5 ms·
The Senators that introduced a bill to let telecoms sell your internet history
- M_Grey 10y agoIn no way am I disputing the accuracy of the article, or the necessity for alarm and precautions. I will however say, that PIA sells the kind of services you might look for to combat such measures, so consider the source too.
- personjerry 10y agoSo if telecoms can't legally sell the data, doesn't that mean that there is no need for the services of PIA?
- M_Grey 10y agoNo, and in fact I've used PIA and been very happy with them before. I'm just saying that when you consider your options, and your risk profile, keep all factors in mind.
- blunte 10y agoThere are many uses for a VPN beyond this privacy concern. My two reasons I use it are: 1. I'm on someone else's wifi that I don't fully trust (or is an open wifi) 2. I need to "be" in a country different than where I'm currently using my computer. This is the most common need, since I'm an American expat living in Netherlands (and traveling in other countries).
- M_Grey 10y agoAs someone who enjoys British television, but is maddened by geoblocking of content that is not otherwise available, even for purchase... yes, just that.
- splitrocket 10y agoIt's not difficult to both read the resolution itself (less than a page): https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re... And in turn, refer to the regulations to which it refers: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28... The summary at the top is fairly succinct. Essentially, PIA is correct, despite any incentive they might have to report it.
- noobermin 10y agoWould it make sense for this to be the link?
- tegansnyder 10y agoDoesn't this data already exist in the form of ISP data brokers? I'm thinking of data that makes its way to into the hands of some marketing companies that show anonomized URL level traffic for a given website. Essentially giving you ability to see analytics on a website you don't own. Anybody know who the big players/ISP data brokers are?
- aerovistae 10y agoThings like this, more than anything else, are what makes me wonder how anyone can view Republicans as anything short of working against their constituents. It just baffles me. Why would anyone want this?
- riader 10y ago> Why would anyone want this? Surely you can think of someone with some reason.
- rhino369 10y agoAmericans might prefer ad subsidized isp service. We by and large want ad subsidized browsers, email, phone operating systems, television, you name it. Why should the law protect privacy for only one service when Hundreds of billions of dollars of spying goes on in other industries?
- greglindahl 10y agoIf there was a free market in ISP service, that would be perfectly fine. Almost all of the US is nowhere near a free market in ISP service. I've never understood why libertarians believe in the market so much that they believe in the markets which aren't free.
- ci5er 10y agoReally? I've never met a libertarian that thought that local licensure (data/voice/video transport, taxis, hair-dressers, coffin-makers, whatever) was anything but a corruptocrat's protection racket.
- sundvor 10y agoWow, with untrustworthy politicians and super dodgy ISPs like these, who needs the CIA to spy on you? At least the CIA would keep it more or less in house.
- 1001101 10y agoIt's a feature. If they're allowed to disclose it, and you agree to the terms of service, what expectations of privacy do you have?
- techsupporter 10y agoAnd that would be awesome if we had meaningful competition (and, in this case, I mean more than even two providers) from local Internet providers. It is not out of the realm of possibility, if ISPs and mobile providers start putting in "you agree by subscribing to our services that we can harvest, sell, package, and distribute your access history to any company we deem suitable" their terms of service, that I wouldn't have any choice of provider who doesn't do this. If both Comcast and CenturyLink do this, I'm SOL for wireline broadband. If T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon all do this--and why wouldn't they all, as a group?--I'm SOL for wireless service. So that's six companies to completely foreclose having a choice.
- drdaeman 10y agoBy the way. What are the obstacles for new ISPs in the US? Is it municipality-related issues (cities disallow building any new networking infrastructure and no fibers/lambdas available for rent, or availabe only at prohibitive prices), or peering issues (peering prices are impossible or no one even wants to accept you as a peer unless you're a big telco) or something else? I just worked for about ten years for various ISP companies in Russia (in a relatively small town), including one "start-up" ISP where I was a first and only software engineer until we had grown up. While I haven't dealt with actual physical aspect, or legal issues, I had an impression that white things were sort of unpleasant, it wasn't prohibitive. So, curious how things are in US and why there are regions with almost monopolistic ISPs. Thought US must've had a freer market than our post-USSR legacy with all the licensing and regulations.
- sytelus 10y agoIs the article overblown? I thought the bill was about removing regulations that was hard to enforce technically... I didn't thought the bill gave a black check to telcos to sell internet history without consent.
- lurchpop 10y agoSurprised and disappointed to see rand paul there
- chrismealy 10y agoWhy? He's against government, not for privacy.
- Terr_ 10y agoWhy surprised? It seems perfectly in line with American Libertarianism: Let the corporation do whatever it wants and tell the customer to go to (or create) a competitor. If someone complains about monopolies or power-imbalances, simply blame the government, and assure them that removing all regulation will eventually fix the problem.
- dragonwriter 10y agoWhy surprised? Paul is about the most publicly proud Senator of been by against government regulation and for private contract as the basis of rules. Why wouldn't you expect Paul to back allowing corporations to do anything so long as it doesn't violate an explicit contract?
- Buge 10y agoWhy does the article mention net neutrality?
- Animats 10y agoHow do I order the Internet history of Senators?
- drcross 10y agoWhat is the actual plan? To harvest DNS requests?
- drdaeman 10y agoThat, and NetFlow (or similar) records. While that's just "metadata"-level stuff it can basically reveal a lot about anyone's daily habits. If a network really wants to dig into the traffic, L7 protocol analyzers (plain HTTP requests, SNI from TLS handshakes, etc) can be quite close (not exactly, but given some statistical tricks - very close) to what someone may see standing behind one's shoulder. And I've heard some ISPs are really into the foul game, and were caught injecting their own JS into non-authenticated traffic. That was to inject some warnings or ads or whatever (I've read that, like, an year ago and forgot the details), but it could also be spyware^W telemetry, diagnostics and analytics service.
- drdaeman 10y agoThere's a certain good aspect to this. Users should be aware that networks (any, be it their FTTH or a WiFi hotspot in some cafe) can - theoretically and practically - access and analyze their traffic. I'm NOT saying that such capability or legality of third parties accessing that data is a good or bad thing. It's complicated. I'm sure only that the fact that proper user awareness on this matter is a good idea.
- klarrimore 10y agoWhat a hilariously misleading title.
- masonic 10y agoThey are oddly content with the Obama Administration having that same policy for 97% of its tenure and the same effect for 100% of its tenure (the rule to limit it was only put in a week before the election and had yet to take effect).