4 ms·

However, this headline is patently false, right? Congress didn't sell anything. They removed protections that were put into place late last year and hadn't gone

However, this headline is patently false, right? Congress didn't sell anything. They removed protections that were put into place late last year and hadn't gone into effect as far as I know. It's nearly impossible to find even one constituent who wrote to their Congresspeople asking for this law to be axed. It was a handful of lawmakers in Congress who accepted bribes, payments[1], and other kinds of lobbying from telecoms to push this through... that is the definition of "selling". And yes, the votes did happen almost exactly down party lines. The headline was taken directly from the NYT article, and it is indeed accurate. That HN changed it to appease ??? is really disconcerting. [1]http://www.vocativ.com/415350/house-rep-pushing-to-set-back-online-privacy-rakes-in-industry-funds/ http://www.vocativ.com/415350/house-rep-pushing-to-set-back-...

rayiner 10y ago
Given that it's illegal for corporations to donate to candidates, I find your reference rather suspect.
- learc83 10y ago
  I know that you know campaign finance is more nuanced than that. It's perfectly legal for a corporation to donate to a Super PAC supporting candidate's reelection efforts. And they're adding donations from individuals in the industry.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    I find it dishonest for an article to say that corporations donated to a candidate, when they actually mean that a corporation donated to a PAC or that employees donated to a candidate. It creates an extremely misleading picture. Telecoms are major employers in places like Tennessee (which Blackburn represents). AT&T alone has 5,600 employees in Tennessee (more than Twitter has employees total). It's no surprise telecom employees donate to her. Many of the people who voted "no" on the bill received similar amounts of money from Internet companies: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2016&ind=B13 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2016.... Are all those votes suspect?
    - learc83 10y ago
      >Are all those votes suspect? No because those representatives didn't vote in a way that favors the companies that donated. If I bribe 10 politicians and 4 of them don't do what I want, does that that mean the other 6 who did are now above suspicion as well? Voting in a way that favors a company that donates money to your political campaign creates at the very least an appearance of a conflict of interest. In those cases we should rightly be suspicious. >I find it dishonest for an article to say that corporations donated to a candidate, when they actually mean that a corporation donated to a PAC Do you find it dishonest when an article says a corporation donated to a candidate, when actually they mean that a corporation donated to a candidate's campaign? A candidate only personally benefits from campaign donations insofar as they help them get reelected--the same way they benefit from PACs. There isn't much distinction at this point because PACs routinely operate as extensions of campaigns, even though they are technically prohibited from coordinating. It doesn't stop them from doing things like winking and putting up random video clips with no audio on the campaign websites that PACs can just happen to download to make advertisements with. >or that employees donated to a candidate I agree that this is a little more misleading. >AT&T alone has 5,600 employees in Tennessee That's true, but my guess is that most of the money that was donated from employees of the telecom industry came from a much smaller number of high level employees donating near the maximum.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        > No because those representatives didn't vote in a way that favors the companies that donated. They certainly did. The Internet consists of server owners, content owners, and pipe owners. You can understand pretty much every political issue involving the Internet as a proxy war between these groups for advertising and media viewing dollars. Here, keeping pipe owners out of the advertising business directly benefits server owners.
        learc83 10y ago
        If they take money from a company like Google that stands to benefit from more FCC regulation, I have a problem with that as well. I can dislike two things at the same time. Allowing unlimited spending in the form of Super PACs just exacerbates your proxy war problem. In this case we have several companies with deep pockets that happen to be on the side of net neutrality, but their interests won't always align with the public's.
Brendinooo 10y ago
I see where your argument is coming from. Lobbyists give money to politicians who push legislation that favors lobbyists. In a sense that could be construed as a 'sale'. But if we accept that premise, even in that case the only thing that was sold was the potential to infringe on privacy, not privacy itself. Congressional Republicans don't own my privacy. They can certainly make it easier for me to protect my privacy and have possibly made it harder after this vote, but they never owned it.
- elefanten 10y ago
  Yes, I don't think you should take the headline that literally - there's a touch of abstraction there. More literally, Congressional Republicans sold telcos a convenient legal avenue to violate your privacy. They didn't "possibly" make it harder... they added a massive new burden to your life if you care about your privacy. Read the other comments in this thread -- see how complex and incomplete the countermeasures seem to be, even for techies? There are many ways the government protects your privacy such that you don't have to worry about it in X scenario. The Republicans sold one of those protections and added a new scenario to the list of things you have to worry about. The headline is pretty appropriate in context.

rayiner 10y ago

Given that it's illegal for corporations to donate to candidates, I find your reference rather suspect.

learc83 10y ago
I know that you know campaign finance is more nuanced than that. It's perfectly legal for a corporation to donate to a Super PAC supporting candidate's reelection efforts. And they're adding donations from individuals in the industry.
- rayiner 10y ago
  I find it dishonest for an article to say that corporations donated to a candidate, when they actually mean that a corporation donated to a PAC or that employees donated to a candidate. It creates an extremely misleading picture. Telecoms are major employers in places like Tennessee (which Blackburn represents). AT&T alone has 5,600 employees in Tennessee (more than Twitter has employees total). It's no surprise telecom employees donate to her. Many of the people who voted "no" on the bill received similar amounts of money from Internet companies: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2016&ind=B13 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2016.... Are all those votes suspect?
  - learc83 10y ago
    >Are all those votes suspect? No because those representatives didn't vote in a way that favors the companies that donated. If I bribe 10 politicians and 4 of them don't do what I want, does that that mean the other 6 who did are now above suspicion as well? Voting in a way that favors a company that donates money to your political campaign creates at the very least an appearance of a conflict of interest. In those cases we should rightly be suspicious. >I find it dishonest for an article to say that corporations donated to a candidate, when they actually mean that a corporation donated to a PAC Do you find it dishonest when an article says a corporation donated to a candidate, when actually they mean that a corporation donated to a candidate's campaign? A candidate only personally benefits from campaign donations insofar as they help them get reelected--the same way they benefit from PACs. There isn't much distinction at this point because PACs routinely operate as extensions of campaigns, even though they are technically prohibited from coordinating. It doesn't stop them from doing things like winking and putting up random video clips with no audio on the campaign websites that PACs can just happen to download to make advertisements with. >or that employees donated to a candidate I agree that this is a little more misleading. >AT&T alone has 5,600 employees in Tennessee That's true, but my guess is that most of the money that was donated from employees of the telecom industry came from a much smaller number of high level employees donating near the maximum.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      > No because those representatives didn't vote in a way that favors the companies that donated. They certainly did. The Internet consists of server owners, content owners, and pipe owners. You can understand pretty much every political issue involving the Internet as a proxy war between these groups for advertising and media viewing dollars. Here, keeping pipe owners out of the advertising business directly benefits server owners.
      - learc83 10y ago
        If they take money from a company like Google that stands to benefit from more FCC regulation, I have a problem with that as well. I can dislike two things at the same time. Allowing unlimited spending in the form of Super PACs just exacerbates your proxy war problem. In this case we have several companies with deep pockets that happen to be on the side of net neutrality, but their interests won't always align with the public's.

Brendinooo 10y ago

I see where your argument is coming from. Lobbyists give money to politicians who push legislation that favors lobbyists. In a sense that could be construed as a 'sale'. But if we accept that premise, even in that case the only thing that was sold was the potential to infringe on privacy, not privacy itself. Congressional Republicans don't own my privacy. They can certainly make it easier for me to protect my privacy and have possibly made it harder after this vote, but they never owned it.

elefanten 10y ago
Yes, I don't think you should take the headline that literally - there's a touch of abstraction there. More literally, Congressional Republicans sold telcos a convenient legal avenue to violate your privacy. They didn't "possibly" make it harder... they added a massive new burden to your life if you care about your privacy. Read the other comments in this thread -- see how complex and incomplete the countermeasures seem to be, even for techies? There are many ways the government protects your privacy such that you don't have to worry about it in X scenario. The Republicans sold one of those protections and added a new scenario to the list of things you have to worry about. The headline is pretty appropriate in context.