3 ms·

Please 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 fami

Please 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 ago
I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Of course! Sorry I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I'm just frustrated and doing my best to channel that into action.
antisthenes 10y ago
If my rep already voted Nay, what else can I realistically do?
- dannyobrien 10y ago
  Keep 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/ )
  - ascagnel_ 10y ago
    Also, calling after a vote to say you agreed helps them chart future decisions. Support of an action will help keep them down that policy path.
- kelnos 10y ago
  Call your Rep's office, and tell them (politely) that, because of votes like this, you will be voting for whomever challenges them in the next election, unless you see your Rep's vote record improve drastically and align with your interests. And then follow through on that.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    "Nay" was the pro individual privacy vote.
- noonespecial 10y ago
  Make it a mark of shame that does real damage to their reelection campaign.
- callcallcall 10y ago
  You can call up their office and thank them. Seriously. Reps need to hear that people stand by their decisions. Also, you can spread the word to friends and family.
alistproducer2 10y ago
interestingly enough the top comment is argues the regulation in question is overreach so I think you're giving the HN community too little credit.
masonic 10y ago
support the EFF Not to say that most of what EFF does isn't valuable, but this privacy exposure has been going on for over a year and a half already. Why didn't the EFF call attention to it until now?
- pseudalopex 10y ago
  The court case over the FTC's authority was decided last August, and the FCC issued new regulations in October.
- burkaman 10y ago
  What do you mean? They talk about this stuff all the time. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrali... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/network-neutrality-2016 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/network-neutrality-201... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/congress-contemplating-making-it-illegal-protect-consumer-privacy-online https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/congress-contemplating... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/verizon-and-turn-break-browser-privacy-protections https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/verizon-and-turn-break... etc.
  - warlox 10y ago
    I wonder where masonic is now.
- jadell 10y ago
  They did. And it resulted in the FCC regulations that just got rolled back.
- niftich 10y ago
  In Feburary 2015, the EFF was cautiously celebrating [1][2][3], although the context was primarily Net Neutrality: "Reclassification under Title II was a necessary step in order to give the FCC the authority it needed to enact net neutrality rules. But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn't abuse its authority." [2] "The FCC has also failed to give proper consideration to the invasiveness of deep packet inspection, used by ISPs to read a user's Internet traffic. The "lawful content" limitation may give legal cover to this privacy-violating practice. In response, the Commission simply suggests that users protect their own privacy using encryption, virtual private networks, and Tor. While it's a very good idea for users to protect themselves with such tools, that shouldn't be their only protection against the very companies they are forced to trust in order to gain access to the Internet – particularly when ISPs like Verizon have gone to extreme measures to circumvent users' privacy controls. Leaving users to fend for themselves does not bode well for the FCC's future proceedings on privacy rules." [3] By January 2016, the EFF, along with several other advocacy groups, have co-authored a letter [9] to the FCC in response to the FCC's announcement that it will soon make rules about customer privacy for broadband internet [5]. This was done soon after the FTC's commissioner welcomed the FCC's cooperation to result in stronger privacy protections. For a rationale of the FCC's actions, too long to quote inline, I highly recommend the section "III. A. Background and Need for the Rules" of FCC 16-148 [11] and other sections to follow. As they often have, Ars Technica provided excellent coverage of the context surrounding these events [4][5][6][7][10]. Notably, their recent article [8] writes about the nuances of which rule was made in response to what, and how the situation we find ourselves in today came to be. The 9th Circuit's opinion in the FTC vs. AT&T case threw a wrench into things [10][12]. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/huge-win-open-internet-fcc-officially-embraces-title-ii https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/huge-win-open-internet... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrali... [3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/todays-net-neutrality-order-win-few-blemishes https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/todays-net-neutrality-... [4] https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/ https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-n... [5] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/isps-wont-be-allowed-to-serve-targeted-ads-without-customers-permission/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/isps-wont-be-all... [6] https://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/fcc-votes-to-help-poor-people-buy-broadband-and-protect-privacy-online/ https://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/fcc-votes-to-help-p... [7] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/isps-will-soon-have-to-ask-you-before-sharing-private-data-with-advertisers/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/isps-... [8] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/how-isps-can-sell-your-web-history-and-how-to-stop-them/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/how-i... [9] https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/Broadband_Privacy_Letter_to_FCC_1.20.16_FINAL.pdf https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/Bro... [10] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/atts-common-carrier-status-helps-it-defeat-data-throttling-lawsuit/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/atts-common-carr... [11] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.p... [12] https://iapp.org/news/a/the-att-v-ftc-common-carrier-ruling-and-how-it-changes-common-carrier-regulation/ https://iapp.org/news/a/the-att-v-ftc-common-carrier-ruling-...

endgame 10y ago

I 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 ago

I 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 ago
Of course! Sorry I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I'm just frustrated and doing my best to channel that into action.

antisthenes 10y ago

If my rep already voted Nay, what else can I realistically do?

dannyobrien 10y ago
Keep 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/ )
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  Also, calling after a vote to say you agreed helps them chart future decisions. Support of an action will help keep them down that policy path.
kelnos 10y ago
Call your Rep's office, and tell them (politely) that, because of votes like this, you will be voting for whomever challenges them in the next election, unless you see your Rep's vote record improve drastically and align with your interests. And then follow through on that.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  "Nay" was the pro individual privacy vote.
noonespecial 10y ago
Make it a mark of shame that does real damage to their reelection campaign.
callcallcall 10y ago
You can call up their office and thank them. Seriously. Reps need to hear that people stand by their decisions. Also, you can spread the word to friends and family.

alistproducer2 10y ago

interestingly enough the top comment is argues the regulation in question is overreach so I think you're giving the HN community too little credit.

masonic 10y ago

support the EFF Not to say that most of what EFF does isn't valuable, but this privacy exposure has been going on for over a year and a half already. Why didn't the EFF call attention to it until now?

pseudalopex 10y ago
The court case over the FTC's authority was decided last August, and the FCC issued new regulations in October.
burkaman 10y ago
What do you mean? They talk about this stuff all the time. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrali... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/network-neutrality-2016 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/network-neutrality-201... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/congress-contemplating-making-it-illegal-protect-consumer-privacy-online https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/congress-contemplating... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/verizon-and-turn-break-browser-privacy-protections https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/verizon-and-turn-break... etc.
- warlox 10y ago
  I wonder where masonic is now.
jadell 10y ago
They did. And it resulted in the FCC regulations that just got rolled back.
niftich 10y ago
In Feburary 2015, the EFF was cautiously celebrating [1][2][3], although the context was primarily Net Neutrality: "Reclassification under Title II was a necessary step in order to give the FCC the authority it needed to enact net neutrality rules. But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn't abuse its authority." [2] "The FCC has also failed to give proper consideration to the invasiveness of deep packet inspection, used by ISPs to read a user's Internet traffic. The "lawful content" limitation may give legal cover to this privacy-violating practice. In response, the Commission simply suggests that users protect their own privacy using encryption, virtual private networks, and Tor. While it's a very good idea for users to protect themselves with such tools, that shouldn't be their only protection against the very companies they are forced to trust in order to gain access to the Internet – particularly when ISPs like Verizon have gone to extreme measures to circumvent users' privacy controls. Leaving users to fend for themselves does not bode well for the FCC's future proceedings on privacy rules." [3] By January 2016, the EFF, along with several other advocacy groups, have co-authored a letter [9] to the FCC in response to the FCC's announcement that it will soon make rules about customer privacy for broadband internet [5]. This was done soon after the FTC's commissioner welcomed the FCC's cooperation to result in stronger privacy protections. For a rationale of the FCC's actions, too long to quote inline, I highly recommend the section "III. A. Background and Need for the Rules" of FCC 16-148 [11] and other sections to follow. As they often have, Ars Technica provided excellent coverage of the context surrounding these events [4][5][6][7][10]. Notably, their recent article [8] writes about the nuances of which rule was made in response to what, and how the situation we find ourselves in today came to be. The 9th Circuit's opinion in the FTC vs. AT&T case threw a wrench into things [10][12]. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/huge-win-open-internet-fcc-officially-embraces-title-ii https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/huge-win-open-internet... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrali... [3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/todays-net-neutrality-order-win-few-blemishes https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/todays-net-neutrality-... [4] https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/ https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-n... [5] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/isps-wont-be-allowed-to-serve-targeted-ads-without-customers-permission/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/isps-wont-be-all... [6] https://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/fcc-votes-to-help-poor-people-buy-broadband-and-protect-privacy-online/ https://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/fcc-votes-to-help-p... [7] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/isps-will-soon-have-to-ask-you-before-sharing-private-data-with-advertisers/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/isps-... [8] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/how-isps-can-sell-your-web-history-and-how-to-stop-them/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/how-i... [9] https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/Broadband_Privacy_Letter_to_FCC_1.20.16_FINAL.pdf https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/Bro... [10] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/atts-common-carrier-status-helps-it-defeat-data-throttling-lawsuit/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/atts-common-carr... [11] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.p... [12] https://iapp.org/news/a/the-att-v-ftc-common-carrier-ruling-and-how-it-changes-common-carrier-regulation/ https://iapp.org/news/a/the-att-v-ftc-common-carrier-ruling-...