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

211–220 of 242 posts

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

#211

Post by greedyliberal »

debaserab2 wrote: post #205
greedyliberal wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, this does not answer my original question. Please provide me the constitutional amendment that grants individuals the right to privacy while using the internet.

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

#212

Post by state_less »

icebraining wrote: post #193
Crespyl wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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. Only if you can tell that they're doing so. If they create two companies with no apparent connections, how would you know that VPN company A was selling your data through Market…

We are now getting pretty far down the rabbit hole.

Is this possible in theory, if your packets go in all directions (IPs) encrypted, not sure how you reassemble, but in theory, would the information then be whitewashed? I guess I'm asking, is it possible in principle, can you leak no information (including metadata) from IPv4?

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

#213

Post by debaserab2 »

greedyliberal wrote: post #211
debaserab2 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, this does not answer my original question. Please provide me the constitutional amendment that grants individuals the right to privacy while using the internet.

What's the point of trying to have meaningful discourse with an obvious troll account? Grow a pair.

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

#214

Post by rayiner »

learc83 wrote: post #177
rayiner wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I know that you know campaign finance is more nuanced than that. It's perfectly legal for a corporation to donate to a Super PAC supporting candidate's reelection efforts. And they're adding donations from individuals in the industry.

I find it dishonest for an article to say that corporations donated to a candidate, when they actually mean that a corporation donated to a PAC or that employees donated to a candidate. It creates an extremely misleading picture. Telecoms are major employers in places like Tennessee (which Blackburn represents). AT&T alone has 5,600 employees in Tennessee (more than Twitter has employees total). It's no surprise telecom employees donate to her.

Many of the people who voted "no" on the bill received similar amounts of money from Internet companies: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2016.... Are all those votes suspect?

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

#215

Post by sctb »

greedyliberal wrote: post #196
Delmania wrote: post #112

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.

We've banned this account for trolling. Please don't create new accounts to violate the guidelines with—we ban the main account too if that continues.

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

#216

Post by sctb »

greedyliberal wrote: post #91

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.

We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13985916.

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

#217

Post by tgragnato »

edraferi wrote: post #79
twsted wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm confident the maintenance hassle will eventually outweigh my desire for privacy. Nothing should outweigh your right for privacy.

Sure, but there's a cost to exercise that right. Right now, the cost of protecting myself from my ISP is quite high. I need to maintain DNS and VPN settings for every device in my home... many of which are personal devices of other family members with little patience for such techno-babble. I want a product that reduces the cost of exercising my right to privacy, and allows me to pay that cost with money instead of t…

I would set up a tor endpoint on the home connection (to make the collected data as useless as possible).

Combining this with a regular VPN should be enough effective, with a minimum maintenance burden.

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

#218

Post by pestaa »

vocatus_gate wrote: post #210
peterlk wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not? 5 Ghz connections are capable of delivering > 1 Gbit over the... air.

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

#219

Post by pseudalopex »

galacticpony wrote: post #197
Rudism wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is not that most people don't value privacy, it's that most are unaware of the privacy issues that affect them, or have been misled to believe that the cost of having the websites and services that they rely on (facebook, gmail, etc.) is necessarily tied to giving up privacy.

This isn't a new problem. We "know" the common people don't care because all attempts at scandalizing this in the media, for years, have not found much resonance.

If people didn't care about privacy, companies wouldn't be so opposed to regulations requiring them to get consent before selling personal information. Advertisers wouldn't disguise targeting to avoid creeping people out. Uber wouldn't have deleted a blog post mapping one-night stands. Republicans wouldn't have had any reason to spin this bill as being about which agency should have authority.

People do more to protect their privacy when they know it's being violated, understand the impact, and believe they can do something about it.

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

#220

Post by spacemanmatt »

matthew-wegner wrote: post #183
xienze wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't argue with that, but again, the status quo for many, many years was that your ISP could have done this, but didn't. And the next time there's a changing of the guard the protections will be put back in place, so I can't see how ISPs are going to bet on selling this information as a viable long-term business strategy.

Things have changed, though. Many ISPs are also cable TV providers. Netflix is now at 98m paid subscribers (worldwide), with cable footprint at 94 million (US). Somewhat apples to oranges numbers there, but also: "The thirteen largest pay-TV providers in the US, representing about 95% of the market, lost about 385,000 net video subscribers in 2015." http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/03/11/us-pay-tv-continue... The…

All I ever wanted to buy from my ISP was a dumb pipe. It frustrates me that I can't buy that, without the surveillance.
Post reply on HN