17 ms·
The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
- dirkg 10y agoIs anyone surprised by this? Elected representatives are rich and priveleged with zero connection, understanding or obligation to the people. The Republicans have a stated policy of helping corporations at the expense of people. The fact that the American public voted them in just proves how stupid most people in this country really are. We deserve this.
- thomastjeffery 10y agoTime to start paying the VPN tax.
- hprotagonist 10y agogiven the fact that deep packet inspection is real, to what extent will this actually help?
- patrickaljord 10y agoThere's a limit to DPI, if you use an efficient encryption and ssh, you should be fine unless they really want to get you.
- eikenberry 10y agoVPNs are encrypted.
- Jach 10y agoGood ones anyway. Many don't. Even https://github.com/jlund/streisand https://github.com/jlund/streisand if set up on ec2 won't warn you that your ipv6 connections probably aren't blackholed.
- bigphishy 10y agoYour post clearly enforces my suspicion that comments on hackernews have increasingly become infected with users who do not know of what they speak, and do not clearly think before they type.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- hprotagonist 10y agoThat's fine. I am aware that properly configured VPNs are DPI resistant. I am also aware that they aren't foolproof.
- sctb 10y agoNo matter what you're replying to, personal attacks like this are not OK on HN.
- make3 10y agountil they start throttling encrypted traffic systematically
- tzakrajs 10y agoThat's all fine an idea until people use steganography to hide encrypted messages in plain sight.
- Forbo 10y agoGood luck scaling that. Things like DesuDesuTalk have pretty limited adoption for a reason.
- tzakrajs 10y agoUsing jpg or other images is one method, but I imagine that you can use steganography in a variety of mediums. The only constraint is that the eavesdropper must not know that the cipher text is inside of the metaphorical plain text, otherwise you are throttled. In other words, the secret must have the same heuristics as any plain text. Can you fool the sensor that detects ciphertext? Great -- no throttle for you!
- chocolatebunny 10y agoThat would piss off all big businesses that have remote workers that have to VPN to their networks.
- cmurf 10y agoBusiness level service would permit and not throttle VPN. For consumer products, it will (probably) be an add-on. Whether they block or throttle or do both, is a market opportunity each ISP will decide.
- orthecreedence 10y agoCurious: if you're an ISP, how do you tell the difference between me VPNing into my Big Tech, Inc. and me VPNing into Private VPN, Inc?
- clubm8 10y agoUnfortunately some popular services (Netflix, Hulu) block VPN traffic. So I've moved a large chunk of my browsing over to Tor, but that makes it an open target for the NSA since they feel they can attack any data passing through links outside the NSA. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
- thomastjeffery 10y agoNot to mention a VPN is another expense, and a bandage for the greater problem..
- doctorshady 10y agoIt's a bit disappointing to see that aside from a few abstained votes, everybody just chose to vote along party lines. Do these people just rubber stamp a bill because there's a D or an R next to it? Even if it meant more nay votes for the bill, I really wish we had representatives that vote based on critical thought rather than what their friends were doing. I mean, as long as I'm dreaming too, we should give assembly programming kits to first graders.
- socalnate1 10y agoYes, and it's been getting worse. See the charts here: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/political_partisanship_in_three_stunning_charts_109196.html http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/poli...
- rinon 10y agoI don't know that much about the inner workings of Congress, but I'm guessing that it might be because reps who vote against party lines won't get support for their own pet projects later on?
- doctorshady 10y agoMaybe. Could be why some people chose to abstain rather than vote against the party.
- sehugg 10y agoIt's also easy to run an attack ad saying "Rep. X voted to keep job-killing Obama regulations" without saying exactly what the regulation was so the potential voter never questions whether they might have wanted it in place. That, and the Congressional GOP used up their political mana points on the failed Obamacare repeal.
- disposition2 10y agoMore or less. You might have a few R's (Amash?) that will pull the Libertarian card saying that free market should resolve this one it's own...choosing to ignore reality...the monopoly (just about) every American faces when it comes to choice for an ISP. And obviously all the D's will vote yes as the rules were created and established in a Dem FCC / Presidency. Despite party, it is sad to see quotes like Blackburn's carry any weight on any periodical outside of the puzzle section containing a where's waldo-esq spot the BS. Here is the actual roll call for anyone curious, I had trouble finding it...maybe because the vote was so recent?: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll200.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll200.xml
- marvindanig 10y agoBefore we jump in a shock and talk about the TFW political disaster there is happening in DC at the moment I want to ask a question: Is there a simple guide or steps that I can follow to make myself anonymous? I know there is TOR and VPNs, how can I go about setting it up?
- cblock811 10y agoThis might be a good starting place for you. https://medium.freecodecamp.com/how-to-set-up-a-vpn-in-5-minutes-for-free-and-why-you-urgently-need-one-d5cdba361907 https://medium.freecodecamp.com/how-to-set-up-a-vpn-in-5-min...
- beamatronic 10y agoThat just moves the problem
- yborg 10y agoIt moves it from an entity that is highly motivated to monetize the customer's information to one whose business is to do the opposite.
- beamatronic 10y agoWhich could change at any time - the business could be acquired, subpoenaed, etc.
- oostevo 10y agoYou can roll your own VPN on a cloud provider. Still not perfect, but I'd argue Azure, AWS, and the like are less likely to try to inspect/monetize traffic than a consumer ISP.
- beamatronic 10y agoWhen there is something that can be monetized, an MBA will eventually find it.
- tehabe 10y agoI wonder if this has any consequences for the US EU Privacy Shield agreement.
- cmath 10y agoDoes anyone have suggestions on staying private that my mom could easily follow?
- curiousgal 10y agoalgo[0] doens't require any client software so maybe set that up on her computer and she'll be set? 0.https://github.com/trailofbits/algo https://github.com/trailofbits/algo
- cmurf 10y agoIdeally integrated into the device that provides wifi, e.g. openwrt or dd-wrt running openvpn, and then get a monthly vpn service provider - always on at the local router level, for all of her devices.
- esaym 10y agoI'd think not using the ISP's DNS server would be a good start. Either find one somewhere else or run your own.
- wfo 10y agoDoes this even help? Are DNS requests encrypted? I had thought that they were not.
- pseudalopex 10y agoThey aren't.
- vvanders 10y agoAs someone who grew up during the early days of the internet I don't know of any other way to describe this than utterly depressing. The internet was supposed to be this bastion of knowledge, information and free exchange of ideas. Now it's just heading towards another avenue for large-organizations monetize the individual.
- malchow 10y ago...he posted, on Hacker News, a bastion of knowledge and information.
- curiousgal 10y agoYour point is valid but I wish you'd framed it better. Granted, the internet will indeed remain a bastion of knowledge and information but we shouldn't have to look over our shoulders when taking advantage of that.
- mtrpcic 10y agoYou're conflating a single anecdotal example with the overall issue. Of course this vote doesn't mean that all websites that are free, open, or focused on knowledge will go away. What it _does_ mean that your ISP can now sell the fact that you post here to Microsoft, who will know that malchow is you (tied to your real name, since the ISP knows that), and now Microsoft can start targeting you in new and exciting ways.
- malchow 10y agoIf my argument was impaired, it was certainly less impaired than the parent, who declared that the glorious free and open internet is over (b. 1974, d. 2017) because of this regulatory rollback. By the way, the fact that you cannot predict Microsoft's "new and exciting" ways of targeting me is a great example of why your argument is unconvincing. Do you really want me to believe that, as long as we kept this rule in place, network providers would never conceive of novel ways to participate in the advertising business using the network-level data they enjoy? Your best friend, if you are looking for a no-tracking digital lifestyle, is the free market's likelihood of delivering to you just that. It may come at a premium price, which I assume you'll be happy to pay. At the moment, you are just making everyone else pay a premium price for the no-tracking digital lifestyle you prefer, and relying on bureaucrats in D.C. to patch up the rules from time to time to keep up with novel targeting methods.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- orbitingpluto 10y agoWhat about COPPA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pr...
- k_sh 10y agoYou raise a good point- IANAL, but I can see this being a good avenue for challenging this soon-to-be law. Per COPPA, you have to confirm that someone is 13 years of age before collecting information on them. What are they going to do, repeal a law that was sold on the premise of "think of the children"? Sounds like something that would come up during re-election: imagine a "Rep. X voted to make it easier for online predators to find your children online" campaign.
- tiglionabbit 10y agoAnything goes at this point. They have no shame.
- BearGoesChirp 10y agoFor the children might be one way we can get them to support keeping search results private. Imagine some predator who decides to buy the history of certain demographics that will capture those 13 to 17 (and those under 13 who lie). They can then go through the search and look for anything that indicates someone who can easily be preyed upon. Find someone who searches things like how to be beautiful, use the internet history to stalk them on social media, and then use their internet history to form of a connection. Condense something like this into a 1 minute add, run it as a 'how to' aimed at predators with the intent of striking fear into the hearts of parents who see it, and then end it with a short message on why we should keep internet usage private.
- alistproducer2 10y agoPlease share your VPN setups. I would like to have my VPN connection at the router level, if possible. Edit: Here's sort of an answer to my own question https://www.howtogeek.com/221889/connect-your-home-router-to-a-vpn-to-bypass-censorship-filtering-and-more/ https://www.howtogeek.com/221889/connect-your-home-router-to...
- curiousgal 10y agoI used to have an OpenVPN setup but I ditched it for https://github.com/trailofbits/algo https://github.com/trailofbits/algo
- thawab 10y agoStreisand sets up a new server running L2TP/IPsec, OpenConnect, OpenSSH, OpenVPN, Shadowsocks, sslh, Stunnel, a Tor bridge, and WireGuard. https://github.com/jlund/streisand https://github.com/jlund/streisand
- chrisper 10y agoBut where would your VPN go to? It would have to be outside of the US, I assume. That means slower speeds and higher latencies.
- pythonaut_16 10y agoIt doesn't have to be outside the US to avoid your ISP selling the data. If you run through a 3rd party VPN you have to trust the provider to not sell your information. If you run through a US based datacenter your data is still within reach of a subpoena but your ISP won't have access to it.
- callinyouin 10y agoDoes anyone know if this works retroactively? Is every data-hungry company soon going to know all of our past browsing behavior?
- DrScump 10y agoIt's been legal to do so since 2015 and through next December at a minimum. That is the status the new administration inherited.
- skylark 10y agoMy understanding is that this repeals a law which was passed at the end of the Obama administration which never actually went into effect. If that's the case, it's already been happening - this bill just brought the issue front and center.
- disposition2 10y agoThe removed rule wasn't slated to go in to affect until 2018. Edit: The rule was intended to stop existing practices or prevent companies from doing this in the future.
- slang800 10y agoThe regulations that are being repealed were passed on October of 2016, so data-hungry companies already have whatever browsing history you gave them.
- pnathan 10y agoThis, right here, is the consequence of the withdrawal from politics many geeks advocated very strongly in an earlier time. "Everything is corrupt, it doesn't matter"... turns out to only be a viable philosophy when things mostly work well enough. What we have in protections and freedoms were purchased through a ton of hard work by prior generations: the liberty to slack and think that it just works ok is a nice side effect of the prior sweat.
- Futurebot 10y ago"Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone." - RMS
- pnathan 10y agoI have consistently found rms to be the most prescient tech voice. A lone prophet, if you will. He always bears careful thought in his vision of where tech and politics will play out - even if you disagree with him.
- kowdermeister 10y agoWho is RMS?
- cuonic 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
- kilotaras 10y agoRichard Matthew Stallman
- kowdermeister 10y agoThanks, the M was the missing link :)
- vhost- 10y agoDoesn't this mean the government can basically buy user data through shell corps and bypass warrants all together?
- gravity13 10y agoDoes this mean we can crowdsource and buy the private browsing history of our favorite representatives and post them online for everybody to see?
- supernintendo 10y agoThat's a lot of money that could go to other causes like the EFF. Black hat hacking is cheaper and has the potential to reveal much more about the people that voted for this.
- plink 10y agoThis vote will be a lubricant for just such black hat cracking. The Congress opened the barn door on their own members' privacy.
- harryh 10y agoLegally yes. Practically no. There is no ISP in the business of selling the data for a single individual by name.
- dredmorbius 10y agohttp://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmakers-internet/ http://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmaker...
- harryh 10y agoThey didn't need warrants before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
- callcallcall 10y agoPlease do not complain into the echo chamber of comments here. Please take a moment to support the EFF, call your representatives, and speak to friends and family. EFF: https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/ Find your reps: https://tryvoices.com/ https://tryvoices.com/
- endgame 10y agoI renewed with pride a month or so ago. The US has an enormous influence on the internet, and those of us on the outside are counting on you to look after it for us.
- enobrev 10y agoI think discussion is absolutely essential. I already saw this one coming, but I learn about political issues like this from here and other forums fairly often. Of course, said discussions are pointless without action.
- callcallcall 10y agoOf course! Sorry I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I'm just frustrated and doing my best to channel that into action.
- antisthenes 10y agoIf my rep already voted Nay, what else can I realistically do?
- dannyobrien 10y agoKeep the pressure up. If ISPs actually do almost any of the acts that this repeal enable, this vote will have ramifications that politicians will want to distance themselves from. With over 20,000 phone calls to Congress in just 48 hours, this is now on the scopes of current congresspeople (and those who would like to campaign against them). (And please consider joining EFF as a recurring dues-paying member. The more people we can say we speak for, the more impact our arguments have. https://supporters.eff.org/donate/ https://supporters.eff.org/donate/ )
- msutherl 10y agoAny clarity re: this comment[1], which seems to suggest that things are not as they seem? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13942989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13942989 > In June 2015, the FCC reclassified the ISP's as common carriers. Tada, the FTC rules no longer apply. So the FCC regulated them with roughly the same set of rules. Now they've undone this.
- DrScump 10y agoThe legislation, if enrolled into law, undoes the future privacy changes. The existing privacy exposure (since 2015) goes on until then regardless. Implementing this change via legislation also means that changes in these regulations require statute change (not purely by the whim of any President).
- dfar1 10y agoI never cared too much for privacy, but that's one step too far. Lawmakers probably don't understand how this makes them a target, and how their own information will be accessible. Hopefully this will create a market for ISPs that want to protect you. I see VPN markets growing even more.
- adventured 10y ago> Lawmakers probably don't understand how this makes them a target, and how their own information will be accessible. Your "will be" should be changed to "has been." The data selling was possible (100% guaranteed to be occurring rather) prior to Trump's election for example.
- AndrewDP 10y agoThe underlying argument here is there is no difference between say Google and Verizon: the customer has to opt in (or pay) for both. And from a free market (aka conservative) economic perspective if this is a concern shared by the population, someone will offer it as a service that people will pay for (a VPN tax if you will). This is an unfortunate example where government is not set up to address concerns of today's environment. They are trying to apply legal constructs of 20-50 years ago to a quickly changing age. And while you can argue whether the prior administration did the right thing legislating in this environment, the one thing they did was understand that access to the Internet should be a right as opposed to a privilege. Like education, access to 911, etc. As more services move exclusively online, this fundamental access question only becomes a greater concern. If individuals aren't guaranteed access nor have any protections online, then we are heading into a very dangerous area (if the only way to lodge a claim against your internet provider is online, then they will know what you are doing).
- asimjalis 10y agoIs there another side to this debate or is it really this black and white?
- vancan1ty 10y agoOne thing that I think is being ignored and was not mentioned in the article is that the referenced regulations were passed by the FCC near the tail-end of the Obama administration and never actually went into effect. So, strictly speaking, this vote did not change ISP regulations, it just keeps them the same as they have been in the past.
- heurist 10y agoI have no context on this... What were those regulations? The whole argument against this was that ISPs would be able to sell our private browsing history. Anyone know if they can really do that now?
- pseudalopex 10y agoThe FCC regulations were meant to provide protections that were previously enforced by the FTC. This vote keeps ISP regulations different from what they were in the past.
- orthecreedence 10y ago> Is there another side to this debate Yes, think of all the poor, unfortunate ISPs that are barely scraping by every year to give you your unprecedented internet bandwidth. These are small companies, owned by people who have children to feed. Selling your private data is one of the only ways they can stay out of bankruptcy. We all need to be a little more mindful of who we're hurting next time we enact this kind of draconian regulation.
- aero142 10y agoI'll take a stab at it because I think it's a useful discussion. Allowing internet companies to make contractual arrangements with their customers will result in situations similar to Google. Google shows you ads for things you are interested in, and in return you get a really great search engine for free. Similarly, if ISPs are allowed to collect information about your browsing habits, and sell it to advertisers, they will lower the monthly rates for consumers. The consumers can then choose whether they would rather pay lower rates and their ISP sells their browsing information to advertisers, or pay more. The obvious followup is complaints about how ofter consumers don't have a choice. Perhaps the reason there is so little competition is that local municipalities enter into franchise agreements where in order to add internet to one house, you have to agree to cover the entire area. This makes it so that only big pockets and people that can influence politicians get the build an ISP. Also, we could look at access fees to explain monopoly providers. https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju... If there were genuine competition perhaps real consumer preference would win out, whichever that may be. Rather than deciding how much people value privacy, perhaps we should let people choose for themselves at a level other than the federal one.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sixothree 10y agoHow can I as a user buy access to my own personal information? Maybe this is an opportunity for a new venture.
- username223 10y ago(1) This wipes out almost all the value of surveillance companies that don't require logins. Why bother with doubleclick et al when you can get data straight from the ISP? (2) HTTPS makes a limited amount of sense. Even on encrypted connections, ISPs know which domains you visit. In some situations they may also be able to MITM your certificates and read the data you transmit. (3) Any semblance of privacy now requires either a reputable VPN or TOR.
- danso 10y agoI know the political issues are different than in SOPA, but this situation reminds me of how powerful publicity is as a factor in legislation. SOPA was a mostly-unheard of bill that seemed certain to pass (had a huge number of bipartisan sponsors in the Senate [0] and the House [1]) until it blew up into a big online campaign and became mainstream with the blackout [2]. I remember many legislators' staff saying it was the most email and calls they had ever received in a day/week, and these are for members of Congress who voted on Obamacare and the 2002 authorization of use of force in Iraq. I can't pretend I know what it's like to be a general layperson about tech, but my base instinct is that this issue of Internet privacy protections is much more salient to the average person than SOPA. Yet even as a follower of politics, I barely heard about this until last week when the Senate voted on it. I can think of a couple of factors: 1. Internet giants advocated heavily against SOPA. Those same companies have less incentive to argue against selling user data, even though selling data at the ISP level is, to me, substantially different than at the website/service level. 2. So much political energy and attention has been spent on the Trump Administration, particularly on the recent push to repeal Obamacare. IIRC, even though SOPA didn't get much media coverage until around the week of the blackout, it wasn't competing with anything quite as big as this past week's vote on Obamacare (nevermind the other issues surrounding the executive branch). [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/968/cosponsors https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/968... [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/3261/cosponsors https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/3261... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA Edit: Worth pointing out the Senate vote from last week, in which no Republican broke ranks in a 50-48 vote. 2 Republicans were not present (edit: I originally wrote "abstained"), including Sen. Rand Paul who is listed as a co-sponsor: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/115/senate/1/94 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/115/senate/1... https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=D739A8C2-2B70-4D7B-9FFB-4E62CA992DB4 https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...
- quillo 10y agoI would expect that this will have an unexpected (?) side effect of further weakening the capabilities of packet inspection by intelligence agencies through increased utilisation of VPN services, especially those outside of the US. At face value this is a good thing for privacy, but I am concerned that when lawmakers realise their error they will just legislate themselves out of the hole by making access to VPN services harder.
- warlox 10y agoYour average internet user doesn't even know what a VPN is, let alone the significance of this law.
- pcmaffey 10y agoWelp, now there's a real market opportunity for 'open' ISP's. I would gladly pay more to a smaller ISP with slightly higher latency for guaranteed privacy. SpaceX's planned satellite internet will hopefully fill this void for the world... until Elon dies and it's taken over by the evil, ignoramuses of corporate greed.
- cmurf 10y agoChances are the market opportunity will come from your existing oligopoly as an extra feature, and they will gladly charge you more for it.
- CaptSpify 10y agoMost of the US will kill just to have a choice of which ISP they use though.
- deathanatos 10y agoGiven the obvious barriers to entry for an ISP, realistically, how is there a "real market opportunity for 'open' ISP's" when new ISPs themselves can't even get a foothold? For example, Google's recent attempt with Fiber: as much as I wish it were to succeed, they seem to have run into a lot of red tape. For broadband Internet, my understanding is that most have exactly one choice; in my experience, usually one of Comcast or TWC. (Currently, where I live in the Bay Area, Comcast is my only choice. And it shows: Google Fiber would offer a speed 500% higher, for the same price, if it could only materialize.) If you allow for non-broadband options, okay, yes, I have choices. That gets me AT&T — who sells their users data — and mobile cell carriers (the latency is unacceptable).
- pcmaffey 10y agoYes, it's troubling. Huge infrastructure costs. Regulations. And with little to no differentiation between service providers, the incentive really hasn't been there for competition. But all is not lost. There are municipalities that are providing a competing internet service. Internet is fast approaching a public good/right, so I believe this is a worthy approach. Here's an example near me: http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_28030675/longmonts-nextlight-internet-ranked-third-fastest-u-s http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_28030675/lon... As mentioned, SpaceX will circumvent the local restrictions and limitations of 'wire in the ground' with their satellites. And now, if there are some ISPs that will sell your data and some that won't, that differentiation may open up the door to greater competition. Perhaps even, that's a silver lining to breaking up the ISP oligarchy that exists now.
- gwu78 10y agoThis thread may grow long and maybe turn to the topic of HTTPS. SSL with SNI exposes plaintext hostnames/domainnames on the wire for anyone to read, aggregate and sell, not to mention tamper with. It should be an optional extension. For many users it adds no benefit. For some users, it breaks their software and adds needless complexity. Now the privacy advocates have a reason to dislike it too. Just say no to SNI.
- johncolanduoni 10y agoIf you don't have SNI, then the server's IP address is going to be tied to a specific domain name anyway (unless you do a shared certificate like CloudFlare does, which now makes actual data more vulnerable). A government or telecom company is definitely going to have precisely zero trouble linking IP addresses to domain names absent SNI.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 10y agoPlease describe a way to do SSL without the domain being visible that can work for most sites. What would you encrypt the hostname with?
- gwu78 10y agoI would not use SSL. Why spend time learning and fiddling with something that is so flawed? If I was serious about encrypting traffic I would use CurveCP. SSL is simply a nuisance I tolerate to read the www. Every minute I spend learning about it is wasted time... because I could be spending that time learning about something better, like CurveCP. The spread of SNI has just made SSL even more annoying.
- deathanatos 10y agoReading a bit about CurveCP isn't enlightening; it seems to be a UDP protocol that uses elliptic curve cryptography for encryption and authentication. But that, by itself, doesn't explain how it solves the problem that SNI solves better. Say a client is speaking CurveCP with another party; how do they authenticate the other end? What if the other end has limited resources (such as IPv4 addresses) and needs to serve multiple entities, how do the client and server distinguish or determine which entity to authenticate to/for/with?
- cmurf 10y agohttps://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 215 yea, 205 nea. All yeas were Republicans.
- esaym 10y ago>> ISP companies also contended that the FCC rules have placed them at a disadvantage with other non-ISP Internet companies that also collect user data, like Netflix or Facebook. I think there is always a flip side and I think this is it. Why can facebook take my data and sell it but for the ISP, my data is treated like a health record? Personally, I don' think anyone should be able to sell my data.
- st3v3r 10y agoTHAT IS NOT A FLIP SIDE. The solution to being upset about one entity being able to sell your data is NOT to let other entities do it too!
- kelnos 10y agoI think part of it is choice. You can legitimately choose to not use Facebook (even though admittedly for some people that's difficult due to network effects). Don't like Google's data collection policies? Use Bing, Yahoo, or DuckDuckGo. Don't like Netflix? Use HBO Now, Prime Video, Google Play, iTunes, Hulu, or buy a cable subscription. However, most people in the US have a choice of only one or two ISPs, so there may not be an option to choose a company that doesn't sell your data.
- SteveNuts 10y agoNot that I'm necessarily OK with either, but what's the difference between this and the myriad of other sites that are collecting your browser habits/search history and selling it? I'm not for this at all vote at all, and I'm not sure why Trump supporters are, I'm just trying to come up with a good argument for why it's worse.
- wfo 10y agoI don't think Trump supporters are actually behind this. It's one of those things he never campaigned on but we're going to get anyway. Plus, it's congress that pushed it. Presumably, if it's unpopular enough he could veto it. And the reason ISP is much worse is your ISP is your gateway to the internet. Everything you do can be tracked and it's directly tied to your personal identity. You can't avoid being tracked by it by using a different site. Want a list of cat owners in San Fransico? Comcast has that list and they'll sell it to you, names, addresses, etc. How about a list of people who have googled 'given medical condition' in the tri-state area? How about a list of names and addresses of people who are interested in gay sex in Utah? How about who have visited Ashley Madison in Washington, DC?
- darasen 10y agoThere is no difference. The rule, passed along party lines by democrats in the FCC, heavily favored companies like Google and Facebook who are constantly using your data. Those who prefer a smaller government and objected the the FCC'c huge over reach that this rule was part of.
- dredmorbius 10y agoBypassing your ISP or mobile provider is more challenging. In theory you can opt out of FBGOOGZON tracking.
- harryh 10y agoTo all of you who are you who are saying that it's now vital to use a VPN I have to ask: Why weren't you running a VPN already? This was a vote to head off the implementation of a regulation that hadn't gone into effect already.
- skynode 10y agoI also found it quite shocking at the sheer volume of requests for VPN guidelines; something I already take for granted. Just when I thought 2013 A.D changed everything.
- vancan1ty 10y agoSomething that is not mentioned in the article is that the FCC regulations in question were passed in October 2016 and have never gone in to effect. So, to be strictly accurate, the vote does not roll back any regulations which actually ever affected the internet. Sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/02/fcc-sets-aside-new-net-data-privacy-rule/98599438/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/02/fcc-sets-... http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/28/broadband-rules-axed-congress-headed-trump/99744078/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/28/broadband...
- niftich 10y agoA few posters on the thread [1] for the Senate version's passing have noted [2][3][4] that this is the case, but those points appeared largely lost in the discussion to follow. To quote the comment at [2]: "This undoes the 73-page publication published on 2016-12-02 by the FCC, most of which took effect 2017-01-03, some parts later on 2017-03-02, both after the election and one of them after the inauguration." Meanwhile, [4] says: "This pending rule change is not in effect at all yet; it was only put through 3 weeks after the 2016 election and wouldn't have taken effect until next December." Not sure if it's [2] or [4] that's wrong about the dates of taking effect, but it's clear that the FCC rule was enacted very late. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13942345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13942345 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943942 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943458 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943458 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13944790 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13944790
- DrScump 10y agoThe actual rule[0] as recorded in the Federal Register says: "The notice and choice rules we adopt today will become effective the later of (1) PRA approval[1], or (2) twelve months after the Commission publishes a summary of the Order in the Federal Register[2]." So, given that it was published on 2 December 2016[2], the earliest it could possibly have taken effect is December 2 or even 4 (December 2 is a Saturday) [0] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.p... (Item #312. Page 132 of 219 of the PDF. Yes, it's a huge file.) [1] "PRA approval, as defined herein, is not complete until the Commission publishes notice of OMB approval in the Federal Register", so it was also conditional on approval by the Office of Management and Budget. AFAIK, that never happened, either. [2] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.p...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- orthecreedence 10y agoDon't worry, the president will veto this. /s
- m_herrlich 10y agobecause he's worried about losing incognito mode?
- adjkant 10y agoLast I checked his dirty laundry has been aired and the public gasped and forgot. Golden shower anyone? Not to mention that he already publishes his browsing and TV history via Twitter for anyone who cares to really track it down.
- Jach 10y agoMaybe someone at YC could reach out to Thiel who could convince Trump to veto? Something like that is probably the only realistic chance of this failing, and I have no idea how much Thiel personally cares about this issue anyway.
- rodgerd 10y ago> Maybe someone at YC could reach out to Thiel who could convince Trump to veto? What makes you think the guy who describes his preferred business model as being to establish a monopoly would do that?
- adventured 10y agoBecause in Thiel's case, he has repeatedly demonstrated himself as being in favor of privacy more than not. That said, it's unlikely Thiel would get personally involved, and it's unlikely Trump would go against such a block Republican vote (especially given the party's cohesion problems currently, Trump needs them all to get on to tax cuts & infrastructure etc).
- acdha 10y agoA presidential veto is a big deal, especially going against his own party whose support will be critical for getting anything done (or staving off those pesky ethics investigations). I don't think Thiel has that kind of juice. Maybe Bannon does but it really seems like this would have to be an issue he cares deeply about personally, and it's hard to think of one where there's much space between the president and the modern GOP.
- acdha 10y agoI should have added last night that those are the pragmatic reasons why I don't think that's likely. The stronger argument is that Thiel's most likely reaction is going to be expanding Palantir's data sources or investing in more data mining companies.
- slang800 10y agoIsn't doing this type of data collection without consent already banned under the [Wiretap Act](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511)? What part of these protections weren't redundant?
- mikeyouse 10y agoWithout consent is the important part, it will soon be part of your ISP's TOS to allow them to sell your data. The wiretap act has a specific call out for this occasion: > (d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
- slang800 10y agoBut the FCC rules that were repealed allowed data collection if you "opt-in" too, right? I haven't read the entire text of the legislation, but their news release covers this: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-341937A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-341937A1.p... > Opt-in: ISPs are required to obtain affirmative “opt-in” consent from consumers to use and share sensitive information. The rules specify categories of information that are considered sensitive, which include precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications.
- pseudalopex 10y agoThe FCC rules prohibited making consent a condition of service.
- heurist 10y agoAwful. I stand to profit greatly from that data being commercially available but the personal violation underlying it is unjustifiable. Who will be the first to start a "privacy-driven" ISP with marked up prices?
- xnx 10y agoI wish Google would offer VPN service again (waaaay back they had some Windows utilities that would proxy your web connection).
- alphabettsy 10y agoThat's would be an interesting privacy improvement.
- howard941 10y agoCould and should have been filibustered in the Senate edit: note Senate....
- kelnos 10y agoDemocratic Senators need to be careful what they filibuster. Absurdly, it only takes a majority vote for the Senate to change the rules to disallow filibusters. Then again, the vote to change the rules to disallow filibusters could itself be filibustered. But, the Senate, despite all that, could (on motion) declare the filibuster unconstitutional, and only require a simple majority vote to affirm it. Man, our Congress is so broken. Source: 2nd paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
- DrScump 10y agoThen again, the vote to change the rules to disallow filibusters could itself be filibustered. That's what the Wikipedia article says, but I don't think that's correct. Otherwise, I think the Republicans would have filibustered Reid's invocation of the "Nuclear Option" that changed Senate rules to disallow filibusters on Federal judge appointments.
- djur 10y agoNo, the Congressional Review Act provides for an expedited process that cannot be filibustered.
- howard941 10y agoAhh yes that's correct. Darn.
- MBCook 10y agoWhy don't articles like this ever link to the votes so you can actually look up how your rep voted (mine? Party line, no surprise)? Took me a few minutes to find it.
- tomohawk 10y agoBefore getting all spun up, I'd dig a little deeper on the issue than what the WaPo does in this piece. These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and never went into effect. To do the regulations, the FCC reclassified the internet as basically ye olde telephone system, which then made it subject to their purview based on laws created in the 1930s. This is classic overreach. Congress never gave this authority to the FCC and is acting to put them back in line with the law. It's pathetic the the WaPo used their platform to create more heat than light on this, by selective quoting. Here's a more full quote from Rep Blackburn that explains her position more fully. “The FCC already has the ability to oversee privacy with broadband providers,” Blackburn explained. “That is done primarily through Section 222 of the Communications Act, and additional authority is granted through Sections 201 and 202. Now, what they did was to go outside of their bounds and expand that. They did a swipe at the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC. They have traditionally been our nation’s primary privacy regulator, and they have done a very good job of it.” The lesson here really is that if the issue is really important, then get an actual law passed instead of trying to contort regulatory authority based on laws from the 1930s. The previous president could certainly have done this, but chose not to.
- AndyMcConachie 10y agoThe problem with this line of reasoning is that it somehow assumes that if the FTC were still regulating this then the Republicans would have left it alone. And that's nonsense. It doesn't matter who is regulating it, what matters is that you have a certain privacy, and soon you won't. That's all this is about.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ComradeTaco 10y agoYou can't just say the regulations are old and therefore invalid because they're old. Remember, the telephone industry was regulated because telephone companies merged and cooperated to create regional monopolies and destroy competition, all at the expense of consumers. Comcast, Time Warner and the like have all been doing the same.
- chrisallick 10y agoWell, they had unlimited bullets and needed just one to hit. We needed to block everyone. But how can people follow a story let alone a lobbying effort with our current ADHD news cycle... Can someone give people like me a "5 things to fight back" list?
- alistproducer2 10y agoOne aspect of this that is being missed is how well this illustrates the inability of the Democratic party to take advantage of an obviously advantageous situation. It's a no brainer that most people would recoil at the idea of everything they do on the Internet suddenly being for sale. It would be super easy to come up with at least a dozen relatable nefarious use cases and stuff them into TV commercials and ads and tying it to the Republican party. But nope, silence. It's almost like they don't want to be in power. It feels like I live in a de facto one-party state.
- maxerickson 10y agoRealistically it is a fringe issue and people have 18 months to forget about it before there is an election.
- alistproducer2 10y agoThe GOP has survived, and thrived, on fringe issues for generations. In the poli-sci world such tactics are known as wedge issues. The Dems know they exist, but are very poor at the successful execution of them. At the end of the day, the federal government has very little daily impact on most people's lives. In order to get people's interest, one has to elevate fringe issues and create strawmen to get people interested. The GOP has understod this forever.
- maxerickson 10y agoThe wedge issues they use have pretty big blocks of motivated voters. I don't think privacy has that. EFF has 25,000 members. NRA has 5 million. EFF has a budget of ~$16 million a year. NRA has a couple hundred million.
- bikamonki 10y agoWhat VPN provider do you guys recommend?
- CrippledTurtle 10y agoCan anyone explain why, when this went through the Senate, it wasn't filibustered? I was under the impression that almost all controversial legislation had to pass the filibuster threshold, and since Democrats were united in opposition against it, I would have expected them to filibuster this. Was there some loophole preventing them from doing so, or did they not consider it important enough to filibuster?
- GabrielF00 10y agoThis bill is under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn rules enacted by the executive branch in the last 6 months. A joint resolution of disapproval under this act can't be filibustered.[1] [1]https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43992.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43992.pdf
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cwkoss 10y agoSo, how should we write an daemon that pings high-advertising-value domains to poison their dataset?
- virmundi 10y agoSo why is this necessarily bad? My understanding is that the Congress repealed a fiat control by the executive branch. They can now, if they are are so inclined, enshrine in law, a more durable medium than agency policy, a freer Internet. Let's assume that the Republicans don't. Let's also assume that they make local municipal Internet or competition harder. The Democrats could get elected in 2018 at which point they could enshrine privacy. How is limiting the executive branch bad?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- equalarrow 10y agoBeing that this is a pretty red vs. blue issue, there's not a ton ton can do about it if you live in non-red states. The eff is an obvious choice and I'm a member and have been for almost 20 years. In my mind the big thing is people that vote for republicans don't fully understand that they are voting for non-privacy, pro-business, and really, pro-military. Granted, there are some dems that can fall into this trap and 9/11 pretty much ensnared all but a few into the reactionary mindset. This actually took true visionaries and leaders to overcome; few and far between. So, really, local debate has to happen in the red states where these majorities are elected. This is a long uphill battle, but the message of "mega-corporations are not your friends" has to be paramount and when you're not earning tech salaries, we are part of the problem. For coal miners and all these higher profile ise cases, we need to re-connect with the human and community level. That's the disconnect right there; it's easier to get angry about 'the swamp' than it is to try to take your own local municipality into your own hands or figuring out how to stay local vs. state. California, New York, etc - these aren't the battlegrounds. They are the future. The majority of their population already agrees on global warming, privacy, tech, etc. They're one step behind bitcoin/ethereum/altcoins globalization. But for somone in W. Varginia that's a coal miner that has been laid off (a big Trump talking point), these things matter On a massive level. So there's our schism - how can we provide a forward thinking, longer term vision that helps the common citizenry? In my mind, everything this repubican extremist 'president' represents are big interests and reducing their unfettered access to unlimited profits, regardless of what that means. Your (what's left of it) privacy and whatever else is fair game. I'd advise to (of course) moving to tor, vm's and seriously, cryptocurrencies. Currency is a great way to start hacking back towards 1:1, person:person transactions which leads to a less decentralized money system. And, If course, money underpins pretty much all us entrepreneurs do. So, we do have options. :-/ These options include vpn, tor, cryptocurrencies, ethereum, etc. Edit: mobile spelling corrections.
- Gustomaximus 10y agoIf you want an idea to get mass movement against this; Start some display campaigns injecting peoples names and other personal information into ads. Have this follow people around the web. Even if data is not taken from what has been allowed here, most people will find it creepy. Link ad to a website explaining whats going on and how to contact their local member. I suspect with a fairly reasonable spend you could get some strong resistance and media attention.
- kowdermeister 10y agoThis, I'd suggest to feature add porn viewing history too in those ads.
- coldcode 10y agoI don't care whose fault it is, what can we actually do to defend ourselves?
- intrasight 10y agoIsn't "https everywhere" going to make this a moot point?
- adventured 10y agoOnly partially. Your ISP can sell what domains you visit and the details of those visits such as duration. Your ISP can push various trackerware that steps in front of the https. Your ISP can do trackerware pre-installs on hardware you buy for example, such as smartphones.
- intrasight 10y agoBut that trackerware would be easily filtered out with ad blockers. Not that we should have to do so, but we can.
- snorrah 10y agoThe UK and USA engaged in a fierce battle of 'hold my beer'.
- dbg31415 10y ago# House YEAs ---215 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R NAYs ---205 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Not Voting ---9 R R R R R R D D D House Results - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml # Senate YEAs ---50 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R NAYs ---48 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D I D D D D D D D D D D D D I D D D D D D D D D D D Not Voting ---2 R R Senate Results - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943060 (I liked this format.)
- libertymcateer 10y agoThis really couldn't be clearer, could it?
- nichochar 10y agoFuck you America, you are really doing a good job of making people hate living here.
- dmode 10y agoI hope someone buys browsing history of all Republican Congressman and publishes them on the web
- dredmorbius 10y agohttp://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmakers-internet/ http://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmaker...
- kevinpet 10y agoWhile I'd definitely like to see restrictions on internet browsing being protected at least as much as library circulation records [1] and video rentals [2], as a fan of checks and balances, the mere concept of a regulatory agency passing "landmark" regulations on anything is troubling. Either that power is in the law giving regulatory authority to the agency, and hence, it shouldn't be called "landmark"; or the power is outside the scope of what Congress intended when enacting the law, in which case it's a a bureaucratic power grab. 1. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacyconfidentiality/privacy/stateprivacy http://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacyconfidentiality/privacy/s... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act
- colordrops 10y agoThis indicates to me an architectural flaw with the internet. We need to start exploring other techniques to circumvent tracking, perhaps through more distributed systems. The politicians can not be trusted.
- adam_ellsworth 10y agoWhat's the immediate consequence of this ruling? What is liable to change? Who can buy "my" data? What kind of time-frame are we looking at? Can foreign nationals buy data en-masse directly and/or will their purchases be proxied through "US citizens"? What depth of archives will be up for purchase? So man questions regarding this... I'd like to know the general fallout of this in both short and long-term results.
- ReinholdNiebuhr 10y agoQuestion. When were these FCC rules implemented? I know they were under Obama but right now as I try to learn the history google just keeps giving me the news of the repeal.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> When were these FCC rules implemented? Adopted last November, published in December, parts went into effect in January and parts earlier this month, with more parts due to go into effect in June and December.
- ReinholdNiebuhr 10y agoThank you.
- rb666 10y agoJust move to Europe, where there is still some semblance of reasonable regulations and politics (for now).
- raverbashing 10y agoWhere's the crowdfunding to buy the navigation history of the representatives involved in the approval of the law?
- dredmorbius 10y agohttp://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmakers-internet/ http://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmaker...
- Slackwise 10y agoWelp, time to pipe all port 80 and 443 traffic in my home through http://privateinternetaccess.com http://privateinternetaccess.com , via the OpenVPN config in OpenWRT.
- LeicaLatte 10y agoWhat are the plans to anonymize the data? Are there any standards in the advertising industry for sharing such information?
- Tepix 10y agoNot sure they have to anonymize the data after this. Do they?
- Tepix 10y agoSo the GOP argues that it's unfair because streaming services and search engines can already collect this data and ISPs couldn't. I don't understand how they fail to recognize that ISPs will a) see all of the sites you will visit and b) many people can't choose between ISPs because there are only a few in their area It seems that for the GOP, as long as there is profit for corporations, they are willing to give up the privacy of the voters. How is this different than the telephone company eavesdropping on your calls and selling the information gained to marketing companies?
- davidf18 10y agoThe Register: Your internet history on sale to highest bidder: US Congress votes to shred ISP privacy rules https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/congress_approves_sale_of_internet_histories/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/congress_approves_s... "Now, the really big question is: can your ISPs see the content of your online interactions? Can it read your emails? Can it read your search results? Can it store and search through the words you typed into a webpage? And the answer is: yes, sometimes. If the website you visit is not secured with HTTPS – meaning that any data between you and the website is encrypted – then your ISP can see exactly what you are doing." Read the article for suggestions on how to protect yourself. Also read: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/so_my_isp_can_now_sell_my_browsing_history_what_can_i_do/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/so_my_isp_can_now_se...
- prirun 10y agoI hear people say how important it is to participate in the political process. But when the process itself is broken, what's the point of participating? We can vote alright, but what we are actually voting for is the person who is the most convincing liar and makes the most appealing "promises", without them being obligated in any way to actually implement their promises once elected. As I see it, individuals only have a couple of effective ways to influence politics: - withdraw your financial participation in things you don't agree with. This is extremely difficult: most people are not willing to endure the sacrifices necessary, and we're not coordinated to do it together. If everyone (or even 10%) canceled their Internet service, cable service, or whatever, for 1 month, THAT would get attention. If 10% were willing to lower their standard of living in order to reduce the government's tax take by 10%, that would get attention. - regular individuals need to donate more money to politicians than corporations and wealthy individuals. It's a sickening thought to me that the only way to get public servants to actually serve the public is to bribe them, but obviously that works.