17 ms·

Well this is kinda fucking disgusting. I had previously thought lawmakers may simply not understand the issue they're ruling on - which is too common. I don't

by blitmap 10y ago

Well this is kinda fucking disgusting. I had previously thought lawmakers may simply not understand the issue they're ruling on - which is too common. I don't understand why this needs to remove the ability for the FCC to do it's job. To curtail it's ability to enact similar privacy protections in the future. How could anyone in good conscience think this is good for the people? Dear god fuck it all. (let's not even consider how an ISP analyzing traffic to sell would have an unfair advantage to other advertising agents like Facebook)

pera 10y ago
They may think most constituents don't care about privacy at all, so why protect it? Or maybe they think the free market will somehow fix it? In any case, Americans should show them that they are actually interested in their privacy: https://act.eff.org/action/don-t-let-congress-undermine-our-online-privacy https://act.eff.org/action/don-t-let-congress-undermine-our-...
- specialist 10y ago
  I worked on election integrity issues for a decade. Verify the machines work correctly, protect the secret ballot, keep admins from purging the voter rolls illegally, etc. My opponents had (effectively) infinite time and resources. They will forward their agenda relentlessly. Year after year. Non stop. To "win", I had to show up EVERY SINGLE DAY for EVERY SINGLE BATTLE FRONT. Well. One day I stayed home. After ten years of preventing internet voting (in my state), the legislature suspended the rules, fast-tracked the internet voting bill (no public hearings), and it passed unanimously. I asked my representatives, who had previously committed to never passing such a bill, "WTF?" "Well, we didn't hear any opposition." (Fruit flies have longer attention spans.) -- What I'm trying to say is that people do care. I traveled my entire state and had broad public support for my platform (use "citizen owned" open source software, protect voter privacy, universal voter registration). But we're outclassed, outgunned, and outmaneuvered. You cannot expect anyone anywhere do The Right Thing. But if you bring the heat, the powerful will see the light. The only times I got my way is when I brought pressure. Build coaltions, fill public hearings, letters to the editors, endorsements, resolutions, orchestrate protests, etc. This book is a very good primer. http://www.becomingacitizenactivist.org I also strongly recommend the Camp Wellstone training for organisers. http://wellstone.org
  - gpawl 10y ago
    Is this new? or Alaska? It looks that only Alaska has internet voting beyond corner cases (military and citizens abroad) whose votes don't get counted anyway except in statistically tied races. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/internet-voting.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/interne...
    - specialist 10y ago
      Washington State. Overseas voters can now cast ballots electronically, eg fax and email. http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5171&Year=2011 http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5171&Year=2011 -- Aside: Our conservation district elections, which are self-administered (what could go wrong?), permit casting ballots online.
  - shostack 10y ago
    This is my biggest concern about various "moneyed people/orgs with agendas." If their sole job is to push their agenda, it is incredibly asymmetric. How do you win against something like that if all it takes is slipping just once when they are waiting to pounce?
    - specialist 10y ago
      Offense beats defense. The counter (rock, paper, scissors) is to have an affirmative agenda. If I had to do it all over, I would have pushed for comprehensive reform and an OSS stack. But young me wasn't very teachable. The Election Verification Network is making all the right moves, in this regard. Strategy vs tactics, marathon vs sprint, coalition building, etc.
- rhino369 10y ago
  They know Americans don't care. What percentage of people use services that are roughly this invasive? Google/Bing/Yahoo search, Gmail/hotmail, android, grocery discount cards, any social network, amazon, etc. etc. Probably nearly 95% of the country. Might as well let AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time-Warner get in on the google and facebook anti-privacy smorgasbord.
  - y_u_no_rust 10y ago
    I'm glad -- as a advertiser this will greatly help deanonymize a lot of stuff Personally I'm going to see about buying the history of a few politicians and their families first chance I get
noobermin 10y ago
>How could anyone in good conscience think this is good for the people? You assume these people care about "what is good for the people." Like CNN and MSNBC, claiming "R's say this, D's say this, I can't tell what the truth is!" There is the record, there is history. One party is aligned with their corporate donors more than the other. While both have issues, on issues involving corporate power and influence, R's are clearly on the side of corporations and wealthy donors who keep them in power. EDIT: there is no need for being fair because everyone else does this, but many times, D's end up being "republican-lite" because they believe it will appeal to R's and also appeal to their (the D's) donors; but there is no question as to which side the R's lie on.
- yeukhon 10y ago
  I think the better term analysis from my PoV: * Republican prefers smaller government and prefers more conservative approach by eliminating regulations * Democrats actually had all the major corporations' support during the 2016 election, but they try to appeal both sides, with more liberal agenda and mixing the corporation interest. Don't forget each party is divided into: * extreme conservative * liberal * conservative of their own party's ideology.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    They should get rid of the regulations that prevent customers of these ISPs from banding together and suing them. Hah!
  - blitmap 10y ago
    What's weird to me is Republicans say regulation is bad - and don't get hurt by a _lack_ of regulation. How can people in that party be so gung-ho to make themselves vulnerable? They're not all part of the 1%. Surely they know someone who suffers by undoing regulation. These people can't all live in the same bubble.
    - naasking 10y ago
      > What's weird to me is Republicans say regulation is bad What's really weird is that Republicans love markets and hate regulation, but don't seem to realize that every market is created by regulation. There's a complete lack of nuance among vocal Republicans.
diogenescynic 10y ago
>How could anyone in good conscience think this is good for the people? They don't. The politicians who voted for this only represent the interests of the lobbyists and financial backers who 'donated/bribed' them during their campaign. Politicians don't care about the will of the people at all, several studies have shown this. Before America can accomplish much of anything--we need real and substantial campaign finance reform. Too many corporations are able to influence elections and it's not good for democracy. I would think after this last election, democrats could run on this as a national security issue, if they were smart but no one has ever accused them of that.
- aj_g 10y ago
  > Politicians don't care about the will of the people at all, several studies have shown this. Interesting. I was unaware studies had been done on this. Care to share any links?
  - alistproducer2 10y ago
    you really don't need studies. look at the polling data of things that get passed. The AHCA is being rushed through despite being wanted by only 17% of the public [0]. 0: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/poll-gop-trump-obamacare-repeal-236420 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/poll-gop-trump-obamaca...
    - BatFastard 10y ago
      But the health care C level execs are getting big tax cuts, and they are repealing the 3.8% tax on some kind of investment income. So its good for everyone!
  - ConceptJunkie 10y ago
    I don't know if there are any studies, but the single-digit approval rating of Congress says it quite clearly.
    - 10y ago
guelo 10y ago
The justification is that less regulation will create more profits which will supposedly create more jobs (aka trickle down economics). Luckily for the politicians this justification dovetails perfectly with what the lobbyists with the deepest pockets want.
Spooky23 10y ago
That may be upside. Something needs to counter Facebook.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  What a terrible cure that would be. Whatever evils you believe Facebook to be doing to the internet, at least they can't inspect every packet that leaves your router.
gpawl 10y ago
Their argument is that Internet privacy is the FTC's job, not the FCC's job. This raises the question: Have they set up the FTC to do this job before taking away responsibility from the FCC?
- mattnewton 10y ago
  No they have not, as AFAIK they are still common carriers outside the FTC's regulation.
pjc50 10y ago
> good for the people The White House seems to be full of people compromised to the Russians. But the voters are happy to have defeated the real enemy, their fellow Americans.

by blitmap 10y ago

pera 10y ago

They may think most constituents don't care about privacy at all, so why protect it? Or maybe they think the free market will somehow fix it? In any case, Americans should show them that they are actually interested in their privacy: https://act.eff.org/action/don-t-let-congress-undermine-our-online-privacy https://act.eff.org/action/don-t-let-congress-undermine-our-...

specialist 10y ago
I worked on election integrity issues for a decade. Verify the machines work correctly, protect the secret ballot, keep admins from purging the voter rolls illegally, etc. My opponents had (effectively) infinite time and resources. They will forward their agenda relentlessly. Year after year. Non stop. To "win", I had to show up EVERY SINGLE DAY for EVERY SINGLE BATTLE FRONT. Well. One day I stayed home. After ten years of preventing internet voting (in my state), the legislature suspended the rules, fast-tracked the internet voting bill (no public hearings), and it passed unanimously. I asked my representatives, who had previously committed to never passing such a bill, "WTF?" "Well, we didn't hear any opposition." (Fruit flies have longer attention spans.) -- What I'm trying to say is that people do care. I traveled my entire state and had broad public support for my platform (use "citizen owned" open source software, protect voter privacy, universal voter registration). But we're outclassed, outgunned, and outmaneuvered. You cannot expect anyone anywhere do The Right Thing. But if you bring the heat, the powerful will see the light. The only times I got my way is when I brought pressure. Build coaltions, fill public hearings, letters to the editors, endorsements, resolutions, orchestrate protests, etc. This book is a very good primer. http://www.becomingacitizenactivist.org I also strongly recommend the Camp Wellstone training for organisers. http://wellstone.org
- gpawl 10y ago
  Is this new? or Alaska? It looks that only Alaska has internet voting beyond corner cases (military and citizens abroad) whose votes don't get counted anyway except in statistically tied races. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/internet-voting.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/interne...
  - specialist 10y ago
    Washington State. Overseas voters can now cast ballots electronically, eg fax and email. http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5171&Year=2011 http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5171&Year=2011 -- Aside: Our conservation district elections, which are self-administered (what could go wrong?), permit casting ballots online.
- shostack 10y ago
  This is my biggest concern about various "moneyed people/orgs with agendas." If their sole job is to push their agenda, it is incredibly asymmetric. How do you win against something like that if all it takes is slipping just once when they are waiting to pounce?
  - specialist 10y ago
    Offense beats defense. The counter (rock, paper, scissors) is to have an affirmative agenda. If I had to do it all over, I would have pushed for comprehensive reform and an OSS stack. But young me wasn't very teachable. The Election Verification Network is making all the right moves, in this regard. Strategy vs tactics, marathon vs sprint, coalition building, etc.
rhino369 10y ago
They know Americans don't care. What percentage of people use services that are roughly this invasive? Google/Bing/Yahoo search, Gmail/hotmail, android, grocery discount cards, any social network, amazon, etc. etc. Probably nearly 95% of the country. Might as well let AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time-Warner get in on the google and facebook anti-privacy smorgasbord.
- y_u_no_rust 10y ago
  I'm glad -- as a advertiser this will greatly help deanonymize a lot of stuff Personally I'm going to see about buying the history of a few politicians and their families first chance I get

noobermin 10y ago

>How could anyone in good conscience think this is good for the people? You assume these people care about "what is good for the people." Like CNN and MSNBC, claiming "R's say this, D's say this, I can't tell what the truth is!" There is the record, there is history. One party is aligned with their corporate donors more than the other. While both have issues, on issues involving corporate power and influence, R's are clearly on the side of corporations and wealthy donors who keep them in power. EDIT: there is no need for being fair because everyone else does this, but many times, D's end up being "republican-lite" because they believe it will appeal to R's and also appeal to their (the D's) donors; but there is no question as to which side the R's lie on.

yeukhon 10y ago
I think the better term analysis from my PoV: * Republican prefers smaller government and prefers more conservative approach by eliminating regulations * Democrats actually had all the major corporations' support during the 2016 election, but they try to appeal both sides, with more liberal agenda and mixing the corporation interest. Don't forget each party is divided into: * extreme conservative * liberal * conservative of their own party's ideology.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  They should get rid of the regulations that prevent customers of these ISPs from banding together and suing them. Hah!
- blitmap 10y ago
  What's weird to me is Republicans say regulation is bad - and don't get hurt by a _lack_ of regulation. How can people in that party be so gung-ho to make themselves vulnerable? They're not all part of the 1%. Surely they know someone who suffers by undoing regulation. These people can't all live in the same bubble.
  - naasking 10y ago
    > What's weird to me is Republicans say regulation is bad What's really weird is that Republicans love markets and hate regulation, but don't seem to realize that every market is created by regulation. There's a complete lack of nuance among vocal Republicans.

diogenescynic 10y ago

>How could anyone in good conscience think this is good for the people? They don't. The politicians who voted for this only represent the interests of the lobbyists and financial backers who 'donated/bribed' them during their campaign. Politicians don't care about the will of the people at all, several studies have shown this. Before America can accomplish much of anything--we need real and substantial campaign finance reform. Too many corporations are able to influence elections and it's not good for democracy. I would think after this last election, democrats could run on this as a national security issue, if they were smart but no one has ever accused them of that.

aj_g 10y ago
> Politicians don't care about the will of the people at all, several studies have shown this. Interesting. I was unaware studies had been done on this. Care to share any links?
- alistproducer2 10y ago
  you really don't need studies. look at the polling data of things that get passed. The AHCA is being rushed through despite being wanted by only 17% of the public [0]. 0: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/poll-gop-trump-obamacare-repeal-236420 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/poll-gop-trump-obamaca...
  - BatFastard 10y ago
    But the health care C level execs are getting big tax cuts, and they are repealing the 3.8% tax on some kind of investment income. So its good for everyone!
- ConceptJunkie 10y ago
  I don't know if there are any studies, but the single-digit approval rating of Congress says it quite clearly.
  - 10y ago

guelo 10y ago

The justification is that less regulation will create more profits which will supposedly create more jobs (aka trickle down economics). Luckily for the politicians this justification dovetails perfectly with what the lobbyists with the deepest pockets want.

Spooky23 10y ago

That may be upside. Something needs to counter Facebook.

mattnewton 10y ago
What a terrible cure that would be. Whatever evils you believe Facebook to be doing to the internet, at least they can't inspect every packet that leaves your router.

gpawl 10y ago

Their argument is that Internet privacy is the FTC's job, not the FCC's job. This raises the question: Have they set up the FTC to do this job before taking away responsibility from the FCC?

mattnewton 10y ago
No they have not, as AFAIK they are still common carriers outside the FTC's regulation.

pjc50 10y ago

> good for the people The White House seems to be full of people compromised to the Russians. But the voters are happy to have defeated the real enemy, their fellow Americans.