40 ms·

"...onerous limitations on Internet service providers’ use of web browsing information without regard to whether the information is sensitive or not, which diff

"...onerous limitations on Internet service providers’ use of web browsing information without regard to whether the information is sensitive or not, which differs greatly from the guidelines governing all other online companies, like search engines and mobile apps." They're trying to spin this hard, I get that, we all have our spin on things. I know that paragraph is supposed to make me think "oh no, those poor ISPs, that's not fair they have onerous limitations and others don't." But all I can think is GOOD, they should have onerous limitations on this stuff. It should be unfair. We (we being end users in this case) ALWAYS lose when companies start to "innovate" with our personal information. I totally get that there's been a ton of innovation, I totally agree with them on many points, but we're already paying for access with our money and we shouldn't pay a second time with our privacy.

M_Grey 10y ago
This is only going to stop when we legislate a value associated with our privacy.
- tunap 10y ago
  Considering the current and former casts of the DHS Data Privacy & Integrity Advisory Panel[0], those who 'recommend' and write the laws, that will be a cold day in hell. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-advisory-committee https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-advisory-committee
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    It's true, and why the only solution is widespread education of voters; making this a "big issue". Then again, it's hard to imagine that happening with some large-scale disasters regarding personal privacy.
revelation 10y ago
That was the single most ridiculous thing in the entire article. Why should USPS be allowed to read a letter that I send to my mother? Why should AT&T be able to listen to the telephone conversation I'm having with Comcast? Yes, how dare we institute different rules for privacy between two participants in a communication and the simple pipe that facilitates the communication. It's only a centuries old concept.

M_Grey 10y ago

This is only going to stop when we legislate a value associated with our privacy.

tunap 10y ago
Considering the current and former casts of the DHS Data Privacy & Integrity Advisory Panel[0], those who 'recommend' and write the laws, that will be a cold day in hell. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-advisory-committee https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-advisory-committee
- M_Grey 10y ago
  It's true, and why the only solution is widespread education of voters; making this a "big issue". Then again, it's hard to imagine that happening with some large-scale disasters regarding personal privacy.

revelation 10y ago

That was the single most ridiculous thing in the entire article. Why should USPS be allowed to read a letter that I send to my mother? Why should AT&T be able to listen to the telephone conversation I'm having with Comcast? Yes, how dare we institute different rules for privacy between two participants in a communication and the simple pipe that facilitates the communication. It's only a centuries old concept.