[JayMillz]

More smoke and mirrors to obscure the salient issue for consumers

[JayMillz]

Sounds like it's a wrap

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...acy-repeal

President Trump signed a bill on Monday repealing internet privacy rules passed last year by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that would have given internet users greater control over what service providers can do with their data, a White House spokeswoman confirmed.

The FCC regulations would have required broadband companies to get permission from their customers in order to use their “sensitive” data — including browsing history, geolocation and financial and medical information — to create targeted advertisements.

The bill uses a little-known tool called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that allows Congress and the president to overturn recently passed agency regulations. A successful CRA bill also prevents the agency from implementing similar rules in the future.

Before Trump took office, the CRA had only been successfully passed once, after President George W. Bush took office in 2001. As of Monday night, Trump has signed 10 bills overturning Obama-era regulations, including the internet privacy rule.

[pants]

So, all I need is a company and I can purchase information from one specific ip I am interested in?

Really should be an uproar against this.

And don't compare it to Google's monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives.

[xmlenigma]

(03-23-2017 11:03 PM)Repo Wrote:  

Fuck the senate cucks. Soon all of our internet histories will be available to whoever pays. As if it wasnt enough that the NSA was spying on us. Soon maybe even you can pay for someone elses internet history. And fuck Trump if he doesnt speak out against this.

You can see how this will quickly downspiral. First sites get labeled as "hate sites", like this one. Then internet search histories become part of company background checks. I could go on. ..

Are you serious? I know that the Liberal left is not worshipped here but this is just bad.. Is this the Trump America that was raved about?

[Thrill Jackson]

Wow. I'm speechless. Somebody tell me this isn't as bad as it looks .

[Thrill Jackson]

Okay this shit is just throwing me for a loop, I have so many questions but here is the most critical one i have.

If I get my VPNs set up and everything in motion, will Companies/Individuals still be able to view my browsing history from the past?

I've been on this forum since 2015 and viewing it longer than that. Would it make a difference if I'm secured from this point forward?

[Last Parade]

(04-04-2017 04:06 PM)Thrill Jackson Wrote:  

Wow. I'm speechless. Somebody tell me this isn't as bad as it looks .

I'll tell you: it's not, but nobody will report the truth because this makes Trump and the GOP look bad.

What this bill did was annul a rule the FCC made in October 2016.
That rule was not in effect yet (wouldn't have been for a year, so October 2017)
Now this bill has been signed into law the rule will never come into effect.

I repeat: nobody lost anything. All this bill did was to take a rule, just created last October and which wasn't in effect, and ensure it doesn't come into effect. No long-standing rights or privileges were revoked.

Your privacy status vis-a-vis your ISP is the same now as it was before the bill was signed, before the bill was created, and even before the FCC enacted this rule. In October 2016. Which was not even in effect now.


Can a company view a person's personal history? Can somebody buy a person's web browsing history?
NO. There are already privacy rules in place and laws on the books that protect personally-identifiable information. The industry also self-regulates, and yes, Google, Facebook and Netflix are already heavily tracking this shit so they do have a leg-up advantage. I don't log out of my gmail when I browse or run google searches, they've probably accumulated so much shit on me...


Is there anything you can do? YES. This article on CBC explain the situation, spelling out that Canada has an "opt in" policy for this sort of thing; that is, your ISP doing this stuff can only be done with your express consent/if you opt in for it. That's what this FCC regulation would've enacted. Most importantly, the second paragraph of that article (bold is mine):

Quote:

"It means that information about the apps American internet subscribers use, the websites they visit, and the things they purchase online — among other things — can potentially be tracked, shared, and monetized by third parties, unless those users opt out."

So, it sounds like ISPs have "opt out" mechanisms. Once you opt out, everything's fine and dandy. #OptOut going to start trending on twitter someday, I'm surprised Silicon Valley shitlibs aren't all over that yet.

Alternatively, VPN is the way to go - your ISP can only see the VPN visit/traffic (whoever's hosting the VPN could see everything you do, of course - and who knows what their privacy and information-selling rules are!)


Lastly, read this article - again, from October 2016 - when the regulation came into effect. And compare it to the absolute freaking out people are doing now. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/techn...iders.html (note they mention "opting out" right there in the headlines, like I mentioned earlier. Funny how almost nobody's reporting that now.)


Again, I can't emphasize enough that no longstanding protections are being revoked, what happened is something that never existed will never exist at all. I imagine we've all been on the internet for years: your ISPs have always had the ability to do this, and they haven't due to rules and regs already on the books, so nothing has really changed.

And for the record I don't like it, I'm a bigger fan of privacy and control being in regular people's hands, but this story is being twisted and pumped up because it feeds into the media's narrative: the GOP only wants to help corporations and doesn't care about the little guy. It's being blown out of proportion. Everybody just needs to relax.

(but I'm also in Canada so I guess it doesn't hit close to home like it does for you guys...)

[Thrill Jackson]

(04-04-2017 09:43 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 04:06 PM)Thrill Jackson Wrote:  

Wow. I'm speechless. Somebody tell me this isn't as bad as it looks .

I'll tell you: it's not, but nobody will report the truth because this makes Trump and the GOP look bad.

What this bill did was annul a rule the FCC made in October 2016.
That rule was not in effect yet (wouldn't have been for a year, so October 2017)
Now this bill has been signed into law the rule will never come into effect.

I repeat: nobody lost anything. All this bill did was to take a rule, just created last October and which wasn't in effect, and ensure it doesn't come into effect. No long-standing rights or privileges were revoked.

Your privacy status vis-a-vis your ISP is the same now as it was before the bill was signed, before the bill was created, and even before the FCC enacted this rule. In October 2016. Which was not even in effect now.

Quote:

"Can a company view a person's personal history? Can somebody buy a person's web browsing history?
NO. There are already privacy rules in place and laws on the books that protect personally-identifiable information."

The industry also self-regulates, and yes, Google, Facebook and Netflix are already heavily tracking this shit so they do have a leg-up advantage. I don't log out of my gmail when I browse or run google searches, they've probably accumulated so much shit on me...


Is there anything you can do? YES. This article on CBC explain the situation, spelling out that Canada has an "opt in" policy for this sort of thing; that is, your ISP doing this stuff can only be done with your express consent/if you opt in for it. That's what this FCC regulation would've enacted. Most importantly, the second paragraph of that article (bold is mine):

Quote:

"It means that information about the apps American internet subscribers use, the websites they visit, and the things they purchase online — among other things — can potentially be tracked, shared, and monetized by third parties, unless those users opt out."

So, it sounds like ISPs have "opt out" mechanisms. Once you opt out, everything's fine and dandy. #OptOut going to start trending on twitter someday, I'm surprised Silicon Valley shitlibs aren't all over that yet.

Alternatively, VPN is the way to go - your ISP can only see the VPN visit/traffic (whoever's hosting the VPN could see everything you do, of course - and who knows what their privacy and information-selling rules are!)


Lastly, read this article - again, from October 2016 - when the regulation came into effect. And compare it to the absolute freaking out people are doing now. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/techn...iders.html (note they mention "opting out" right there in the headlines, like I mentioned earlier. Funny how almost nobody's reporting that now.)


Again, I can't emphasize enough that no longstanding protections are being revoked, what happened is something that never existed will never exist at all. I imagine we've all been on the internet for years: your ISPs have always had the ability to do this, and they haven't due to rules and regs already on the books, so nothing has really changed.

And for the record I don't like it, I'm a bigger fan of privacy and control being in regular people's hands, but this story is being twisted and pumped up because it feeds into the media's narrative: the GOP only wants to help corporations and doesn't care about the little guy. It's being blown out of proportion. Everybody just needs to relax.

(but I'm also in Canada so I guess it doesn't hit close to home like it does for you guys...)

What laws are those? I'm not trying to sound like a smart ass or anything I just want to be as confident as I can in what you are telling me.

Also, when does this law come into affect? How soon will we be able to "OptOut"

[Samseau]

Amazing at how this fake news story went viral. So hilarious. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! Trump canceled an old Obama bill that never even took effect!

[monster]

(04-04-2017 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Amazing at how this fake news story went viral. So hilarious. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! Trump canceled an old Obama bill that never even took effect!

But why? Why overturn something that was GOOD for the people?

This was actually one of the few good bills that Congress ever wrote in modern times that genuinely favored the people over corporations.

Of all the bills to overturn, where is the sense in overturning the one decent bill. It may not have gone into effect yet - no bill ever goes into immediate effect - but it was to, and it was a good one.

[Repo]

(04-04-2017 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Amazing at how this fake news story went viral. So hilarious. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! Trump canceled an old Obama bill that never even took effect!

How exactly is this fake news? There is no dispute that this actually happened.

People want privacy, a bill was signed which would in the future give them a small degree of it (not from the government, but from private companies I am aware), and Trump reversed that. These are all facts, and not fake at all.

[monster]

(04-04-2017 11:08 PM)Repo Wrote:  

How exactly is this fake news? There is no dispute that this actually happened.

People want privacy, a bill was signed which would in the future give them a small degree of it (not from the government, but from private companies I am aware), and Trump reversed that. These are all facts, and not fake at all.

You gotta appreciate the irony of his decision to repeal a privacy bill especially after the Obama wiretapping debacle.

Politicians gonna politic

[Samseau]

(04-04-2017 10:54 PM)monster Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Amazing at how this fake news story went viral. So hilarious. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! Trump canceled an old Obama bill that never even took effect!

But why? Why overturn something that was GOOD for the people?

This was actually one of the few good bills that Congress ever wrote in modern times that genuinely favored the people over corporations.

Of all the bills to overturn, where is the sense in overturning the one decent bill. It may not have gone into effect yet - no bill ever goes into immediate effect - but it was to, and it was a good one.

(04-04-2017 11:08 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Amazing at how this fake news story went viral. So hilarious. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! Trump canceled an old Obama bill that never even took effect!

How exactly is this fake news? There is no dispute that this actually happened.

People want privacy, a bill was signed which would in the future give them a small degree of it (not from the government, but from private companies I am aware), and Trump reversed that. These are all facts, and not fake at all.

You guys think this new Obama bill would have increased your privacy, no, it would have just given more power to Facebook, Google, the CIA, and FBI, and taken away power from ISPs. I cannot for the life of me understand why concentrating power is an improvement. You think the fewer people have access to personal info the safe you are, but in reality as long as someone has access to your info you are at their mercy.

It's better to have more people involved with control of information, you create a greater power struggle amongst those at the top thus giving the little guy greater protection. Remove all competitors and the last man standing can act tyrannically with zero repercussions.

[pants]

(04-04-2017 11:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:54 PM)monster Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Amazing at how this fake news story went viral. So hilarious. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! Trump canceled an old Obama bill that never even took effect!

But why? Why overturn something that was GOOD for the people?

This was actually one of the few good bills that Congress ever wrote in modern times that genuinely favored the people over corporations.

Of all the bills to overturn, where is the sense in overturning the one decent bill. It may not have gone into effect yet - no bill ever goes into immediate effect - but it was to, and it was a good one.

(04-04-2017 11:08 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Amazing at how this fake news story went viral. So hilarious. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! Trump canceled an old Obama bill that never even took effect!

How exactly is this fake news? There is no dispute that this actually happened.

People want privacy, a bill was signed which would in the future give them a small degree of it (not from the government, but from private companies I am aware), and Trump reversed that. These are all facts, and not fake at all.

You guys think this new Obama bill would have increased your privacy, no, it would have just given more power to Facebook, Google, the CIA, and FBI, and taken away power from ISPs. I cannot for the life of me understand why concentrating power is an improvement. You think the fewer people have access to personal info the safe you are, but in reality as long as someone has access to your info you are at their mercy.

It's better to have more people involved with control of information, you create a greater power struggle amongst those at the top thus giving the little guy greater protection. Remove all competitors and the last man standing can act tyrannically with zero repercussions.

Again, Google and Facebook is voluntarily. There are alternatives.

CIA and FBI is at least intended to be secure "vaults" using personal information to fight crime such as terrorism. If this is morally right is a different discussion. If the conclusion to that discussion is CIA/FBI to store personal data, then i can't see any reason for private companies to have access to this information either.

More people should have access to your private information? So you rather have more people access your medical information, than just your doctor?

This is not draining the swamp.

[Repo]

(04-04-2017 11:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:54 PM)monster Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Amazing at how this fake news story went viral. So hilarious. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! Trump canceled an old Obama bill that never even took effect!

But why? Why overturn something that was GOOD for the people?

This was actually one of the few good bills that Congress ever wrote in modern times that genuinely favored the people over corporations.

Of all the bills to overturn, where is the sense in overturning the one decent bill. It may not have gone into effect yet - no bill ever goes into immediate effect - but it was to, and it was a good one.

(04-04-2017 11:08 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Amazing at how this fake news story went viral. So hilarious. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! Trump canceled an old Obama bill that never even took effect!

How exactly is this fake news? There is no dispute that this actually happened.

People want privacy, a bill was signed which would in the future give them a small degree of it (not from the government, but from private companies I am aware), and Trump reversed that. These are all facts, and not fake at all.

You guys think this new Obama bill would have increased your privacy, no, it would have just given more power to Facebook, Google, the CIA, and FBI, and taken away power from ISPs. I cannot for the life of me understand why concentrating power is an improvement. You think the fewer people have access to personal info the safe you are, but in reality as long as someone has access to your info you are at their mercy.

It's better to have more people involved with control of information, you create a greater power struggle amongst those at the top thus giving the little guy greater protection. Remove all competitors and the last man standing can act tyrannically with zero repercussions.

Few things. First, how exactly would Obamas bill give more power to the FBI and CIA when they already have access to your data? Nothing in the repeal Trump signed is scaling this back.

Second, how is moving the collection of data upstream to ISPs not a concentration of power, since there is way less competition amoung ISPs then well the entire internet and any site you can visit such as Google and Facebook. Many places in America you have one or two ISPs to choose from, tops.

Lastly, what specific protection will repealing this give the little guy? Instead of hoping free market competition will give protections (more likely scenario is competition just lowers the price of buying someones data, but then again I think this move reduces competition, not raises it), why not just actually write protections into law?

[JayMillz]

(04-04-2017 10:54 PM)monster Wrote:  

Why overturn something that was GOOD for the people?

Don't waste your time trying to refute ideologues. Their "logic" is illogical. What might seem like a "no brainer" to most, they will never concede through logic lol

[Thrill Jackson]

When exactly does this bill go in motion? When will people start to potentially start seeing our browsing history?

[Samseau]

(04-05-2017 06:59 AM)pants Wrote:  

Again, Google and Facebook is voluntarily. There are alternatives.

Not really - Google is the most accurate search engine, and virtually no one browses without using a search engine of some kind.

Quote:

CIA and FBI is at least intended to be secure "vaults" using personal information to fight crime such as terrorism.

But they aren't secure and only if you're totally naive do you think the power isn't abused. Just look at what happened with Susan Rice and Trump.

The same people who think the CIA and FBI are benign are the ones who actually think "refugees" are being admitted to Europe.

Quote:

If this is morally right is a different discussion. If the conclusion to that discussion is CIA/FBI to store personal data, then i can't see any reason for private companies to have access to this information either.

I trust my ISP more than the CIA and FBI, and you should too. Not hard to figure this out. I would rather see restrictions on the CIA and FBI before the ISPs. Only if they get restricted first would I support seeing the ISPs power curtailed as well.

Quote:

More people should have access to your private information? So you rather have more people access your medical information, than just your doctor?

This is not draining the swamp.

More competition between powerful parties creates more freedom for the little guy. This is self-evident to anyone with an ounce of historical or present knowledge.

(04-05-2017 07:02 AM)Repo Wrote:  

Few things. First, how exactly would Obamas bill give more power to the FBI and CIA when they already have access to your data? Nothing in the repeal Trump signed is scaling this back.

Wrong, it gives more power because it reduces competition over those who have your information. If the FBI/CIA are the only ones with access to your info, they can blackmail all day. But if the ISPs have top level info, people can at least fight back and blackmail the blackmailers.

This is the same argument as for gun rights.

The people here arguing to restrict ISPs is like arguing we should restrict guns just to the police, because the police would NEVAR DO ANYTHING WRONG!11 (Only a child could believe in such fairy tales.)

Quote:

Second, how is moving the collection of data upstream to ISPs not a concentration of power, since there is way less competition amoung ISPs then well the entire internet and any site you can visit such as Google and Facebook. Many places in America you have one or two ISPs to choose from, tops.

But ISPs do not have access to nearly as many computers as Google, Facebook, and other search engines do. They still have to win bids from towns and claim territory. Any ISP caught abusing its power could easily be replaced by a town. Negative publicity is extremely toxic for ISPs.

Quote:

Lastly, what specific protection will repealing this give the little guy? Instead of hoping free market competition will give protections (more likely scenario is competition just lowers the price of buying someones data, but then again I think this move reduces competition, not raises it), why not just actually write protections into law?

You're question begging: why should anyone assume the law will be enforced morally? This is a country that lets in illegals with a free ride on everything, and then looks the other way when they vote.

All governments are among the least trustworthy institutions in the world, only a sucker thinks otherwise.

[pants]

If the vault(FBI/CIA) isn't secure, I would rather have that fixed than completly abandon the idea of privacy.

And, of course its possible to use the internet without google.

Governments can be good or bad, depends on the people you vote for.

[monster]

Samseau, you're neglecting to mention the largest ISPs of them all: mobile providers AT&T, Verizon, etc.

These guys suck enough as it is. Lord knows what they'll do now they can sell all your personal data.

Job recruiters are going to know you post on RVF soon by purchasing the AT&T background check.

[zigZag]

https://www.whonix.org/

For people who are looking for a highly anonymized OS

[Thrill Jackson]

(04-05-2017 01:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 06:59 AM)pants Wrote:  

Again, Google and Facebook is voluntarily. There are alternatives.

Not really - Google is the most accurate search engine, and virtually no one browses without using a search engine of some kind.

Quote:

CIA and FBI is at least intended to be secure "vaults" using personal information to fight crime such as terrorism.

But they aren't secure and only if you're totally naive do you think the power isn't abused. Just look at what happened with Susan Rice and Trump.

The same people who think the CIA and FBI are benign are the ones who actually think "refugees" are being admitted to Europe.

Quote:

If this is morally right is a different discussion. If the conclusion to that discussion is CIA/FBI to store personal data, then i can't see any reason for private companies to have access to this information either.

I trust my ISP more than the CIA and FBI, and you should too. Not hard to figure this out. I would rather see restrictions on the CIA and FBI before the ISPs. Only if they get restricted first would I support seeing the ISPs power curtailed as well.

Quote:

More people should have access to your private information? So you rather have more people access your medical information, than just your doctor?

This is not draining the swamp.

More competition between powerful parties creates more freedom for the little guy. This is self-evident to anyone with an ounce of historical or present knowledge.

(04-05-2017 07:02 AM)Repo Wrote:  

Few things. First, how exactly would Obamas bill give more power to the FBI and CIA when they already have access to your data? Nothing in the repeal Trump signed is scaling this back.

Wrong, it gives more power because it reduces competition over those who have your information. If the FBI/CIA are the only ones with access to your info, they can blackmail all day. But if the ISPs have top level info, people can at least fight back and blackmail the blackmailers.

This is the same argument as for gun rights.

The people here arguing to restrict ISPs is like arguing we should restrict guns just to the police, because the police would NEVAR DO ANYTHING WRONG!11 (Only a child could believe in such fairy tales.)

Quote:

Second, how is moving the collection of data upstream to ISPs not a concentration of power, since there is way less competition amoung ISPs then well the entire internet and any site you can visit such as Google and Facebook. Many places in America you have one or two ISPs to choose from, tops.

But ISPs do not have access to nearly as many computers as Google, Facebook, and other search engines do. They still have to win bids from towns and claim territory. Any ISP caught abusing its power could easily be replaced by a town. Negative publicity is extremely toxic for ISPs.

Quote:

Lastly, what specific protection will repealing this give the little guy? Instead of hoping free market competition will give protections (more likely scenario is competition just lowers the price of buying someones data, but then again I think this move reduces competition, not raises it), why not just actually write protections into law?

You're question begging: why should anyone assume the law will be enforced morally? This is a country that lets in illegals with a free ride on everything, and then looks the other way when they vote.

All governments are among the least trustworthy institutions in the world, only a sucker thinks otherwise.

At the end of the day you won't lose your gov job for posting on RVF. You will lose your corporate gig for doing so. If this tells us anything its that Trump is not a supporter of this forum or any other like it.

[Nowak]

Trump's violent assault on the glorious nation of kekistan might cost him re-election.

Meme Jihadism wins more votes than you might think