7 ms·
Senate Guts Privacy Rules. Will House Follow Suit?
- joshontheweb 10y agoIs there a good reason why a representative would vote in favor of this?
- maxxxxx 10y agoThey read papers prepared by lobbyists, think "makes sense" and vote for it. That's how law making often works.
- joshontheweb 10y agoI'm having a hard time imagining a compelling case that the lobbyists could present though. Are most of these representatives just willfully corrupt? I hate to vilify people unduly but it is becoming hard to understand the thought process here.
- throwaway91111 10y agoI suppose you could pitch it as making the internet more efficient economically. I don't think that increased consumer purchasing is necessarily high value, but it certainly has economic benefits to spending.
- forgotmysn 10y agothink of elected representatives as beholden to shareholders, rather than voters, and it might make more sense to you.
- maxxxxx 10y agoYou can easily attribute it to laziness. They don't research a topic themselves so whoever makes the best presentation gets the vote. Usually that's lobbyists because they have more money and time and are hired as excellent communicators. Dinner invitations and paid flights in private jets help too.
- forgotmysn 10y agoRight, and the lobbyists are hired, not because the corporations that hire them are inherently evil, but because they are mandated by their shareholders to change costly laws rather than comply with them. I'm not blaming our elected representatives, they are just part of a failing system.
- maxxxxx 10y agoActually you should blame the representatives. They should be there for ALL citizens and have the greater good in mind not just the narrow interests of some.
- maxxxxx 10y agoYou can make a compelling case for pretty much anything if you don't have to present conflicting views. That's what lobbyists are experts for.
- rhino369 10y ago>I'm having a hard time imagining a compelling case that the lobbyists could present though. If I were them: Look how much money Google and Facebook make doing this. Doesn't make sense to prevent AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast from doing the same.
- pdkl95 10y ago> Are most of these representatives just willfully corrupt? Yes, but they prefer the terms "lobbying" and "campaign contributions". While theoretically they are concerned with their constituency so they can keep their job, the big problem with our system is the expense of running campaigns. While serving in congress, our representatives a massive amount of time is spent "dialing for dollars". The parties even require ("encourage") spending time "fundraising". This makes lobbying easy. Constructing a compelling case isn't necessary. Just promise to free up their time by making various donations to their campaign and/or their party. This is legal as long as there isn't specific quid pro quo, thanks to McDonnell v United States. John Oliver's overview of the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk
- rayiner 10y agoIt's illegal for corporations to make campaign donations. McDonnell has nothing to do with that.
- pdkl95 10y agoIf the corporation is donating directly, it should be possible to show that the legislation was quid pro quo. I'm sure you're familiar with the numerous ways corporations (and others) add indirection when donating. Especially in the era of "Super PACs".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- malcolmwhy 10y agoAt least in my district the ISP could simply paint it as a way to create more jobs for their business.
- rayiner 10y agoThe telecommunications industry employs hundreds of thousands of people. It does so not just in California and New York, but in every state. And it creates the kind of middle class jobs states are desperate for. A unionized Verizon field tech can make six figures (with overtime), has generous benefits, and can get the job without a college degree. How many jobs do Google or Facebook create in Tennessee? How many blue collar six figure jobs do Google or Facebook create? If you're a telco, you can walk into the office of a politician in Alabama and say: "Hey, we employ 5,000 people in your state. Google employs 100. Why the hell would you support legislation that allows Google to make money this way but bans us from doing it?" (This is, incidentally, why the conventional wisdom about money ruling politics is bunk. Tech is one of the richest industries that exists. But it's relatively politically ineffectual because it employs so few people, and it does so primarily in a handful of rich, coastal states. A professor of mine once pointed out to me that in the environmental area, it's the environmental groups that need to do lobbying. The power company can just call up a Congress-critter and remind them of the thousands of jobs in their district that are tied to that company's well-being.)
- snickerbockers 10y agoA lot of people oppose government regulation on general principle.
- wickedlogic 10y agoIf you do talk with your representatives, remind them this essentially means their browsing history, and the histories of their families, their constituents, and their constituents families will be available for sale at best, or once collected and sold are highly likely to be in a databreach before long. The aggregate of that information will be used to treat those people differently in some aspect or another.
- dforrestwilson1 10y agoTrying to get caught up on this. How big a difference is this to what Google and Facebook are doing currently?
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> How big a difference is this to what Google and Facebook are doing currently? ISPs' and carriers' data would cover every single person with a phone or Internet connection. It would be a universal database of locations, and a virtually-universal database of browsing habits tied not only to an IP, but an address and social security number. Will all of that be disclosed? Unlikely. But with an incentive to warehouse it, more ISPs and carriers will, and that makes for a juicy target.
- throwaway91111 10y agoWell, Facebook doesn't have access to your browsing history. At least not most of it, though it's probably still, you know, more that enough to cause a lot of pain. Google does have access in some situations (chrome + linked profile), but as far as I know they don't sell that access. Of course, both offer some subset of information for users.
- korethr 10y agoUnless you are using an ad-blocker to block the rather commonplace facebook widget, and their other tracking mechanisms, they may well have more of your browsing history than you realize. Hell, I do use ad-blockers and block assets coming from known Facebook domains, and they probably still have more information about my browsing history than I realize.
- robertwalsh0 10y agoIs there any way to protect your browsing?
- wodencafe 10y agoOnly if you use Tor, but then they will go after that with some excuse (predators, illegal content, terrorism, take your pick).
- aleksei 10y agoVPN outside the US.
- extra88 10y agoThe VPN doesn't have to be outside the U.S., the tracking in question is only by your immediate ISP.
- 0xcde4c3db 10y agoNote that the NSA openly claims authority to actively snoop on (i.e. not just incidentally record, but deliberately examine) your communications in this case, as your connection appears to be a foreign one. The FBI also has a legal strategy around hacking anyone whose actual location is obscured and has some kind of nexus in the US (as they could be presumed to be "crossing state lines" and thus subject to Federal jurisdiction); I'm not sure exactly how the execution of that shook out so far, but I doubt the story is over in any case.
- M_Grey 10y agoA VPN you trust not to keep logs, and/or TOR.
- goda90 10y agoHow necessary is the not keeping logs thing(unless of course they too sell the data)? Sure if someone is hunting you down and the VPN keeps logs, then they can easily figure it out. But if you're just trying to avoid your ISP selling your browsing data, do you need to be concerned about what the VPN provider knows? Would the ISPs go to the lengths of trying to get that info from the VPN?
- wodencafe 10y agoWhat a bunch of sell-out traitors. Is there no party that values privacy, individual liberty, or the constitution? I thought these "Senators" took an oath to protect the constitution. From the way they vote, it seems they never even read it!
- rrggrr 10y ago(1) Don't bet on many of them understanding their vote. It was billed as a removal of an unfair restraint on the free market. (2) Oddly silent were folks like Google, Microsoft, etc. I fully expect to have to pay for privacy, or to have to choose whom I trust with my data: Comcast or Google. Its a shitty time for privacy, period.
- ccrush 10y agoSilent to you. Their lobby speaks volumes when they pay these pricks to take away more and more privacy.
- mattnewton 10y agoAll that is required is that they do not spend money to match the telecom's interest here. I don't see what Google, Microsoft or Facebook have to gain from telecoms getting datasets large enough to compete with their ad buisinesses. I think they probably just figured hey had little to lose and would not fight very hard.
- brantg 10y agoI also don't fully understand this. Jumping in to see if someone can clarify. Here's the text of the bill (it's pretty short): https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re... It looks like all this does is undo an FCC rule from Dec 2, 2016. My understanding is that if this passes, our internet privacy will be the same as it was on Dec 1, 2016. Am I wrong? Why is this so bad?
- 10y ago
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoHere's the roll-call vote [1]. Find your Senator. If they voted in agreement with your views, call and congratulate them. If they didn't, call and explain why you're disappointed. Then immediately call your Congressperson. [1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
- superobserver 10y agoAsk Trump to veto it. He may oblige.
- js2 10y agoI won't be surprised if AT&T revives its "Internet Preferences" targeted ads program[1]. Most customers apparently didn't care and were willing to put up with it for a $29/mo discount. AT&T never indicated why they canceled it, but my money is that it was due to the FCC regulations that were put in place. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/att-to-end-targeted-ads-program-give-all-users-lowest-available-price/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/att-t...
- et-al 10y agoConsidering that a good number of people used NetZero back in the day, this isn't a stretch. We've come to accept privacy as a luxury service.
- korethr 10y agoAt least some people used NetZero not because they were willing to tolerate ads, but because it was some way, any way, of getting a net connection. Hell, I tried find way to keep that annoying ad setup from even loading. I thought I was very clever that summer I used an independent PPP program under Linux to get the net connection, but no ads. Of course, that was detected and blocked after a while.
- trendia 10y agoReminder that you can use a VPN with many cell phones. (I know it can be done with Android, not sure about iPhone)
- js2 10y agoYes, you can use a VPN with iOS. However, AFAIK, the ad targeting program I was referring to was only used on the AT&T broadband Gigapower offering.
- wnevets 10y agoOk trump/republican supporters, please help me understand why this is a good thing.
- ignoramceisblis 10y agoYou appear to be another victim of "divide and conquer", and like many of them, perpetuate it. Life is not as simple as you like to believe: Trump/republican supporters may not necessarily think this is a good thing.
- wnevets 10y ago/r/iamverysmart
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wfunction 10y agoI would have preferred them to vote the other way, but I'm trying to do a reality check here. Given that on HTTPS sites it's just the domain name + timestamp, and that more and more sites are transitioning to HTTPS, is the mere domain name and timestamp really that useful? I can imagine it being useful to know you order pizzas at 7pm Thursdays, but how useful is it actually to know you e.g. browse Amazon 2pm Mondays, or use YouTube 10pm Saturdays, or send emails with Gmail every hour of every day? They have no idea what you're buying or watching or sending. (eBay seems to be the major exception since it's HTTP.)
- intopieces 10y agoIf it weren't useful, why would ISPs spend money lobbying to get access to it?
- wfunction 10y agoI don't know, that's why I'm asking. I'm wondering if they're just racing against the HTTPS clock or something?
- rco8786 10y agoYou could tell a lot about me just based on domain names I frequent.
- wfunction 10y agoHow much of it would be devastating if (1) your closest friends and/or family members found out? (2) more distant acquaintances found out? And how likely is it that each of those would happen under a data breach? (Since presumably most people don't go looking inside illegal data dumps trying to find out the most intimate secrets about their friends' or family members' life for no good reason.)
- jdavis703 10y agoLet's give a few examples of information they could find about you: Visits nytimes.com, huffingtonpost.com and cnn.com: user is interested in current events and is probably liberal Visits webmd.com and kaiserpermanente.org: user is probably sick I'm sure you can extrapolate further. Now let's say I'm a gay person growing up in a conservative house and ads start popping up for all the family members on our shared IP for gay dating sites. That might be problematic for certain people.
- macawfish 10y agoWe need good p2p mesh network applications! Relatively slow, asynchronous, person to person flow of information was, and arguably still is, the foundation of society, and the technology must be capable of fluidly falling back to this capability without dependence on unstable centralized networks!
- unhappycyanide 10y agoHelp out here please. Is the house doing something different/worse than the senate to gut our privacy protections? Not that I'm ok with this crap (and I'm looking into a vpn now) but I hear they could already sell our data to whoever because they gutted Tom Wheeler's plan.
- thomastjeffery 10y agoThe Senate voted. Now is the House's turn.