[JayMillz]

http://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/s...and-rules/


The Senate Thursday voted to roll back the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) broadband privacy rules designed to give consumers greater control over how internet service providers (ISPs) collect, share, and sell personal information.

The rules, scheduled to go into effect later this year, would require ISPs to get consumers' permission before using "sensitive" information for commercial purposes. And the term sensitive was expanded beyond all children's information, Social Security numbers, and medical and financial data to include web browsing and app usage histories, and the content of communications such as email.

The Senate move signals an end to the FCC's effort to beef up ISP privacy requirements. The consumer-protection measures were adopted by the FCC in 2016 under then-chairman Tom Wheeler. But his Trump-era successor, Ajit Pai, opposes the rules. The agency under Pai already has rescinded a separate provision that imposed stronger data protection on ISPs.

“Internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T have been trying to get rid of these rules since the day they were approved, and the Senate just handed them a big victory," said Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports. "Consumers have a fundamental right to privacy. This move by the Senate is a huge step in the wrong direction, and it completely ignores the needs and concerns of consumers.”

[Repo]

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. ..

[JayMillz]

(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. ..

Yep, seems like we should not be moving in this direction.

[Fast Eddie]

So not much action if any on immigration or trade, healthcare reform seems to be slipping rapidly into clusterfuck territory, but more spying on people's shit to potentially out them for crimethink? Done!

Who knew winning could be so tiring.

[Pete]

Disappointing. This is not winning. US becoming similar to China.

[Repo]

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.

[The Beast1]

Honestly at this point it was all smoke and mirrors.

The NSA and CIA have been collecting this info for years. No FCC rules were going to change that.

[Repo]

No but the FCC stops ISPs from selling it to private companies or people. Sure the government already has it, but do you really want potential employers looking it up? There are all kind of things that can go wrong with not keeping this private. At least the government isnt going to publicly out you for certain things you may, browse.

[kaotic]

This is not a good step.

I hope Rand Paul and the likes bring this to Trumps attention and he smacks this down.

Now I know some of you say we don't really have internet privacy so whatever.

Are we just going to accept this laying down ?

We should be fighting this tooth and nail.

[The Beast1]

(03-24-2017 11:24 AM)Repo Wrote:  

No but the FCC stops ISPs from selling it to private companies or people. Sure the government already has it, but do you really want potential employers looking it up? There are all kind of things that can go wrong with not keeping this private. At least the government isnt going to publicly out you for certain things you may, browse.

Do you use Google, facebook, gmail, twitter, ebay, or any other major "free" service?

Do you have your browser clear your cache automatically when you close it down?

The point i'm trying to make here is the fact that the cat is already out of the bag. All of these services have known what you're surfing and know you by the cookies that are left on your machine by ad service networks. If anyone wanted to out you for posting dank memes on RVF it would be some cuck at Google or even the CIA/NSA and not Verizon or Comcast.

You do not have any privacy online and it has always been this way. The ban on broadband privacy is the equivalent of putting a bandage on someone who has been cut in half.

[stugatz]

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.

[The Beast1]

(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.

The end game is to sell us targeted advertisements!

I use adblock plus and a slew of other plugins to obfuscate my browsing. However if you ever run a copy of vanilla chrome and surf the web for about a month the targeted ads that hit you are beyond crazy.

Youtube's recommendations for videos I may like creeps me out. It's very accurate.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

You know what's funny? Google, Microsoft and Facebook are supposedly competitors. However, if you browse a hotel on TripAdvisor, seconds later you'll see ads on Facebook for that hotel - yet the only way TripAdvisor could know that you browsed that hotel is through Google analytics and Google Tag Manager, the products of Facebook's supposedly hated competitor.

Free market my ass.

[Fast Eddie]

(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.

C'mon, it's the IRT that Trump appointed who is pushing for this change!

Quote:

The Senate move signals an end to the FCC's effort to beef up ISP privacy requirements. The consumer-protection measures were adopted by the FCC in 2016 under then-chairman Tom Wheeler. But his Trump-era successor, Ajit Pai, opposes the rules. The agency under Pai already has rescinded a separate provision that imposed stronger data protection on ISPs.

Sad!

[Samseau]

I think you guys are reading into this news backwards.

The reason these rules are being suspended isn't so employers can know more about you per se, but so monopolies like Google cannot hoard all the digital information for themselves. I looked up Ajit Pai's agenda and found this:

https://www.benton.org/blog/what-more-do...ais-agenda

Quote:

Chairman Pai outlined four guiding regulatory principles:

The Importance of Digital Empowerment and the “Democratization of Entrepreneurship”: “I believe in the power of Internet-based technologies to create jobs, grow our economy, and improve people’s lives in countless ways.“

Ubiquitous Access to Digital Opportunity: “I believe that every American who wants to participate in our digital economy should be able to. Access to digital opportunity shouldn’t depend on who you are or where you’re from...As Chairman, I plan to focus more time and attention than the FCC traditionally has on places where people feel left behind—places that Washington too often looks past.”

A Competitive Free Market Unleashes Private-Sector Ingenuity: “The public interest is best served when the private sector has the incentives and freedom to invest and create. That’s why we must eliminate unnecessary barriers to investment that could stifle new discoveries and services. In particular, the government should aim to minimize regulatory uncertainty, which can deter long-term investment decisions.”

The Free Market Doesn’t Mean that Government Has No Role: “I believe that a healthy respect for the free market doesn’t mean that government has no role. For example, the FCC must protect consumers and promote public safety.”

Most readers will agree that the Internet is a powerful tool for entrepreneurship, opportunity, and innovation. But Chairman Pai falls short on extolling the benefits of the Internet beyond economic gains. The Internet opens more avenues for civic engagement, creates easier access to healthcare and education, and connects communities to strengthen the social fabric of our society. Pai’s guiding regulatory principles are economically motivated: help entrepreneurs, help potential consumers, free up the marketplace. Chairman Pai says, “Access to digital opportunity shouldn’t depend on who you are or where you’re from.” Why not add “or how much you earn”?

Fact is, the current privacy laws give us no privacy: the CIA and NSA know what porn you watch. The only thing the current privacy laws do is make sure tech giants like Zuckbook and Gurgle can keep all advertising information to themselves.

[Fast Eddie]

(03-24-2017 02:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think you guys are reading into this news backwards.

The reason these rules are being suspended isn't so employers can know more about you per se, but so monopolies like Google cannot hoard all the digital information for themselves. I looked up Ajit Pai's agenda and found this:

https://www.benton.org/blog/what-more-do...ais-agenda

Quote:

Chairman Pai outlined four guiding regulatory principles:

The Importance of Digital Empowerment and the “Democratization of Entrepreneurship”: “I believe in the power of Internet-based technologies to create jobs, grow our economy, and improve people’s lives in countless ways.“

Ubiquitous Access to Digital Opportunity: “I believe that every American who wants to participate in our digital economy should be able to. Access to digital opportunity shouldn’t depend on who you are or where you’re from...As Chairman, I plan to focus more time and attention than the FCC traditionally has on places where people feel left behind—places that Washington too often looks past.”

A Competitive Free Market Unleashes Private-Sector Ingenuity: “The public interest is best served when the private sector has the incentives and freedom to invest and create. That’s why we must eliminate unnecessary barriers to investment that could stifle new discoveries and services. In particular, the government should aim to minimize regulatory uncertainty, which can deter long-term investment decisions.”

The Free Market Doesn’t Mean that Government Has No Role: “I believe that a healthy respect for the free market doesn’t mean that government has no role. For example, the FCC must protect consumers and promote public safety.”

Most readers will agree that the Internet is a powerful tool for entrepreneurship, opportunity, and innovation. But Chairman Pai falls short on extolling the benefits of the Internet beyond economic gains. The Internet opens more avenues for civic engagement, creates easier access to healthcare and education, and connects communities to strengthen the social fabric of our society. Pai’s guiding regulatory principles are economically motivated: help entrepreneurs, help potential consumers, free up the marketplace. Chairman Pai says, “Access to digital opportunity shouldn’t depend on who you are or where you’re from.” Why not add “or how much you earn”?

Fact is, the current privacy laws give us no privacy: the CIA and NSA know what porn you watch. The only thing the current privacy laws do is make sure tech giants like Zuckbook and Gurgle can keep all advertising information to themselves.

I'm not sure why you quoted that wall of text, Samseau. It's standard boilerplate platitudes that provide absolutely zero insight. Competitive markets, blah blah, innovation, blah blah, social fabric blah blah. My life force has been drained just by reading that shit.

Look. Is the situation today bad, with Google and the alphabet soup agencies spying on us 24/7? Sure, it's bad. Is that a good reason for a Trump-appointed IRT to make it even worse by letting ISPs sell all our traffic to the highest bidder? No, it's not. It's a terrible development. The previous situation was bad, but the Trump IRT has made it worse.

There is nothing any of us can do about the NSA or CIA but chances are we'll never be worthwhile targets for them. Google we can use or not use. But the ISPs? There is no other way to access the internet except through them, and they are aware of every single bit of traffic that we generate. Now the Trump IRT has made it legal for ISPs to sell our traffic to whoever they want, and that can include Antifa, George Soros, Buzzfeed, etc. The Trump IRT has literally made it a legal thing for Antifa to ask your ISP if you have ever visited rooshvforum.network and for the ISP to give them that information. That is fucked up and a dick move by the Trump admin given that it is his supporters that are likely to be fucked over by this.

[Samseau]

I see your point, it's also alarming because there is very little choice over ISP providers in most town. They are de facto monopolies.

However, shouldn't a VPN protect you anyways?

[kaotic]

I think a VPN protects to a certain point.

But your regular visits to websites, purchases, searches, etc, even anonymous and can show a pattern to a computer.

Unfortunately we've unleashed pandoras box.

[MKDAWUSS]

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.

[JayMillz]

(03-24-2017 11:33 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:24 AM)Repo Wrote:  

No but the FCC stops ISPs from selling it to private companies or people. Sure the government already has it, but do you really want potential employers looking it up? There are all kind of things that can go wrong with not keeping this private. At least the government isnt going to publicly out you for certain things you may, browse.

Do you use Google, facebook, gmail, twitter, ebay, or any other major "free" service?

Do you have your browser clear your cache automatically when you close it down?

The point i'm trying to make here is the fact that the cat is already out of the bag. All of these services have known what you're surfing and know you by the cookies that are left on your machine by ad service networks. If anyone wanted to out you for posting dank memes on RVF it would be some cuck at Google or even the CIA/NSA and not Verizon or Comcast.

You do not have any privacy online and it has always been this way. The ban on broadband privacy is the equivalent of putting a bandage on someone who has been cut in half.

The rules are supposed to go into effect later this year. If they were really innocuous and not a threat to these private interests, there would be no need for this legislation. I don't see how anyone can try to minimize this, even if you are an ideologue. This is not a positive move for us consumers..

[Repo]

"And the term sensitive was expanded beyond all children's information, Social Security numbers, and medical and financial data to include web browsing and app usage histories, and the content of communications such as email."

Are cookies really already reading your online bank statements, medical records, emails etc and selling them to whoever pays? Feel like if that is happening it is not actually legal, but maybe Im wrong.

Even if it is already happening, I cant imagine why anyone would be ok with this. Would you be ok with the post office reading and photocopying all your mail and then selling it to the world? I would hope not.

[The Beast1]

(03-24-2017 02:54 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

I think a VPN protects to a certain point.

But your regular visits to websi,s, purchases, searches, etc, even anonymous and can show a pattern to a computer.

Unfortunately we've unleashed pandoras box.

A VPN only obscures your browsing but does not completely offer full anonymity. Not to mention, whomever runs the damn VPN can easily monitor the traffic going through it. A classic man in the middle attack.

Unless you are hosting your own VPN service on hardware that you trust to a provider you know isn't monitoring traffic on their end, you are still exposing yourself.

Seriously guys, nothing is truly safe or private on the internet.

If you want true protection, browse your dastardly sites over a public wifi hotspot with a spoofed MAC address and switch your location frequently or buy a cash only pay as you go SIM card and connect over that while also frequently switching and using cheap burner phones to connect. Never tie it to a credit card and top up with cash cards bought at your neighborhood 7-11.

So long as you continually change the source of how you connect to the internet you'll be fine. Even then, it's only a matter of time before a determined adversary hits you.

[JayMillz]

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsi...erspective

The House of Representatives has gone along with the Senate and voted 215-205 to overturn a yet-to-take-effect regulation that would have required Internet service providers — like Comcast, Verizon and Charter — to get consumers' permission before selling their data.

President Trump is expected to sign the rollback, according to a White House statement.

[JayMillz]

[Pete]

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. ?