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

351–360 of 534 posts

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

#351

Post by defined »

vidarh wrote: post #330
defined wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 judgemen…

Yeah, look, I'm aware of language evolution (or devolution, as it may be), and that there's no formal authority for the language. I mean, there are already at least two major dialects of English (British and American), and there's enough of a difference between the two to cause problems for the unwary.

What I'm railing against is more that there appears to be little interest, in general, even to try to get things right. I see this not just in human language, but in business, software development, publishing, pretty much everywhere.

I'm really tired, so I'm not expressing myself as well as I should, so perhaps I should just wrap this up and get some sleep. An iPad is also not the best UI for writing on HN.

Thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking response.

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

#352

Post by [deleted] »

defined wrote: post #343
peteretep wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> write whatever we want > however we want to You have conflated two separate things. > being that it's just > prescriptivism The irony of course being that "being that" in the way you've used it is one of the examples of "incorrect English" given by the op. And you're using it to support the idea that these things are important... > This word came about ... as a > corruption ... without the excuse > of it being a di…

Point taken, I made a mistake, but I think you're so focused on picking apart the comment that you've ignored the meat of it. That's ok, I said my piece and expected it to be downvoted - and it was.

[deleted]

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

#353

Post by snowwrestler »

int_handler wrote: post #150
tomohawk wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also can't just say that the internet is the same as POTS. The FCC has scarcely been better than these companies. It has a history of being a revolving door for companies. Consider what RCA/FCC did to Armstrong back in the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong Just because the FCC does something doesn't mean its good, legal, or whatever. It's just what 3 of 5 unelected, unaccountable appointee…

You bring up a good point that many people might not have realized: relying on the FCC to regulate solely without the backing of legislation will not result in the kind of long-term stable regulations and consumer protections that we are looking for because what the FCC decides to do could change on a dime whenever the administration changes.

The FCC did have the backing of legislation, which is why it took an act of Congress to overturn it.

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

#354

Post by vizeroth »

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.

SOPA/PIPA was not as clearly Republican vs. Democrat as you make it out to be, either. Whenever a law is dressed up as IP protections and backed by the entertainment industry, you will probably see a lot of support from CA's representatives, which means a lot of Democrats. However, there were a lot of people from both sides supporting (and eventually opposing) those bills. SOPA was introduced by a Republican, and 8 of its 12 sponsors were Republicans.

Of course, since I live in California, both of "my" senators are Democrats, one of which has been in office since I started high school (24 years ago); it would have been both if the younger of the two (Boxer) hadn't retired.

Somehow, "my" representative is a Republican, though I still think most of the people in this district don't realize that he replaced his father (who held the office from 1981-2009). Maybe the DoJ investigation into his use of campaign finances for personal expenses will open some eyes, but it seems more likely that, if he is removed from office, whoever gets on the ballot with the R next to their name will get the seat (or maybe we'll get multiple people with an R next to their name, like most of the local races).

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

#355

Post by aidenn0 »

defined wrote: post #351
vidarh wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 judgemen…

Yeah, look, I'm aware of language evolution (or devolution, as it may be), and that there's no formal authority for the language. I mean, there are already at least two major dialects of English (British and American), and there's enough of a difference between the two to cause problems for the unwary. What I'm railing against is more that there appears to be little interest, in general, even to try to get things rig…

> What I'm railing against is more that there appears to be little interest, in general, even to try to get things right.

Language is a means to an end. If my entire audience understands what I am saying, and is not put-off by how I say it, then I did, in fact, get things right.

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

#357

Post by xelxebar »

3131s wrote: post #258
AlexB138 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't seem to like this comment, but that is a great link. Browsing around the site, I found this list of common English language errors: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html Really interesting. Thanks for sharing.

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…

Prescriptivism is dumb. I think everyone here gets that.

However, I like tools in my arsenal that enable me to express myself precisely. Prescriptivist rants often open my eyes to subtle shades of possible meaning that I otherwise would not have seen.

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

#358

Post by imsodrunklol »

tbrownaw wrote: post #163
toss1941 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always interpreted that resignation as "both sides are terrible, so I'm going to keep voting for my side". 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.

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 turnout dropped by a huge amount. It's like people assumed that Obama's policies were not worth continuing their voting turnout.

Or that this election was so crazy that they decided not to vote in spite.

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

#359

Post by slang800 »

mikeyouse wrote: post #300
slang800 wrote: post #98

Isn't doing this type of data collection without consent already banned under the [Wiretap Act]( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511 )? What part of these protections weren't redundant?

Without consent is the important part, it will soon be part of your ISP's TOS to allow them to sell your data. The wiretap act has a specific call out for this occasion: > (d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has…

But the FCC rules that were repealed allowed data collection if you "opt-in" too, right? I haven't read the entire text of the legislation, but their news release covers this: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-341937A1.p...

> Opt-in: ISPs are required to obtain affirmative “opt-in” consent from consumers to use and share sensitive information. The rules specify categories of information that are considered sensitive, which include precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications.

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

#360

Post by memmcgee »

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 is also pretty anti-science as she supports the anti-vaxxer community and supports GMO hysteria.
Post reply on HN