5 ms·
ISPs ask lawmakers to kill privacy rules, and they’re happily obliging
- GrinningFool 10y ago> "Further, the Order would also result in consumers being bombarded > with trivial data breach notifications. The FCC greatly expands the > category of information for which a breach notification would be necessary, > even if the consumer is not harmed." Can't have those damned consumers knowing just how far we spread their data around, nor the negligence with which our partners handle their data. That just won't do.
- dukeluke 10y agoUSA should be considered a corporate oligarchy at this point. It's clear that, with gerrymandering, our FPTP voting system, and the fact that corporations are people and money is speech, the citizens of the country hold no real power anymore.
- M_Grey 10y agoEncrypt. EVERYTHING. It's the power we do have, and it might be the only power.
- alyandon 10y agoYep, I pretty much already do exactly that. Cheap VPS provider + VPN for a good fraction of my home network traffic. If my ISP wants to pay me in the form of a discounted price in exchange for my browsing data then I'll reconsider my position.
- dukeluke 10y agoA problem there is that many VPNs sell our data as well. Even if they say they don't sell it, we have no way of proving they don't.
- arcaster 10y agoThen run your own openvpn service on a VPS, it's not that hard.
- falcolas 10y agoYou still have an ISP, via the VPS provider. You also risk your traffic being deprioritized (or dropped) by your local ISP.
- alyandon 10y agoIn my mind, a commercial VPS provider has little incentive to perform data mining of a particular customer's traffic vs a residential ISP. Could AWS, Digital Ocean, Linode, <insert other low end hosts> all be trying to? Sure, I guess? Is it really central to their business model? I think that is a bit of a stretch so I'm comfortable trusting my tunneled traffic to them.
- M_Grey 10y agoThey have a lot to lose, considering how much anyone in that space would love to snap up market share.