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

Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 452 posts

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#221

Post by Rebelgecko »

bmelton wrote: post #187
apexalpha wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see any proof of this whole 'sell your internet history' complaint that seems to be blatently copied by everyone without any research. The way I understand it is that ISPs can sell anonymized data from groups of users. Like: people who visit news.ycombinator.com generally also visit stackoverflow. I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual…

The common response to this is that ISPs have access to everything you do (which is true), and that they could sell that (which is false). The regulations being overturned here are ones that have only recently taken effect, and non-anonymized, non-aggregate selling of ISP data is still outlawed by the Cable Communications Act of 1984, which protects subscriber privacy is 47USC § 551[1]. Put simply, neither the most r…

Legally, is there a minimum requirement for what it takes for data to be considered "anonymized"? Just because the customers' billing info isn't included doesn't mean you can't figure out who is responsible for traffic.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#222

Post by weberc2 »

shallot_router wrote: post #49
weberc2 wrote: post #23

I wasn't impressed with this article; it reads like fear mongering. More importantly, I don't think the fix is regulation, I think it's better privacy tech + increased competition via elimination of local monopolies. Do we really want to depend on government to enforce privacy on the Internet?

How do you suggest we eliminate ISP monopolies?

Deflating the cost of access to rights of way would be a huge start.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#223

Post by m_sahaf »

apexalpha wrote: post #123
shawnee_ wrote: post #65

Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the “First Amendment of the Internet.” Not just harder. Infinitely more dangerous. Probably the scariest implications for NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet. ISPs who are allowed to sell users' browsing hi…

I'm not American, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see any proof of this whole 'sell your internet history' complaint that seems to be blatently copied by everyone without any research. The way I understand it is that ISPs can sell anonymized data from groups of users. Like: people who visit news.ycombinator.com generally also visit stackoverflow. I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual…

> I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual internet history if the website uses HTTPS.

Until the world switches to DNSCrypt, DNS-over-HTTPS, or DNS-over-TLS and while most Internet users are using ISP provided DNS resolvers, recent research shows it is possible to narrow down what pages the user browsed based on their DNS queries.

[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/21/dns_records_more_re...

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#224

Post by shawnee_ »

apexalpha wrote: post #123
shawnee_ wrote: post #65

Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the “First Amendment of the Internet.” Not just harder. Infinitely more dangerous. Probably the scariest implications for NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet. ISPs who are allowed to sell users' browsing hi…

I'm not American, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see any proof of this whole 'sell your internet history' complaint that seems to be blatently copied by everyone without any research. The way I understand it is that ISPs can sell anonymized data from groups of users. Like: people who visit news.ycombinator.com generally also visit stackoverflow. I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual…

I have yet to see any proof of this whole 'sell your internet history' complaint

What the bill stripping Broadband Privacy rules does is make it nearly impossible for the law to set a precedent for what should be considered illegal to sell when it comes to users' data. What may have happened if broadband privacy rules were enacted as intended here[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/technology/fcc-tightens-p...]

... someday somebody who didn't "opt out" would have discovered their [medical, financial, insert whatever] data had been sold to their detriment. Lawsuit. Legal scrutiny. Precedent == Baseline for what is acceptable and what is not for people who don't opt out.

Now, with no consumer privacy rights by default on broadband, and no neutral delivery system (net neutrality), and with provisions the GOP inserted into the Broadband Privacy rollback explicitly to make it harder to sue entities who sell your data, the default situation is already stacked badly against the average person.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#225

Post by dublinben »

stinkytaco wrote: post #166

Honest question, but is Net Neutrality the answer to these problems? A few weeks ago on HN, someone made an analogy to water: someone filling their swimming pool should pay more for water than someone showering or cooking with it. This seems to make sense to me, water is a scarce resource and it should be prioritized. Is the same true of the Internet? I absolutely agree that ISPs that are also in the entertainment bu…

Water is a terrible analogy. There is no marginal cost per bit for consumer internet access. The only scarce resource is peak utilization.

The only reality-based and fair network management that residential ISPs can employ is rate-limiting during peak time. The stereotypical customer who only uses their connection to stream Netflix/YouTube during prime time is actually more costly than a heavy P2P user who transfers TBs of data in the off-hours overnight and in the early morning.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#226

Post by bjt2n3904 »

croon wrote: post #159
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #119

So, which is it HackerNews? Are we OK with companies deciding what gets on the internet, or are we not? On one hand, we laud Facebook et al. for suppressing "fake news", and then we get upset when ISPs do the same. Furthermore, the FCC has historically engaged in content regulation. Anyone wonder why there's no more cartoons on broadcast television? Or perhaps why the FCC is investigating Colbert's Trump Jokes? If we…

> So, which is it HackerNews? Are we OK with companies deciding what gets on the internet, or are we not? On one hand, we laud Facebook et al. for suppressing "fake news", and then we get upset when ISPs do the same. If you could only access the internet through Facebook, you would have a point. You don't. > Furthermore, the FCC has historically engaged in content regulation. Anyone wonder why there's no more cartoon…

> If you could only access the internet through Facebook, you would have a point.

Effectively, many people do. They open their web browsers, and search for "facebook", and click the first link. Don't even get me started about Google!

My point is that regulating the network and regulating the endpoints are one and the same. It's bad enough when the endpoints do it under the guise of "fake news", it's worse when the government gets involved under the guise of "free speech".

The current political party will not significantly affect the organizations behavior, either. Get back to me when the FCC ceases investigating Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity, or regulating the RF space.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#227

Post by wvenable »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #149
chasing wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook isn't an ISP. Facebook -- though big! -- is one site on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another site. If enough people stop using Facebook, Facebook will be compelled to make changes. Breaking net neutrality laws makes it harder for you to find alternatives. Imagine you're stuck with whatever news sources your ISP picks fo…

> Comcast -- though big! -- is one ISP on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another ISP. If enough people stop using Comcast, Comcast will be compelled to make changes. [...] Imagine you're stuck with whatever news sources your social network picks for you. "Huffington Post, Reddit, and Twitter have decided not to pay us, so we no lo…

> And yet, when you change the name of the company, the argument somehow doesn't apply.

This is a ridiculous argument -- you're not "changing the name of the company" you're changing the entire business that they're in. You're just arguing that Apples and Oranges are the same except they have different names.

> I'd make the argument that Facebook has just a powerful monopoly on social networking as ISPs have on service.

That might well be a problem, but that's a different problem involving different companies, different services, and different issues. Conflating them doesn't add anything to this discussion.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#228

Post by [deleted] »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #188
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Comcast -- though big! -- is one ISP on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another ISP. If enough people stop using Comcast, Comcast will be compelled to make changes. [...] Imagine you're stuck with whatever news sources your social network picks for you. "Huffington Post, Reddit, and Twitter have decided not to pay us, so we no lo…

> Comcast -- though big! -- is one ISP on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another ISP. If enough people stop using Comcast, Comcast will be compelled to Unfortunately, for the majority of people in the US, there would only be one other choice. For me, that's AT&T. The big companies will payoff both or one isp for fast lanes, the IS…

[deleted]

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#229

Post by bjt2n3904 »

chasing wrote: post #208
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Comcast -- though big! -- is one ISP on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another ISP. If enough people stop using Comcast, Comcast will be compelled to make changes. [...] Imagine you're stuck with whatever news sources your social network picks for you. "Huffington Post, Reddit, and Twitter have decided not to pay us, so we no lo…

To put a finer point on it: Facebook isn't a common carrier, Comcast is. I don't think Facebook yet has a monopoly on social networking. There are too many powerful competitors and "social networking" is kind of a broad term, anyway. Does LinkedIn qualify? Twitter? Reddit? Tinder? Anyway: If they do wind up with a monopoly, that's a whole other issue and has little to do with common carrier laws. My understanding is…

Hey, see my reply to croon above.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#230

Post by forgotmysn »

marknutter wrote: post #107
Maken wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of those companies actually have their own network and aren't subcontracting from one of the top companies?

Most of them have their own network, and only in very remote locations do they have to subcontract on top of other companies.

You're almost correct! The truth is actually the complete inverse of your statement.
Post reply on HN