181–190 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be under the impression that this didn't happen before 2018. This has been going on for a very very long time.
The FCC passed a regulation to stop the practice and Congress voted to overturn that regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the following is my opinion only. > I really don't understand the extreme hostility to data collection and data markets. I can easily explain my extreme hostility to this: that it happens without my consent and that companies put so much work into actively evading the defenses I put up against it. > No one likes ads This isn't about ads. This is about data collection. If ads existed without the spying, I would…
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying your only issue here is consent? Surely you could just not use the sites and services that evade your consent then? I'm sympathetic to the fact that "don't use services that track you" is easier said than done, but all the same, you do have that option.
No, really, you cannot.
FB maintains shadow profles, even for nonusers.
Google tracks virtually all Web traffic. And most email.
Amazon backs or provisions a tremendous amount on online sevices.
Comcast, TimeWarner, AT&T, and Verizon have absolute local, and effective national, monopolies on point-of-presence service across the US. Indigenous telco monopolies operate similarly elsewhere.
Cloudfront, Limelight, Akamai. and other CDN, DNS, and interconnectivity providers see requests and traffic aggregated across huge opulations.
Visa and Mastercard see a huge fraction of financial activity.
And this doesn't even start to touch the vast B2B data services markets in advertising, marketing, finance, credit, risk, tol collection, healthcare (denial) systems, licence plate scanner, retail backends, payments processing, debt collection, and more.
There really is no effective possibility of opting out. Even with denying yourself an effective role in modern society.
It's all political marketing to make consumers continue to feel good about being screwed over more and more by corporate policy following demands of the very wealthy.
What’s the point of this level of cynical response when a good bill passes? Let’s give some props and do more good things, not sulk.
It has yet to be signed into law, enforced, or litigated.
Given past track records on such matters, there's ample room for pessimism.
I couldn't find links to the actual bill anywhere so I tracked it down: http://legislature.maine.gov/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=2800... The summary: "This bill prohibits a provider of broadband Internet access service from using, disclosing, selling or permitting access to customer personal information unless the customer expressly consents to that use, disclosure, sale or access. The bill provides other exceptions u…
What kind of penalties could they face if they don't comply?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think their consent is an outlier. Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I mean I use Gmail, Google Search, Google Maps, etc. etc. knowing they hoover up my data because, in the end, I value the ability to have these services for free more than I care about Google's ability to collect useful statistics about me/its users.
> As a user who understands and consents to that request They can't really consent, because no-one truly understands what it is that they are agreeing to. It is simply not possible to have informed consent about the use, re-sale, re-combination, re-identification, long-term storage, profiling, credit/employment/health/housing impacts, etc. It's not possible to consent because you can't tell what you are giving away a…
That is a supposition of yours. I'm pretty confident that I understand what i'm agreeing to. And I agree to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without reading the bill, not necessarily. It's entirely feasible to have two classes of customers, right? One that agreed to the provision, and one that didn't. One that gets a 500GB data cap, and one that gets 150GB, say. Just because you serve a customer doesn't mean you must serve them equally. Afterall, technically, they are serving the customer, right?
wrong. it should take > (2) Charge a customer a penalty or offer a customer a discount based on the customer's decision to provide or not provide consent under paragraph A.
It's against the spirit of the law of course, but maybe not the letter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FCC passed a regulation to stop the practice and Congress voted to overturn that regulation.
...so it was happening before 2018. And therefore has nothing to do with that bill because it was never law?
Actually I wonder, have there been any major decisions since Roe v Wade that have affirmed a right to privacy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a user who understands and consents to that request They can't really consent, because no-one truly understands what it is that they are agreeing to. It is simply not possible to have informed consent about the use, re-sale, re-combination, re-identification, long-term storage, profiling, credit/employment/health/housing impacts, etc. It's not possible to consent because you can't tell what you are giving away a…
> They can't really consent, because no-one truly understands what it is that they are agreeing to. That is a supposition of yours. I'm pretty confident that I understand what i'm agreeing to. And I agree to it.
Most people don't understand the value that comes from user data, and the potentially damaging effects it might have on their life (Facebook can detect that you are homosexual through your Facebook usage, and if you live in a country where they kill homosexuals you are going to be in serious trouble). Almost no users understand the impact of the third-party doctrine.
There are all sorts of other issues. If you talk to someone suspected of being a terrorist, then you are labeled as a suspected terrorist. Since this bill is about browsing data, if you read articles If you read articles that are seen as being objectionable (imagine reading articles about communism during McCarthyism) then you might be labeled as such even if you were reading them for purposes other than indoctrination. There is a reason that a court order is required to get the borrowing records of a particular library user and libraries cannot sell that information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a user who understands and consents to that request They can't really consent, because no-one truly understands what it is that they are agreeing to. It is simply not possible to have informed consent about the use, re-sale, re-combination, re-identification, long-term storage, profiling, credit/employment/health/housing impacts, etc. It's not possible to consent because you can't tell what you are giving away a…
> They can't really consent, because no-one truly understands what it is that they are agreeing to. That is a supposition of yours. I'm pretty confident that I understand what i'm agreeing to. And I agree to it.
Ok, let's explore that. Can you describe, completely, what it is that you are agreeing to? And just so we are speaking at the same level "I agree that you can do anything you want" isn't a meaningful consent.