Earlier quoted context omitted.
If my rep already voted Nay, what else can I realistically do?
Keep the pressure up. If ISPs actually do almost any of the acts that this repeal enable, this vote will have ramifications that politicians will want to distance themselves from. With over 20,000 phone calls to Congress in just 48 hours, this is now on the scopes of current congresspeople (and those who would like to campaign against them). (And please consider joining EFF as a recurring dues-paying member. The more…
The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
471–480 of 534 posts
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too complicated. Approval voting is much simpler than ranked-choice, and more appropriate for the general public.
My country has ranked voting. Compulsory ranked voting. No-one seems to have any difficulties with it. What's so hard to understand about rank the candidates in the order that you want them? I did get the chance to flick through a Californian voter information guide for this last election and it seems like if your goal is to make voting simpler then looking at ballot initiatives would be far more useful.
http://scorevoting.net/WhatVotersWant
Maybe they think it's too complicated.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too complicated. Approval voting is much simpler than ranked-choice, and more appropriate for the general public.
The problem with approval voting is that game-theoretically it devolves to plurality voting once everyone understands the system. Approval voting violates the later-no-harm principle: indicating approval for secondary candidates can harm the chance that your primary candidate is elected. Knowing this, why would anyone approve of more than one candidate? http://www.fairvote.org/why-approval-voting-is-unworkable-in...
Later-no-harm is a silly "anti-criterion" that causes more harm than benefit. See explanation by a Princeton math PhD who co-founded the Center for Election Science.
http://scorevoting.net/LNH.html
He refutes similar FairVote FUD here.
http://scorevoting.net/RichieRV.html
FairVote lacks expertise and lies a lot.
https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/fact-check
Here's a layman friendly talk I gave to the Colorado League of Women Voters a few years back.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too complicated. Approval voting is much simpler than ranked-choice, and more appropriate for the general public.
I would think that given different peoples' standards of "approval", ranked-choice voting is much simpler for the genreal public to grasp, and a more useful metric to base an election on. I suppose we'll see how Maine handers their newly-implemented ranked-choice scheme in the coming election cycles.
This can be objectively measured via metrics like ballot spoilage and precinct summability.
http://scorevoting.net/Lorenzo.html
Here's a read-through of a talk I gave on this.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too complicated. Approval voting is much simpler than ranked-choice, and more appropriate for the general public.
Ranking by preference isn't exactly hard. Most 18+ year olds can handle it.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 text of the resolution is very short, it simply says the FCC rule is repealed. You can read the rule here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28... At 73 pages, it's a doozy. I don't know exactly what the effects would have been, but one important thing to note that I did not see mentioned once in any of the reporting about this is that the rule has only been in effect for 84 days. So I wou…
Paragraph 106 mandates that the information released should not be able to be de-identified, and third parties must be contractually obligated to not de-identify customers from the data.
Paragraph 117 says the clause must be transferable to third-parties all the way down the list, but a middle-man can hire a company in a different country to do the necessary work, outside the jurisdiction of the FCC.
Paragraph 115 says the ISP can share the IP address, and no other identifying data, and meet the requirements of de-identification. A clause to "revisit this topic later" is present. Damn right you better -- combined with other data sources from social media and search engines, I can trivially combine multiple data sources using the IP address and build a "personal profile" of your entire Internet usage, including those really unique "outlier" destinations.
Paragraph 143 says that no periodic reminder is required, so expect the "privacy notice" to be buried in a sea of required checkboxes at point-of-sale, and never seen again. There are provisions that it be available on a website and via other methods, etc., but "available" versus "easily found" are two different things.
Most of these rules will take effect in 12 months, not immediately. (The rule of preventing ISP services requiring you waive your privacy to provide service is 30 days (paragraph 295, § 64.2011), data security requirements in 90 days (§ 64.2005), and data breach notifications and requirements in 6 months (§ 64.2006).)
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#477This, 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…
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that the withdrawal is the core problem and the money is the symptom of that problem. Same with gerrymandering, election systems, distribution of power, and other key talking points. Active and rational political conversations would, in my mind, have mitigated a lot of the problems with money in politics. Gerrymandering would not be (as large as) a problem if the masses had not been asleep at the wheel.…
>I would argue that the withdrawal is the core problem and the money is the symptom of that problem. Upon what do you base this hypothesis? Because history shows otherwise. The oligarchy/aristocracy has always had disproportionate influence in the US. It has always been an uphill fight for the average citizen. >I believe the British government forms the best model the world ever produced, and such has been its progre…
When looking at the turnout over the years. The engagement has rarely been > 65%. Last time was 1904.
Your point is well taken though. I am not a political science expert. Just an IT person trying to make sense of it all.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
It moves it from an entity that is highly motivated to monetize the customer's information to one whose business is to do the opposite.
You can roll your own VPN on a cloud provider. Still not perfect, but I'd argue Azure, AWS, and the like are less likely to try to inspect/monetize traffic than a consumer ISP.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
If someone posts a link to correct you, there is at least one person put off by your language.
OMG u shuld see wat they do in germanny its so different their!
But at some point you do start to get diminishing returns, so there are practical limits to how worried one should be about pedants.