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

Campaign to Buy Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law

yro.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Campaign to Buy Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law

#31

Post by Silhouette »

angryasian wrote: post #18
jquery wrote: post #12

Someone explain why I should fear ISPs more than Google? I can at use Sonic.net for privacy. I can't realistically opt out of Google. The lines seem arbitrary.

what.. this doesn't make any sense and I don't know what Google has anything to do with this. Why can't you opt out of google ? 1. ISP monitor all your internet traffic. Google can only have access to what google services you opt in to use. 2. At this time we don't know how the ISP's will sell your internet history whether it be individual or in aggregate, but google doesn't sell your information. 3. I trust google's…

Google don't just have access to what you opt in to use. They also have access to whatever anyone else you communicate with effectively opts in to use on your behalf. For example, even if you don't want to give Google any data at all, there is a very high chance that they already have a lot of the emails you send via one of the other parties, and a fair chance that you won't even know it's happening unless you look at the MX records for their domain or something along those lines.

This is, IMHO, one of the biggest unresolved ethical issues with data protection and privacy today. On the one hand, it would be a great burden on society to stop everyone from using any third party services for anything involving personal data about someone else. On the other hand, when those services are no longer neutral and will process any data they receive for other purposes without the informed consent of some of the data subjects, that's a dubious practice at best. Another example is a social network's mobile app uploading your phone's entire contacts list, and just like that they've probably got a unique personal ID and a great deal of networking information about everyone on that list.

Re: Campaign to Buy Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law

#32

Post by kingbirdy »

Buttons840 wrote: post #10
xenophonf wrote: post #7

I think that the only way to really drive home the importance of digital privacy rights is to craft a bit of targeted advertising that _only_ your senator or representative sees and that follows them _everywhere_ online.

Why only senators? It would be an effective way to teach the public too. "Hi, . I know you live at , and that . If you care about privacy go to eff.org (or some other organization)." You might also include a message along the lines of "everyone knows this information about you, it's just that we're the only one telling you that we know".

That's a great way to make the general public hate the EFF because they think it's spying on them.

Re: Campaign to Buy Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law

#34

Post by pvaldes »

hutzlibu wrote: post #21
burkemw3 wrote: post #4

Something I read long ago (and can't find) was that privacy is a relatively recent part of humanity. In the past, we lived in small groups where everyone knew each other very well. Now we live in big groups, which provide pseudo-nymity. One of the things I keep coming back to in my head is a way to democratize the information collected about us. Right now, certain "people" (including companies and government organiza…

Well, todays society would probably collapse, if suddenly someone would publish a website with everthing of everybody... (South made a fitting episode of that) I mean there are so many lies, so many things people do only in secret, like porn or drugs. By numbers both are a fundamental part of society, but only some can openly admit watching/doing it. Then all the normal lies, like what you really think about person x…

> todays society would probably collapse

Probably not; reasonable doubts would emerge and in the end people pick what they want to thing and ignore quickly the rest of facts, as Wikileaks releases or climate change shown us. If everybody is caught seeing porn, people will just shrug, say something like 'mind your own bussiness' to other, and in the end nobody will care about porn. Maybe is just a question of time that this happens; so... better evil than stupid.

Re: Campaign to Buy Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law

#35

Post by krapp »

rabboRubble wrote: post #30
angryasian wrote: post #20

I think this is a little premature until we know what exactly can be purchased and when. As of right now throwing money at this person seems like just giving him free money. Who is this person and is he trustworthy... what's he going to do with the money if he can't buy it ? Does he even know how to buy the data ?

> Who is this person and is he trustworthy... what's he going to do with the money if he can't buy it ? Does he even know how to buy the data ? You've documented exactly why we should buy Congressional data. Let's make it painfully obvious that the data can be "weaponized" against them, their loved ones, and business partners by the unscrupulous and the unstable.

Public scrutiny of the internet habits of our elected officials probably isn't a bad idea anyway.

Re: Campaign to Buy Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law

#36

Post by forgotmysn »

forgotmysn wrote: post #2

I would add to this list Sen. Rand Paul, who co-sponsored the bill, but skipped the vote. edit: link to donate to the gofundme campaign to purchase the browser histories https://www.gofundme.com/searchinternethistory

edit #2: turns out im a dummy

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170329/13234837037/no-yo...

Re: Campaign to Buy Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law

#37

Post by angryasian »

Silhouette wrote: post #31
angryasian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what.. this doesn't make any sense and I don't know what Google has anything to do with this. Why can't you opt out of google ? 1. ISP monitor all your internet traffic. Google can only have access to what google services you opt in to use. 2. At this time we don't know how the ISP's will sell your internet history whether it be individual or in aggregate, but google doesn't sell your information. 3. I trust google's…

Google don't just have access to what you opt in to use. They also have access to whatever anyone else you communicate with effectively opts in to use on your behalf. For example, even if you don't want to give Google any data at all, there is a very high chance that they already have a lot of the emails you send via one of the other parties, and a fair chance that you won't even know it's happening unless you look a…

while i don't disagree, you still have the option of not responding. Also I think what you mention is more of an issue with integrating systems with open standards. The alternative is using a closed system that only belongs to one vendor or revising the open standard to support privacy

Re: Campaign to Buy Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law

#38

Post by Zooper »

forgotmysn wrote: post #36
forgotmysn wrote: post #2

I would add to this list Sen. Rand Paul, who co-sponsored the bill, but skipped the vote. edit: link to donate to the gofundme campaign to purchase the browser histories https://www.gofundme.com/searchinternethistory

edit #2: turns out im a dummy https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170329/13234837037/no-yo...

Instead of an editorial techdirt article, do you have the law's text where the behavior is expressly forbidden? One of these things matters, the other has no bearing on reality.

Re: Campaign to Buy Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law

#39

Post by forgotmysn »

Zooper wrote: post #38
forgotmysn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit #2: turns out im a dummy https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170329/13234837037/no-yo...

Instead of an editorial techdirt article, do you have the law's text where the behavior is expressly forbidden? One of these things matters, the other has no bearing on reality.

I'm not sure your question has any bearing on reality?

There is no law that explicitly states that selling individualized internet search history is illegal. However, (and you would know this if you read the techdirt article) internet advertising marketplaces don't function that way. It's not that it's illegal, its just inefficient. The advertisers don't need to know WHO you are to know that their ad is relevant to you.

Post reply on HN