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

321–330 of 534 posts

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

#321

Post by dbg31415 »

# House

YEAs ---215

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

NAYs ---205

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

Not Voting ---9

R R R R R R D D D

House Results - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml

# Senate

YEAs ---50

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

NAYs ---48

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D I D D D D D D D D D D D D I D D D D D D D D D D D

Not Voting ---2

R R

Senate Results - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943060

(I liked this format.)

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

#322

Post by CalChris »

chimeracoder wrote: post #317
CalChris wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The third parties are even worse than the two parties. The Libertarians ran Bob Barr, a Clinton House prosecutor and Gary Johnson who happily sent people to prison for drug crimes. Jill Stein supports Putin.

> and Gary Johnson who happily sent people to prison for drug crimes. ...what? Gary Johnson is himself a marijuana user who has long been am advocate of drug policy reform (not just for marijuana, but for other drugs as well). http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/qa-former-nm-gov-gary-jo...

As Republican Governor of New Mexico.

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

#323

Post by warlox »

quillo wrote: post #51

I would expect that this will have an unexpected (?) side effect of further weakening the capabilities of packet inspection by intelligence agencies through increased utilisation of VPN services, especially those outside of the US. At face value this is a good thing for privacy, but I am concerned that when lawmakers realise their error they will just legislate themselves out of the hole by making access to VPN servi…

Your average internet user doesn't even know what a VPN is, let alone the significance of this law.

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

#324

Post by chimeracoder »

pnathan wrote: post #269
misnome wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

This is a common line used by leftists who are angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame. Third party voters make an easy target, and the left has long felt entitled to the support of third-party voters.

But this entitlement assumes that third party voters would otherwise have voted for Clinton, which is a pretty strong assumption that also doesn't really hold up against the polling data from late in the election. Johnson took more than half of the third-party vote, and had he not been running, most Johnson voters would either have voted Trump or not voted at all.

Trump didn't win because of the few voters who voted third party. He won because of the 63 million people who voted for him. If you want to blame someone for Trump's victory, blame them, not the 7 million who chose not to vote for Trump.

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

#325

Post by TillE »

ars wrote: post #314
mozumder wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If you value things like privacy or the environment, then never vote Republican. Always vote Democrat. I guess you are too young to remember SOPA/PIPA - that was voted for by Democrats, against by Republicans. As you mature you'll realize Republican vs Democrat is not as simple as you make it out to be.

It's not that the Democrats are pure good. Far from it. It's that the Republican party of the last few decades is horrifically awful in basically every possible way.

The choice is extremely clear. Activism plus voting against the worst option.

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

#326

Post by TillE »

CalChris wrote: post #275
tbrownaw wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many people really felt strong enough about politics to claim both sides are equally bad and then decided not to vote on that basis alone. Since both sides are astonishingly bad, I usually end up voting third party in races where there is one.

The third parties are even worse than the two parties. The Libertarians ran Bob Barr, a Clinton House prosecutor and Gary Johnson who happily sent people to prison for drug crimes. Jill Stein supports Putin.

> Jill Stein supports Putin

No she doesn't, this is an absurd smear based on her attending a single event in Moscow.

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

#327

Post by gojiberry »

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 Republicans are clearly more corrupt.

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

#328

Post by gojiberry »

0xa wrote: post #187
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.

The reality is more nuanced--the time to stop this legislation was by preventing it coming to vote in the senate. Typically the senate needs 60 votes to forcefully end debate[0], then merely majority to pass it. Once can disguise support for a bill by approving to end debate, then voting "Nay" given it will get the necessary 50 to be approved. For JS 34 [1] Mitch McConnell (R, KY) limited debate to 10 minutes--I'm un…

You must have voted for Trump. The spin is good.

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

#329

Post by openasocket »

gwu78 wrote: post #311
johncolanduoni wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It's a modification that has already been made to software and widely deployed. The RFC was back in 2003. Are there even any TLS implementations that don't support SNI t…

I do not use Windows. I do not use the kernel or the browser you use. It is not your business what I use anyway. Notice I never said TLS sucks, you did. Maybe I do not care about security and I just like carefully written software by people who do not make many mistakes? Is there something offensive about that? Am I allowed to make my own choices of software? This is all beside the point. I care about having to use S…

What browser are you using that makes SSL "a hassle," with or without SNI?

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

#330

Post by vidarh »

defined wrote: post #283
3131s wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of those are made up prescriptive guidelines, mixed in with some common misspellings. One grumpy person does not get to decide how the rest of us choose to use and evolve language. The "forceful" / "forcible" example is particularly inane and pedantic but hardly the worst on that page. I'll continue to say "being that", "ice tea", "center around", etc. as I please. In linguistics the illustrative analogy is that…

> I'll continue to say... as I please. By that argument, we should all just be able to say and write whatever we want however we want to, even if it's technically or factually incorrect, like Humpty Dumpty or Donald Trump. Why bother hewing to "elitist" rules of grammar and accepted spellings, being that it's just prescriptivism? How does one decide objectively if something is just plain wrong, or merely prescriptive…

What you call corruption, others call evolution. The fact of the matter is that there is no authority defining English. As a result, there is no way of objecctively deterimining if something is plain wrong. The best we can do is going by usage. You can try to influence usage, certainly, but some of those battles are simply not winnable.

Note that the prominent English dictionaries have usage panels that make judgements about whether the usage of a certain form of a word is sufficiently wide as their criteria for inclusion.

It's not that it is not ok to identify something as wrong, but you will need to accept that people will disagree with it, and that what is wrong to you now may very well have enough support in usage that the battle is already lost. When you then opt for comparisons to Trump, then it is not surprising that you get downvotes.

A lot of the "I'll say it however I please" is down to usage. I'll drag out my favourite example: "begs the question". It's my favourite because I didn't even know about the original meaning until I started seeing rants about how horrible the new meaning was. Do a search for it today, and the results are dominated by sites complaining about how awful the change is, and articles about it.

To date, I can recall only one instance where I've seen the original meaning used outside of such a rant. It's basically a lost battle, where people will often respond along the lines of "I'll say it however I please" for the simple reason that to most people the original meaning is entirely foreign because of its niche usage.

Usage panels, which often lags trends like this, for good reason, have in recent years started tipping towards the new usage for "begs the question", often marking the original form as "formal", because ultimately language is about communication, and you can not communicate effectively if you pretend the most common form doesn't exist. Here [1] is an article at Merriam Webster discussing the issue.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-questi...

Post reply on HN