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

391–400 of 534 posts

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

#391

Post by kartan »

latj wrote: post #291
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…

Here is an alternative account of what has happened. The government is trying to reduce protections of civil liberties, the environment, etc. Why? Because the party in control of the legislative and executive branches are removing those protections. Why? Because it is in their best interest and because they promised to do so in their election campaigns. Why? A. Because their corporate sponsors want less regulation. B…

> Because less regulation means more profits (If you ignore the environmental and human costs).

This is completely false. Less regulations helps the status-quo as companies stop to need to be innovative. And it helps old-fashioned contaminating industries.

> Look at any point in time before now in American history and you will find less civil liberty, more oppression of workers, and more destruction of the environment. It was promised. Its being delivered.

Yes. That's it. And that's why so much powerful people want bad schools and worse education. If people knew how the world works, they will be less prone to populism.

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

#392

Post by gwu78 »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #384
gwu78 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I just said that because it's the only one I can think of people still having around that doesn't support SNI. OpenSSL, NSS, etc. have all supported SNI for a decade. In fact, I can't find any TLS implementation that supports even TLS 1.1 that doesn't support SNI. So unless you have an example I'd say SN…

Do you like to make all sorts of assumptions about users, what software they use, what software they "should" use and what software "no one uses"?

I don't. Unlike many forum commenters, I do not try to convince people what software to use. I am not telling any users to stop using SSL. (Even though I strongly dislike it myself.) I am only addressing SNI, an extension to SSL that has become widespread in recent years.

Unlike you, I am not making presumptions about other users (except perhaps that some value privacy). They might know about some software I don't. I do not conclude "Well, that's all I can think of, so it must be everything that is worth considering."

If someone asks me how to do something using SSL libraries I am always going to say I would not use those. I am just being honest. Next time I will not mention CurveCP. Then they will ask: So what would you use? If I say anything other than SSL/TLS, they will attack my choice even if they know nothing about it.

A lot of very popular software is poor quality. That is my opinion. I do not choose software based on popularity. Sorry for not comporting to your assumptions.

Pre-SNI: Domainnames encrypted. Post-SNI: Domainnames unencrypted. Fact. That is not the only reason a user could dislike SNI. But it is the one that is applicable to this news event.

I think it is for users to decide whether they like SNI or not. And in my opinion silence does not necessarily mean they approve.

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

#393

Post by kowdermeister »

pnathan wrote: post #213
Futurebot wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone." - RMS

I have consistently found rms to be the most prescient tech voice. A lone prophet, if you will. He always bears careful thought in his vision of where tech and politics will play out - even if you disagree with him.

Who is RMS?

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

#394

Post by cuonic »

kowdermeister wrote: post #393
pnathan wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have consistently found rms to be the most prescient tech voice. A lone prophet, if you will. He always bears careful thought in his vision of where tech and politics will play out - even if you disagree with him.

Who is RMS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

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

#395

Post by 3131s »

hueving wrote: post #383
3131s wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll upvote you (although technically HN doesn't like meta-commentary about upvotes / downvotes) because you made your point well. I don't have an issue with every "error" on that page and I have no problem with style guidelines for writing, but the problem comes when the prescriptivists think that logic is on their side when they opine on subjective stylistic and dialectic issues. "Ice tea" is a perfect example. The…

Apple pie is not the same thing as "ice tea". Apple is describing the type of pie. "ice" is not a type of tea.

"Ice" is not a type of tea, but ice tea is a type of tea just as apple pie is a type of pie. I see no difference. Ice tea is tea with ice in it, apple pie is pie with apples in it.

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

#396

Post by kilotaras »

kowdermeister wrote: post #393
pnathan wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have consistently found rms to be the most prescient tech voice. A lone prophet, if you will. He always bears careful thought in his vision of where tech and politics will play out - even if you disagree with him.

Who is RMS?

Richard Matthew Stallman

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

#397

Post by hueving »

3131s wrote: post #395
hueving wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple pie is not the same thing as "ice tea". Apple is describing the type of pie. "ice" is not a type of tea.

"Ice" is not a type of tea, but ice tea is a type of tea just as apple pie is a type of pie. I see no difference. Ice tea is tea with ice in it, apple pie is pie with apples in it.

>but ice tea is a type of tea

No it's not. "Ice" or (more appropriately IMO) "iced" a state of tea. Find me 'ice' or 'iced' on this page: https://www.teasource.com/pages/types-of-tea

Nobody is making tea from ice. If they were, then you could call it 'ice tea'.

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

#398

Post by 3131s »

hueving wrote: post #397
3131s wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ice" is not a type of tea, but ice tea is a type of tea just as apple pie is a type of pie. I see no difference. Ice tea is tea with ice in it, apple pie is pie with apples in it.

>but ice tea is a type of tea No it's not. "Ice" or (more appropriately IMO) "iced" a state of tea. Find me 'ice' or 'iced' on this page: https://www.teasource.com/pages/types-of-tea Nobody is making tea from ice. If they were, then you could call it 'ice tea'.

Ok, even if I accept that, it's not a reason to prefer the term "iced tea" to "ice tea".

Ice algae are not made from ice, for example -- they are algae that are found in ice. The point is that in noun-noun compounding, the semantic relationship between the two nouns varies widely from case to case (far more widely than the distinction we are nitpicking over between "apple pie" and "ice(d) tea").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_algae

EDIT: one more example, is it also wrong to say "bubble tea"?

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

#399

Post by whatupmd »

che_shirecat wrote: post #159
tomohawk wrote: post #114

Before getting all spun up, I'd dig a little deeper on the issue than what the WaPo does in this piece. These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and never went into effect. To do the regulations, the FCC reclassified the internet as basically ye olde telephone system, which then made it subject to their purview based on laws created in the 1930s. This is classic overreach. Congress never gave this authority…

I don't understand why people like yourself have to try to reframe and deflect attention on everything to fit your political narrative. Why can't you just see the problem for what it is and hold the representatives with your political affiliation accountable? Who really cares who our "traditional" privacy regulator is if neither of them end up able/willing to do the regulating? Why are you trying to frame this as a m…

Because this is not an individual but rather shill for ISP trying to push a narrative.

ISPs should be classified as modern utilities. They are trying to be the infrastructure provider while being regulated like the business' that consume the infrastructure. But they don't want to be classified as such because of the burden of regulations this would inherit.

I've yet to meet someone in life that thinks that their internet provider should be able to sell all information about their activities (while charging for the service).

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

#400

Post by thaumaturgy »

aidenn0 wrote: post #355
defined wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well your right their.
Post reply on HN