[Orson]

(03-24-2017 03:55 PM)MKDAWUSS Wrote:  

Well, this will give people additional resources when it comes to researching potential partners (business, sex, whatever).

Meh, I've long accepted that there's no such thing as privacy anymore. May as well spend time formulating responses and developing strategies to maintain frame when people ask questions about certain activities instead of trying to cover it up.

Where was the debate on privacy when Snowden revelations happened? Did I miss something, because other than denunciations from Obama, his admin, and GOP hawks - as well as defenses of Edward - I don't recall any discussion of limits on what the government knows or has access to.

The surveillance state has just kept on growing since then.

Privacy from commercial companies??? Bah - humbug! What's that? They cannot jail or prosecute us - but the government, on the other hand, can.

Who worries about real limits to privacy anymore? or advocates a defense FROM government abuses? See what happened to Team Trump? And the FISA court authority? There is no serious push-back from anywhere that I can see....

Real privacy as in certain Constitutional Amendments is gone, as far as I can tell.... Can you tell us something any different?

[JayMillz]

(03-29-2017 05:55 AM)Pete Wrote:  

Everyone is too busy to notice.

If I take a job, and I don't follow the job duties I'll probably get fired, yet somehow politicians are exempt from this rule. ?

There is that along with the nutt hugging fanboys who will always try to misdirected the conversation by talking about unrelated issues or some fake news or conspiracy theory. I have yet to hear anyone put forth a coherent argument that supports the actions of this congress on this issue.

[C-Note]

This bill will pull economic and marketing power back from Silicon Valley in the form of Google, Facebook, etc and redistribute it to your local ISPs. Your browsing history is being collated through various, nefarious ways anyway, so why should the cucks around San Jose have a monopoly on it?

[JayMillz]

[Rigsby]

Where to begin with this one?

Well, where I won't begin is by refuting the points of members here supporting this, or condoning it in any kind of way. It is indefensible. The bickering can come later. I feel confident that I have not heard one single argument that holds water here from those who are not outraged, and shouting from the rooftops: we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more!

I'll outline a bit later in simple terms why this is a 'bad' thing, as opposed to a 'good' thing. As if you intelligent men need a dumbo like me to spell it out for you. But obviously you do. So I will. Later.

First, I just have to ask 'what the hell is going on here?'. Not sure. But my cognitive dissonance meter is flying off the charts.




It's ok, I don't always agree with everything I think, and I'm sure a lot of what I believe is wrong. And I also respect the fact you have had the sheer brass balls to come out and even try to defend the indefensible. The people of the UK did nothing when our 'snoopers charter' went live. They just hid away as if nothing had happened. At least here we have some arguments that we can shoot down, about why this is a 'bad' thing.

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2015/1...sonance-2/

There are no alien space ships to save us from ourselves or from our government. It’s down to us to seek and evaluate the truth, and there really are no shortcuts to positive change and progress. But we can take responsibilty to ensure that what we hold to be true and the decisions we make are fully and bravely informed.


It's ok. I get it. Trump is your boy. And you are seeing this as an attack on him personally. And that can not be allowed to happen, because if it did it would destroy his credibility in one fell swoop. You don't want to be seen demoralizing, black-pilling or doing anything to detract at this early stage from what still might turn out to be a turning point in your country's history. I think I know where you are coming from and I speak humbly and sincerely to you.

I believe I can help you out a bit.

Forget about the Trump connection. Now, I might have a fair bit of cognitive dissonance myself, but what I think is happening here is this: this has nothing to do with Trump. His hands are tied. More and more we are seeing the impotency of the station of the POTUS. Deep state and all that. No one can deny that it's just not as simple as that - as Trump clicking his fingers and a whole shadow government with the momentum of an out of control juggernaut, just coming to a screeching halt. Ain't gonna happen.

So first up, disassociate this travesty with Trump. It will help you think more clearly and focus on what is really going on here.

Let me ask you. If Hillary had got in, and she was behind such a cunt's trick such as this, would you not have openly called her a cunt? I think you would have. I think you would have been rightly outraged. But Trump is your boy, and you have loyalty to him. I get that. It is admirable.

Maybe Trump did have a hand in this. Maybe he is playing 20 million dimensional Chess and Go all at the same time. Maybe he is the only person in the world that knows what is going on. But those arguments are wearing thin now. Let go of the Trump association. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that this was a decision that was made that he had no control over. Sure, it displays his impotency, and that gotta hurt a bit for an Alpha. But it's a better proposition than the fact that at the end of the day he is a fucking hypocrite and represents the very thing he claims to oppose. I know which option I would go for.

It's easier to fool a man, than to convince a man he has been fooled.

I don't think you have been fooled. I don't think your loyalty is misplaced and I don't think you have been wronged. But you have to start facing up to the fact that there will be many things ahead that will display the very divide that faces your country. This is the first thing, that has really got me thinking: did I make a monumental mistake here? No, I don't think I did. But that might be another type of cognitive dissonance on my part. I hope not.

The Trump haters are really loving this one. They see you as a laughing stock now. Talking about us here in the UK. Finally, we have something we can project and displace back at you, impotent fucks that we are. Cowards that we are. Now you are cowards too. See how it works?

Having said that. This article comes from the Register - an international but UK based 'Red Top'. You need to read this article, whether you read the comment or not is up to you. I suggest you don't. But if you work in IT then you absolutely must read this article:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28...histories/

I won't quote the most salient points as it covers many bases and I don't care what your job is in IT, someone somewhere will learn something from this. And those that don't work in IT will learn even more.

This is another article for you to digest:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28..._can_i_do/

I haven't read it, but it looks good on a quick skim. It basically covers the only real route that you have now: the use of VPNs. I'll finish up with that in a moment, but back to why this is a 'bad' thing.

Again, where to start?

Ok, you remember that time you got a bit bi-curious and thought you'd check out a bit of that tranny porn? Now, I know no upstanding heterosexual member of the RVF community would ever do such a disgusting thing, but I'm speaking to those that lurk as well. Well, now all those 'chicks with dicks' that you had a 6 hour marathon wanking session over, is common knowledge to the highest bidder. And that might just be the lady that lives next door to you that works in a job that can get access. In the future it will just be highest bidder.

We are constantly getting threats about 'your porn viewing habits will be for sale to the highest bidder in the future' articles in the UK papers. It's a psyop. Even if you aren't in to tranny porn, perhaps you like a bit of BDSM, or naughty schoolgirls. Naughty schoolgirls always go down well when applying for a teaching job. Who the fuck would employ someone who spent 3 hours wanking to a video called 'naughty schoolgirls get caught smoking outside the bike shed - sir spanks their tight little fannys red raw - and they can't get enough of it!'. I know I probably wouldn't, just to be safe, like.

That's the porn. It's available to future employers, and to those in authority anywhere, and to your neighbours for a price. Single man? Just moved in to a new area? Must be dodgy. Not on the sex offenders register but let's check out what smut he likes to spank it to and get the measure of him. "Oh, he's just in to a bit of tranny porn and nipple torture, I say we still invite him to the Sunday School BBQ".

Then there is your medical records. In the future they will also be available for a price. They are already being pimped out, in the name of anonymity, but there is no anonymity when cross-correlation takes over. That is already happening and will get worse. For now, it is just your google searches. All searches go through Google. It does not matter what fucking search engine you use. Google owns a substantial proportion of the backbone of the internet. Besides it is still the best search engine in existence by a country mile. And most people use it. Or use Chrome. Or Youtube. Or god forbid, all three.

Remember that time you searched for 'signs of cancer in an otherwise healthy penis'? Now, that wasn't even for you, it was for your bro' who didn't have an internet connection, but had some troubling signs. What about mental health? "Difference between major depression and severe depression". Again, not asking for you, but a relative going through a rough patch. Need I go on?

Congrats, that is all now marked down to you. Explain that away. That and your curiosity about what is actually involved in a sex change operation, just because, MRA you are, you want some facts for an upcoming article on RoK.

You are now a penis infested suicidal tranny in the eyes of your neigbour, future employer, next girlfriend. Good luck when she brings that one up over dinner: so, you like chicks with dicks? It's ok, I have a surprise for you, reach under the table...

And the thing is, I haven't even gone all 'reductio ad absurdum' yet. But your neighbours will, your future employer will, your future girlfriend will. And all those that you have not even taken in to consideration yet.

Get stopped at a traffic light with a big grin on your face? No problemo. Laptop comes out - dials in registration. 'Oh, we got a crusty penis'd kamikaze tranny on our hands here Officer B - I say we just let the shit-tard go on their way'. Might even go in your favour. Such is the law of unintended consequences.

Enough of all that. It's just too ugly.

You need to have a look at that article from the Register I linked to earlier:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28..._can_i_do/


And also you need to have a look at this up to date appraisal of the most trustworthy VPNs:
https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-services-an...17-170304/

This is a stellar article and will steer you in the right direction.

You need to get VPN'd up to the eyeballs now. For your own protection as much as kicking against the pricks. Both of those things should be high on your list of priorities as a man with agency in the 21st Century clusterfuck we all find ourselves in.

This is a good article as well:
https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-searches-so...es-170329/

Don't read it and weep. Read it and get fucking livid! Then do something about it. The information is out there. As there is much information here on this very site. Anything by RVF member 'Valentine' is worth closer perusal - that boy knows his onions! He's not a pushy autistic geek, and he seems to have a very good real world balance with solid frame.

And last but not least, my impromptu 'meta-guide' to choosing and installing and testing a VPN. Oops, just went to do a search for it and google want to know if I am a bot or not. That never happens. Once a month maybe. What are they so fucking scared of? RVF is flagged by Google, it would seem.

It's all good. I just got a wider range or posts to share with you, from this good forum, all to do with VPN:
https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=0126445502...gsc.page=1

Have a gander.

You can find my shitty little guide here:
thread-35181-page-3.html


I hope now why you can see I felt no need to refute the individual arguments approving this move by the elites (tacitly or not).

I also hope that the info I've given along with the links I've provided, automatically refute those arguments anyway, which is why I preferred to take the time to broach a wider scope. They should do.


This day was always going to come. It's been planned and worked for for many years. It has taken the utmost ingenuity to implement it - to 'master the internet' - from chips that work without the power on while you sleep, to social engineering about pedophiles and false-flag terrorist incidents.

See the 'Digital Imprimatur' by John Walker:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

They are prepared to see young children raped and tortured, they are prepared to let innocent people have their arms and legs blown off, en mass, all for one reason:

To control you, to strike fear in to you, so that you do not speak out.

Do not condone this. Do not endorse it.

[Rigsby]

(03-24-2017 12:27 PM)stugatz Wrote:  

What is the endgame with mass data collection like this? Bar wrongthinkers from having any decent employment? Throw wrongthinkers in mass camps? Will people sit by and tolerate something like that? (Obviously having some leaders killed is being tossed around, but that's a few dozen people. I'm talking about the average joes like us.)

There are millions of people like us - I assume, anyway.

To silence people in to such a state of submission that they are not willing, and not able to fight back.

It's psyops. NO commercial advantage really when you tally it all up with the social disarray it will cause.

There's a war on for your mind, but this time they don't want to win it - they want to crush it.

[porscheguy]

The federal intel agencies can spy on you, but for the most part, the info they get is contained and somewhat secure. The real threat here is that a lot of people can now see what you do online. Remember a few years ago when people were talking about HR departments asking for your social media passwords? Now they don't have to ask. In fact, your social media activity becomes almost irrelevant when they can get the records to every mouse click on every website you've ever visited.

For those that support this, wait until you're either terminated or refused employment because the people in HR were offended by your impure internet habits on your personal time. Wait until you're fired because they found out you frequent this site.

[Rigsby]

(03-29-2017 06:38 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

The federal intel agencies can spy on you, but for the most part, the info they get is contained and somewhat secure. The real threat here is that a lot of people can now see what you do online. Remember a few years ago when people were talking about HR departments asking for your social media passwords? Now they don't have to ask. In fact, your social media activity becomes almost irrelevant when they can get the records to every mouse click on every website you've ever visited.

For those that support this, wait until you're either terminated or refused employment because the people in HR were offended by your impure internet habits on your personal time. Wait until you're fired because they found out you frequent this site.

That is the TL;DR of my above post.

This is essentially a 'snoopers charter' by the back door for you Americans. You laughed at us and our impotency. And now the globalists are doing it to you on the same day the Brexit is enacted.

Wew lads, what timing eh?

Let us not fight.

We are losing a lot of battles lately, but we most certainly have not lost the war.

[Fast Eddie]

(03-29-2017 08:44 AM)C-Note Wrote:  

This bill will pull economic and marketing power back from Silicon Valley in the form of Google, Facebook, etc and redistribute it to your local ISPs. Your browsing history is being collated through various, nefarious ways anyway, so why should the cucks around San Jose have a monopoly on it?

Translation: we were being fucked in the ass by 3 big swinging dicks, now we're being fucked by the very same big 3 dicks plus a small army of other, somewhat less sizable dicks.

That's great for the small dick army that previously wasn't getting to do any fucking. But how exactly is this good for us?

Let's be real here. When we're being fucked, we're being fucked. Just because in this case Trump is the one doing the fucking doesn't make it any better.

[Once Was Not]

The only thing more disappointing and disturbing than this stuff happening is the complete obliviousness that nearly everyone has towards it. Every time news comes out of the government yet again stripping away more of our privacy and online rights it never creates an uproar and any thread or topic on the internet has only a handful or few pages of people talking about it. It's like it's no big deal, less important than whatever bullshit happens on their local news. People just can't be arsed to give a shit about anything outside their comfortable little imaginary unchanging bubble. Oh, real change that could totally fuck me over because I have no privacy whatsoever online or anywhere could never happen; I'll just ignore it and continue on blissfully ignorant. It doesn't help that most probably have no idea how the internet works and think it's basically magic, thus any chance of the concept of privacy or rights regarding that residing in their heads is nil. Or the ancient classic "I have nothing to hide so why should I care?"

We seem to be a half step at most behind EUtopia and their surveillance state project. I really wonder when we hit the tipping point and this attitude that things will always be the same and no real change will ever occur is put to an end and suddenly the average person begins to have their life destroyed because of their internet history or what they say around their phones. It seems like every month we get more evidence that we're barreling towards a very unpleasant future in a few decades. That 2045 year is really looking more and more ominous.

God, I hate telecommunications companies.

[JayMillz]

[The Way We Were]

In the world run by all-powerful all-overseeing elite this law was in fact surprisingly long overdue. This is not about companies making money off of little guys. For far too long the elite have been framing their existential warfare as free market capitalism/economy bullshit. Making money is always cherry on top to some other nefarious goals. Not only do they not care about making money (as much as they care about ensuring/propagating their power) they can in fact afford to bleed money all they want becase they are the ones printing money out of thin air.

Make no mistake about it, this is the legal pushback of the elites against the peasants who became a little too uppity in their general populous dissent, and in particular in their detective Pizzagate works. You think you can just go around the Internet and spread Pedosta molesta sceaming kids videos or publically expose pedo politicians and billionaires without them swating you down like annoying lil' flies you are. The whole point is to create the world where the elites and their foot soldiers never end up in jail no matter what kind of corrupted and sick shit they are involved with, and you lil'guy to end up in jail (or worse) merely for your "thoughts".

[Phoenix]

Man that last Southpark season huh? Oracle stuff

Also on the "nothing is truly safe or private on the internet", that's like real life isn't it? Things like VPNs, encryption, and incognito browsers are like your locks, guard dogs and and entrance video cameras. They guard you up to a point, but if someone really wants you specifically, and has the time and effort to spare, you'll have to be operating at Snowdens level to stop them.

If you have the basic protections I don't see how states or corporations are going to victimize you. There's much more of you than them, and they've only got so much resources (from you) to spend on it.

[Phoenix]

Oh also another one of the simplest ways to maintain a gap between you and the ISP is shared wifi. Your router doesn't store records, so you can just say its your roommates or guests who did whatever the cunts acuse you of.

[zigZag]

I guess now we'll all have to get a squidproxy server and sshtunnel into it. This seems like the most effective way. Essentially you have an encrypted connection to a private proxy server that only accepts connections from you and then it goes out and gets the pages for you. That way the website you're browsing on see's your proxy servers ip and when the traffic passes through your ISP it's always encrypted.

[JayMillz]

However, one bit of consolation lies in the transparency of campaign finance records. Thanks to data compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, we can find out exactly how much each member of Congress who voted to kill internet privacy received in campaign contributions from the telecom industry in the most recent election cycle. The donation amounts include industry PACs as well as donations from individual employees of telecom giants.

Highlights: In the Senate, John Thune (R-South Dakota) received the most money from the telecommunications industry, with over $215,000 in donations from industry PACs and employees. Senator John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) sold out for the least, voting to kill internet privacy rules for just $1,000 in donations. It’s also important to note that Sen. Luther Strange (R-Alabama) received $0 in campaign donations, as he was recently appointed by Alabama Governor Robert Bentley to replace Sen. Jeff Sessions after he was appointed Trump’s Attorney General.

In the House, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon) is the favorite of the telecom industry, with over $155,000 in donations in the most recent election cycle. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana) sold out to the industry for a paltry $300.

http://resistancereport.com/class-war/co...r-history/

[Samseau]

^ None of those donations amount to shit compared to what Big Oil gives to the Republican party.

I'd say this change is almost entirely ideologically driven, and not bribes. The logic is,

1. Unnecessary regulations are bad.
2. Currently Facebook and Google have a near monopoly on selling consumer info allowing them to take most advertising dollars.
3. Advertisers want more competition of where they can advertise online.

That's the jist of it. I'm not really convinced this is any bigger invasion of privacy than what we already had. If your employer wanted to know your browsing history he could have just paid Google for the info anyways.

I think this fuss is much ado about nothing, if you're fine with how Google and Facebook collect info, then I don't see what ISP's have will be much different. It's unclear if removing these regulations will allow the doxing of individual users, it seems these are rules for bulk collection profiling only. ISPs won't be selling out individuals anymore than Google does, for the same reason: it's bad for business, and potentially illegal.

If you're planning on unscrupulous activities you'll need a VPN, which was no different than pre-regulation. Courts did and could request IP addresses from ISPs through search warrants.

ISPs cannot do stuff like read your email (which all email providers do), because they cannot read encrypted information. All they know is what sites you go to. They do not know how long you spend on the site, or what you're doing on the site (unless you make a purchase), and they rarely will know what you communicate over the sites.

At most these ISPs will be able to offer advertisers the ability to send ads to people based on their browsing history. I do not think this will be necessarily more effective than what Facebook and Google currently offer (who can read your personal thoughts and histories).

[Repo]

Unrelated to privacy, but at least google and facebook offer a service for free. Will your internet get cheaper because of this? I bet not.

[Fast Eddie]

(03-30-2017 12:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

^ None of those donations amount to shit compared to what Big Oil gives to the Republican party.

I'd say this change is almost entirely ideologically driven, and not bribes. The logic is,

1. Unnecessary regulations are bad.
2. Currently Facebook and Google have a near monopoly on selling consumer info allowing them to take most advertising dollars.
3. Advertisers want more competition of where they can advertise online.

That's the jist of it. I'm not really convinced this is any bigger invasion of privacy than what we already had. If your employer wanted to know your browsing history he could have just paid Google for the info anyways.

I think this fuss is much ado about nothing, if you're fine with how Google and Facebook collect info, then I don't see what ISP's have will be much different. It's unclear if removing these regulations will allow the doxing of individual users, it seems these are rules for bulk collection profiling only. ISPs won't be selling out individuals anymore than Google does, for the same reason: it's bad for business, and potentially illegal.

If you're planning on unscrupulous activities you'll need a VPN, which was no different than pre-regulation. Courts did and could request IP addresses from ISPs through search warrants.

ISPs cannot do stuff like read your email (which all email providers do), because they cannot read encrypted information. All they know is what sites you go to. They do not know how long you spend on the site, or what you're doing on the site (unless you make a purchase), and they rarely will know what you communicate over the sites.

At most these ISPs will be able to offer advertisers the ability to send ads to people based on their browsing history. I do not think this will be necessarily more effective than what Facebook and Google currently offer (who can read your personal thoughts and histories).

You have this exactly backwards, Samseau. I am speaking for myself personally but I'm sure this goes for the vast majority of guys here as well:

The sites I visit are the only thing that compromises me. I am not plotting to overthrow the government, I am not sending emails with sensitive shit in them, I am not doing anything that might be deemed compromising aside from visiting certain sites that some leftists and their corporate sockpuppets might not like.

Google and Facebook don't have shit on me because a) I don't use facebook and b) all my google and gmail activities are strictly kosher. I use ghostery and other browser add-ons to quarantine my browsing habits from google trackers on third party websites.

The ISPs are a different story altogether. They see every bit of traffic emanating from your computer and know exactly which sites you have visited, whether it's RVF or some fucked up tentacle porn vids. This is information about you that you would not want any swinging dick with a little spare cash to be able to buy from your ISP.

This is obvious stuff. There is no silver lining here. Trump and his FFC IRT have fucked us here, no amount of talk about "deregulation" and other republicuck nonsense changes the simple fact that ANTIFA can now buy your internet browsing history thanks to the Trump admin.

[Samseau]

(03-30-2017 03:36 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 12:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

^ None of those donations amount to shit compared to what Big Oil gives to the Republican party.

I'd say this change is almost entirely ideologically driven, and not bribes. The logic is,

1. Unnecessary regulations are bad.
2. Currently Facebook and Google have a near monopoly on selling consumer info allowing them to take most advertising dollars.
3. Advertisers want more competition of where they can advertise online.

That's the jist of it. I'm not really convinced this is any bigger invasion of privacy than what we already had. If your employer wanted to know your browsing history he could have just paid Google for the info anyways.

I think this fuss is much ado about nothing, if you're fine with how Google and Facebook collect info, then I don't see what ISP's have will be much different. It's unclear if removing these regulations will allow the doxing of individual users, it seems these are rules for bulk collection profiling only. ISPs won't be selling out individuals anymore than Google does, for the same reason: it's bad for business, and potentially illegal.

If you're planning on unscrupulous activities you'll need a VPN, which was no different than pre-regulation. Courts did and could request IP addresses from ISPs through search warrants.

ISPs cannot do stuff like read your email (which all email providers do), because they cannot read encrypted information. All they know is what sites you go to. They do not know how long you spend on the site, or what you're doing on the site (unless you make a purchase), and they rarely will know what you communicate over the sites.

At most these ISPs will be able to offer advertisers the ability to send ads to people based on their browsing history. I do not think this will be necessarily more effective than what Facebook and Google currently offer (who can read your personal thoughts and histories).

You have this exactly backwards, Samseau. I am speaking for myself personally but I'm sure this goes for the vast majority of guys here as well:

The sites I visit are the only thing that compromises me. I am not plotting to overthrow the government, I am not sending emails with sensitive shit in them, I am not doing anything that might be deemed compromising aside from visiting certain sites that some leftists and their corporate sockpuppets might not like.

Google and Facebook don't have shit on me because a) I don't use facebook and b) all my google and gmail activities are strictly kosher. I use ghostery and other browser add-ons to quarantine my browsing habits from google trackers on third party websites.

The ISPs are a different story altogether. They see every bit of traffic emanating from your computer and know exactly which sites you have visited, whether it's RVF or some fucked up tentacle porn vids. This is information about you that you would not want any swinging dick with a little spare cash to be able to buy from your ISP.

This is obvious stuff. There is no silver lining here. Trump and his FFC IRT have fucked us here, no amount of talk about "deregulation" and other republicuck nonsense changes the simple fact that ANTIFA can now buy your internet browsing history thanks to the Trump admin.

You're assuming you can buy a dox from the ISPs. But the ISPs may only be revealing that, "10% of our users went to site A, 30K users went to site B, etc. etc." and other general info. Just because they have some users that go to a "wrongthink" website, does not mean they can publicly state which IP address belongs to which user.

It could be this is the case, but I have not been able to find any details on this proposed deregulation. Until we know exactly what it consists of, we cannot be sure if this rule is good or bad.

[JayMillz]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...ng-federal

S.J.Res. 34 – Disapproving the Federal Communications Commission’s Rule on Privacy of Customers of Broadband Services

S.J.Res. 34 – Disapproving the Federal Communications Commission’s Rule on Privacy of Customers of Broadband Services
(Sen. Flake, R-AZ, and 24 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s final rule titled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services," 81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016). The rule applies the privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other telecommunications carriers. In particular, the rule requires ISPs to obtain affirmative "opt-in" consent from consumers to use and share certain information, including app usage and web browsing history. It also allows ISPs to use and share other information, including e-mail addresses and service tier information, unless a customer "opts-out." In doing so, the rule departs from the technology-neutral framework for online privacy administered by the Federal Trade Commission. This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor.

If S.J.Res. 34 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law.

[Last Parade]

Can someone clear this up for me, because I haven't noticed this yet amidst the outrage:

The FCC rule that this bill is overruling was only adopted in October 2016 and it wasn't even in effect yet.

A lack of privacy sucks, yeah, but people are acting like they lost some long-time inalienable right. They lost absolutely nothing. Your privacy status in the U.S. on the internet now is the same as it's always been. A regulation that hadn't come into effect got wiped off the books, like any of Obama's executive orders and last-minute changes before Trump took over.

Or am I missing something?

[C-Note]

In the White House press briefing yesterday, Sean Spicer explained, starting around the 6 minute mark, why the President supports this bill. Basically, it's because the regulation would create an uneven playing field between Google/Facebook/etc and ISPs.

[spokepoker]

It would? I don't understand how though.

[JayMillz]

(03-24-2017 09:41 AM)Repo Wrote:  

Apparently from what I have read, Trump will have the power to veto this. This will be a true test of if he is full of shit or not.