canada, so your government has implemented strong privacy laws. What you may miss out on is that the usual response to this involves either individual responsibility or a free market solution.

The problem with both of these is that ISPs in the United States are powerful, and in many cases, hold either monopolies or non-competing duopolies is a region. There is no "free market" solution. Claims there are ignore the reality that ISPs will use any means necessary to slow of halt competition. Google Fiber is an example of that. Individual responsibility would require everyone to set up VPNS. For some people, that is beyond their means or their capability. It also is, as I said, an arms race. An organization can detect if you're using a VPN and either throttle or ban you from their service. If you live in one of those areas with a monopoly, you're of luck.

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

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 centrali…

Absolutely, competition will protect the consumer best. But we need that competition first :)

In the meantime, it seems logical to take some steps to limit the damage that our currently monopolistic telcos can do and give someone power to enforce a rule that: "(1) applies the customer privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet access service and other telecommunications services, (2) requires telecommunications carriers to inform customers about rights to opt in or opt out of the use or the sharing of their confidential information, (3) adopts data security and breach notification requirements, (4) prohibits broadband service offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights, and (5) requires disclosures and affirmative consent when a broadband provider offers customers financial incentives in exchange for the provider's right to use a customer's confidential information." [0]

I mean seriously, considering the current landscape, does that seem like unreasonable overreach? Is anyone going to go out of business with rules like that?

[0]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...

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

#210

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…

I use a service called Cloak[1], and I'm super happy with it. I'm getting 75MB/s down over my Wifi while VPNd through their service. I often forget that it is on because it _just works_. I have no affiliation with them, I just think they make a good product. [1]( https://www.getcloak.com/ )

I seriously doubt you're getting 75 MEGABYTES down over Wifi. Did you mean 75 Megabits (Mb)? There is a major difference between Mb and MB. 75 MB would be equal to 600 Mb per second.
Post reply on HN