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

The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 534 posts

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#261

Post by mozumder »

ComradeTaco wrote: post #74
pnathan wrote: post #19

This, right here, is the consequence of the withdrawal from politics many geeks advocated very strongly in an earlier time. "Everything is corrupt, it doesn't matter"... turns out to only be a viable philosophy when things mostly work well enough . What we have in protections and freedoms were purchased through a ton of hard work by prior generations: the liberty to slack and think that it just works ok is a nice sid…

The votes in both the house and the senate were almost entirely along party lines. Every republican in the senate that voted, voted for this act and every democrat in the senate that voted, voted against this act.

This is what happens when you vote Republicans.

Republicans will do anything for profit. This is their core driving force. For them, money determines value for everything. "Who gives a shit about anything else? We should reinstate slavery because it would increase profits! Also, poor people are terrible people!"

Democrats believe profits are nice and all, but isn't the final metric on value. There are a lot of other variables that determine overall values - happiness, privacy, time, profits, cleanliness, murder rate, etc. Notice that this includes profits, because profits isn't a bad thing.

If you value things like privacy or the environment or anything else besides profit, then never vote Republican. Always vote Democrat.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#262

Post by alphapapa »

breatheoften wrote: post #200
kobeya wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the truth matters. You're reacting to this based on the politically spun narrative that was fed to you when you first encountered the issue. The truth is actually a fair bit more complex. This is a case of a regulatory agency overstepping its bounds and seizing jurisdiction outside of the domain allowed for it by Congress. That's the language in which the bill is framed, the the way in which it has been discu…

The FTC previously proposed essentially this same rule and was shot down by the courts as not having authority.

That's interesting. But wouldn't it be better to pass a law to do this, rather than relying an executive agency's regulations, which may change at their will and be interpreted as they please each time the government changes hands?

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#263

Post by eli_gottlieb »

misnome wrote: post #234
Analemma_ wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can keep using clever witticisms like that if it makes you feel better, and meanwhile bills like this will keep passing along party lines.

So it's the fault of people who vote third party that you have a two-party state?

Two-party? The American federal government is, de facto, a one-party state.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#264

Post by [deleted] »

aero142 wrote: post #107
asimjalis wrote: post #35

Is there another side to this debate or is it really this black and white?

I'll take a stab at it because I think it's a useful discussion. Allowing internet companies to make contractual arrangements with their customers will result in situations similar to Google. Google shows you ads for things you are interested in, and in return you get a really great search engine for free. Similarly, if ISPs are allowed to collect information about your browsing habits, and sell it to advertisers, th…

[deleted]

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#265

Post by splitrocket »

tbrownaw wrote: post #194
ignu wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and that's why bills like this pass.

Right. The only way to stop Kang from ruining everything is to vote for Kodos instead.

Look up Duverger's law.

Effectively, in a first past the post electoral system, any vote that isn't for the major party that most closely aligns with your views is a vote that supports the views least aligned with your preference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#266

Post by splitrocket »

tbrownaw wrote: post #194
ignu wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and that's why bills like this pass.

Right. The only way to stop Kang from ruining everything is to vote for Kodos instead.

Look up Duverger's law.

Effectively, in a first pat the post electoral system, any vote that isn't for the major party that most closely aligns with your views is a vote that supports the views least aligned with your preference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#267

Post by gwu78 »

openasocket wrote: post #255
gwu78 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume that DNS is being used. What if the user already has the IP address and knows the hostname? SNI makes gettng the hostnames easier than if they were encrypted as they are without SNI.

> What if the user already has the IP address and knows the hostname? Then the ISP just does a reverse DNS lookup, which can be implemented a bunch of different ways, it's not particularly difficult. > SNI makes getting the hostnames easier Getting the hostname from SNI requires TCP sessionization and at least some form of DPI. Getting the hostname my way just requires single-packet inspection with a reverse DNS look…

Do you understand why I do not like SNI? It has nothing to do with getting these stupid hostnames.

It is a modification that needs to be made to software to accomodate the spread of the use of the SNI extension. As a user, I have no need for SNI.

Are you saying that doing reverse lookups on every IP address, where some of these IPs will have many virtual hostnames, is easier than extractng the plaintext hostname from a certain offset in a Client Hello packet?

If there are many virtual hostnames, how do you know which one the user has requested?

What if the reverse DNS data just lists an ambiguous subdomain and not the domainname in the user's HTTP request, or what if the rDNS data is missing?

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#268

Post by eli_gottlieb »

_alias wrote: post #224
pnathan wrote: post #19

This, right here, is the consequence of the withdrawal from politics many geeks advocated very strongly in an earlier time. "Everything is corrupt, it doesn't matter"... turns out to only be a viable philosophy when things mostly work well enough . What we have in protections and freedoms were purchased through a ton of hard work by prior generations: the liberty to slack and think that it just works ok is a nice sid…

This whole discussion is disheartening. When I first heard about this is came to HN to get the facts and try to actually form an opinion, because honestly I can't figure out what the bill is supposed to change and how. Instead I find people pontificating along party lines like every comments section across the internet. Where's the analysis and insight? Where's the objectivity? I've come to expect more from this site…

The party claiming to represent "personal liberty" and "responsibility" has now voted to have your browser history sold on data-markets. Ever looked at anything particular embarrassing? Welcome to blackmailsville.

I really hope hackers obtain records of every Republican Congresscritter's creepiest porn viewing.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#269

Post by pnathan »

misnome wrote: post #234
Analemma_ wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can keep using clever witticisms like that if it makes you feel better, and meanwhile bills like this will keep passing along party lines.

So it's the fault of people who vote third party that you have a two-party state?

third party voters can wind up choosing which of the two parties win. in 2016, they gave Trump the win, because they equated him and the Republicans with Hillary in terms of deleterious effects.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#270

Post by richforrester »

mozumder wrote: post #261
ComradeTaco wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The votes in both the house and the senate were almost entirely along party lines. Every republican in the senate that voted, voted for this act and every democrat in the senate that voted, voted against this act.

This is what happens when you vote Republicans. Republicans will do anything for profit. This is their core driving force. For them, money determines value for everything. "Who gives a shit about anything else? We should reinstate slavery because it would increase profits! Also, poor people are terrible people!" Democrats believe profits are nice and all, but isn't the final metric on value. There are a lot of other…

I realise this is a total straw man, but whenever I read Republicans vs Democrats I can't help but think about how utterly insane it is to have the opinions of 300 million Americans represented by TWO parties.

Two.

So Americans choose to agree with either EVERYTHING person A says, or EVERYTHING person B says.

That's what it boils down to. And it freaks me out that in a day and age where we're so educated and "free", we still think that this is a good solution.

Apologies for veering off topic. Had to get it off my chest for once, as I don't normally voice this stuff. (Because I'm sure others have said it better before.)

Post reply on HN