7 ms·

Whose Internet History Should Be Purchased First?

45 points by malloryerik 10y ago

josephorjoe 10y ago
Was just thinking someone really should do this. Hope it works. Or at the very least makes some of those politicians squirm while they wait to find out if it works. Think I'll at least throw a few $$ at the gofundme.
nkrisc 10y ago
Help me out here: where is this notion that anyone will be able to buy personally identifiable browsing data coming from? Isn't it likely to be (more) aggregated or partially anonymized data about browsing behavior and habits? I'm upset by this bill, but I've yet to find any information to suggest you could ring up AT&T and request to buy a specific person's data.
- bigtimeidiot 10y ago
  >where is this notion that anyone will be able to buy personally identifiable browsing data coming from? Isn't it likely to be (more) aggregated or partially anonymized data about browsing behavior and habits? I guess that depends on whether you think these companies care or do not care about the actual users. I know which way I lean...
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    I certainly do not think they care. I would also love to see those who voted for this affected by it, if it's possible. But that's what I'm asking, what would be the means for this to happen?
- josephorjoe 10y ago
  The plan seems to be to use geolocation data and ip addresses to reasonably identify individuals from within the data. "Once the law is signed by President Trump, geolocation data along with browsing history data will again be on the market for ISPs. That means a company with dedication and resources could likely, with a reasonable degree of certainty, pinpoint Blackburn, Pai, Ryan, or anyone they seek to take down based on their browsing data and IP address alone." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/29/this-politician-gave-away-your-data-now-buy-hers.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/29/this-politi...
  - thomastjeffery 10y ago
    > "Once the law is signed by President Trump, geolocation data along with browsing history data will again be on the market for ISPs." The law repeals protections that are not in place yet. Those protections were already removed last year.
- tkone 10y ago
  Because there is no such thing as anonymity on the internet, especially if you're able to buy browsing history. AOL released a slew of anonymous search results in the early 2000s as a dataset. It took a few weeks (months maybe?) to start to determine who these people were based on patterns found in the data.[1] Even with aggregate or partially anonymized data you're going to be able to identify individuals based on habits and patterns. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    I recall a similar situation with New York taxi trip data.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Have you noticed how large companies often do a poor job on security and tons of personally identifying information gets stolen? Or how data that is supposed to be anonymised isn't, very?
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    That's true, but hasn't that always been a risk? No doubt they've been keeping all this data already. It's a risk, but not a new one because of this change.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      When data is the subject of frequent transactions then the opportunities for malfeasance rise.
    - sigmar 10y ago
      If the data is being collected, organized, and distributed to be sold, yes there iwill be a higher chance it will be hacked. After being sold, there is a chance it will be hacked from the buyer. And even if it isn't hacked, there will absolutely be people (buyers) that will do what they can to de-anonymize it
      - nkrisc 10y ago
        Great point, I hadn't considered that. Of course it was only recently we learned of the Netprospex leak which was likely this very scenario.
- gwern 10y ago
  I would question the idea that AT&T or whomever will simply sell you the copyright or an unrestricted global license. I would assume that all these sorts of databases require you to sign a license mandating you to keep the data (anonymized or otherwise) secret/private, precisely to prevent this sort of shenanigans. To OP: good luck, but I suggest reserving the bulk of donations for legal fees...
luhn 10y ago
The creator of Cards Against Humanity has vowed to do the same. https://twitter.com/MaxTemkin/status/846437803164684290 https://twitter.com/MaxTemkin/status/846437803164684290
advisedwang 10y ago
Buying internet history requires a seller. Even with 47 CFR 64(U) removed, nothing compels selling of data. ISPs would be crazy to sell internet history of people in power to activists. They would even be crazy to make a clear marketplace. Selling of info is going to be shady back deals invisible to consumers, not a store where you can buy the history of whatever subscriber you like.
- barnabes 10y ago
  Money talks.
  - josephorjoe 10y ago
    Yeah, and the funding is already up to $165K in 4 days...
  - jontas 10y ago
    That's exactly why the cable companies wont sell congressional data. Why would they shoot the goose that laid the golden egg?
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Just buy up all the DC data and filter it. It won't be that hard.
      - sigmar 10y ago
        Agreed. Assuming the ISP would let you buy all data on men in DC between 40 and 70 y/o, that have moved there within the past 6 months. You could then easily deanonymize it by sorting out which users have gone to which local newspaper website (ie Someone from dallas is likely to have gone to dallasnews.com or www.nbcdfw.com). Should be pretty easy to find a few congress members, or at least congressional staffers.
    - barnabes 10y ago
      Because money talks. I used to play a game when I really wanted to bargain hard on something: I'd change my money to as many notes of the lowest possible denomination, and show up with a huge stack of notes. You're be surprised what a huge stack of notes can do. It triggers something in the recipient of said huge stack of notes. It's deeply psychological. People stop thinking when faced with a huge wad of money. People will do anything for money, including bad longterm decisions.
jontas 10y ago
Why would the cable companies sell the data to a group hoping to get legislation changed that they just lobbied to enact? I don't know all the details of the bill--is there anything that requires a company to sell data to the highest bidder? My limited understanding was that the bill allows them to sell, but at their own discretion, just like any other monetized data. It seems wildly unrealistic that this will accomplish anything. I applaud the sentiment but I fear this is wasted money and energy.
- nathanielc 10y ago
  The bill text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/sjres34/BILLS-115sjres34enr.xml https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/sjres34/BILLS-115sjres34e... All it says is that the previous FCC rule no longer has any effect. It does not layout anything about regulations or consequences of removing those privacy protections.
austincheney 10y ago
An unintended benefit of this law passing is moving a common practice closer to the user. Let's not forget that Google and Facebook already normalize your traffic and sell it without your consent. Now ISPs can enter that market directly and completely bypass Google and Facebook.
- KZeillmann 10y ago
  Don't you consent to let them use your data when you sign up for their services? You don't need to use Google and Facebook to use the Internet. You do need an ISP to use the internet.
  - austincheney 10y ago
    Google will track even on non-Google products by virtue of their various media and analytics products that are prolific on many sites. No consent required. A couple of years ago they were caught collecting private home wifi traffic from their map/photo cars.
nkrisc 10y ago
I suppose an upside of this is it affects everyone: including those who voted Republican and for Trump. We ought to make sure they understand what's happening too.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  It's a peculiarly American conceit to assume that people of opposite political views lack understanding of an issue. In reality, some people lack understanding, while some understand an issue perfectly well but have a different value system. They may regard privacy as genuinely unimportant because they are authoritarians, or they may consider themselves to be qualitatively different from their political opponents and therefore wish for different treatment for themselves and for others.
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    Except that this is an opaque issue that the general public often does not understand. Most people probably couldn't not explain what happens when you visit a webpage, let alone what data exists around that and what can be done with it. I would also assume most Democrats don't completely understand either, but they didn't vote for the majority of people who passed this measure. >they may consider themselves to be qualitatively different from their political opponents and therefore wish for different treatment for themselves and for others. Of course, but what they wish and what is reality is not always the same. The will not be treated differently. Republicans tend to be opposed to government intrusion into their lives and privacy. In this case it is not the government doing the intruding directly, but it's not a far cry. Lastly, rural Republicans usually don't have much love for giant corporations weaseling their way into their lives to begin with.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      I don't mean his to be snarky but your comments strike me as naive given the daily displays of cognitive dissonance in matters political.
      - 10y ago
danso 10y ago
I thought the concept of purchasing history for a specific person was not possible? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13992953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13992953
z3t4 10y ago
the fact that the info is stored at all makes it possible for someone to use it. in the holocaust records was used to kill people.

45 points by malloryerik 10y ago

Was just thinking someone really should do this. Hope it works. Or at the very least makes some of those politicians squirm while they wait to find out if it works. Think I'll at least throw a few $$ at the gofundme.

nkrisc 10y ago

Help me out here: where is this notion that anyone will be able to buy personally identifiable browsing data coming from? Isn't it likely to be (more) aggregated or partially anonymized data about browsing behavior and habits? I'm upset by this bill, but I've yet to find any information to suggest you could ring up AT&T and request to buy a specific person's data.

bigtimeidiot 10y ago
>where is this notion that anyone will be able to buy personally identifiable browsing data coming from? Isn't it likely to be (more) aggregated or partially anonymized data about browsing behavior and habits? I guess that depends on whether you think these companies care or do not care about the actual users. I know which way I lean...
- nkrisc 10y ago
  I certainly do not think they care. I would also love to see those who voted for this affected by it, if it's possible. But that's what I'm asking, what would be the means for this to happen?
josephorjoe 10y ago
The plan seems to be to use geolocation data and ip addresses to reasonably identify individuals from within the data. "Once the law is signed by President Trump, geolocation data along with browsing history data will again be on the market for ISPs. That means a company with dedication and resources could likely, with a reasonable degree of certainty, pinpoint Blackburn, Pai, Ryan, or anyone they seek to take down based on their browsing data and IP address alone." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/29/this-politician-gave-away-your-data-now-buy-hers.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/29/this-politi...
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  > "Once the law is signed by President Trump, geolocation data along with browsing history data will again be on the market for ISPs." The law repeals protections that are not in place yet. Those protections were already removed last year.
tkone 10y ago
Because there is no such thing as anonymity on the internet, especially if you're able to buy browsing history. AOL released a slew of anonymous search results in the early 2000s as a dataset. It took a few weeks (months maybe?) to start to determine who these people were based on patterns found in the data.[1] Even with aggregate or partially anonymized data you're going to be able to identify individuals based on habits and patterns. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak
- nkrisc 10y ago
  I recall a similar situation with New York taxi trip data.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Have you noticed how large companies often do a poor job on security and tons of personally identifying information gets stolen? Or how data that is supposed to be anonymised isn't, very?
- nkrisc 10y ago
  That's true, but hasn't that always been a risk? No doubt they've been keeping all this data already. It's a risk, but not a new one because of this change.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    When data is the subject of frequent transactions then the opportunities for malfeasance rise.
  - sigmar 10y ago
    If the data is being collected, organized, and distributed to be sold, yes there iwill be a higher chance it will be hacked. After being sold, there is a chance it will be hacked from the buyer. And even if it isn't hacked, there will absolutely be people (buyers) that will do what they can to de-anonymize it
    - nkrisc 10y ago
      Great point, I hadn't considered that. Of course it was only recently we learned of the Netprospex leak which was likely this very scenario.
gwern 10y ago
I would question the idea that AT&T or whomever will simply sell you the copyright or an unrestricted global license. I would assume that all these sorts of databases require you to sign a license mandating you to keep the data (anonymized or otherwise) secret/private, precisely to prevent this sort of shenanigans. To OP: good luck, but I suggest reserving the bulk of donations for legal fees...

luhn 10y ago

The creator of Cards Against Humanity has vowed to do the same. https://twitter.com/MaxTemkin/status/846437803164684290 https://twitter.com/MaxTemkin/status/846437803164684290

advisedwang 10y ago

Buying internet history requires a seller. Even with 47 CFR 64(U) removed, nothing compels selling of data. ISPs would be crazy to sell internet history of people in power to activists. They would even be crazy to make a clear marketplace. Selling of info is going to be shady back deals invisible to consumers, not a store where you can buy the history of whatever subscriber you like.

barnabes 10y ago
Money talks.
- josephorjoe 10y ago
  Yeah, and the funding is already up to $165K in 4 days...
- jontas 10y ago
  That's exactly why the cable companies wont sell congressional data. Why would they shoot the goose that laid the golden egg?
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Just buy up all the DC data and filter it. It won't be that hard.
    - sigmar 10y ago
      Agreed. Assuming the ISP would let you buy all data on men in DC between 40 and 70 y/o, that have moved there within the past 6 months. You could then easily deanonymize it by sorting out which users have gone to which local newspaper website (ie Someone from dallas is likely to have gone to dallasnews.com or www.nbcdfw.com). Should be pretty easy to find a few congress members, or at least congressional staffers.
  - barnabes 10y ago
    Because money talks. I used to play a game when I really wanted to bargain hard on something: I'd change my money to as many notes of the lowest possible denomination, and show up with a huge stack of notes. You're be surprised what a huge stack of notes can do. It triggers something in the recipient of said huge stack of notes. It's deeply psychological. People stop thinking when faced with a huge wad of money. People will do anything for money, including bad longterm decisions.

jontas 10y ago

Why would the cable companies sell the data to a group hoping to get legislation changed that they just lobbied to enact? I don't know all the details of the bill--is there anything that requires a company to sell data to the highest bidder? My limited understanding was that the bill allows them to sell, but at their own discretion, just like any other monetized data. It seems wildly unrealistic that this will accomplish anything. I applaud the sentiment but I fear this is wasted money and energy.

nathanielc 10y ago
The bill text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/sjres34/BILLS-115sjres34enr.xml https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/sjres34/BILLS-115sjres34e... All it says is that the previous FCC rule no longer has any effect. It does not layout anything about regulations or consequences of removing those privacy protections.

austincheney 10y ago

An unintended benefit of this law passing is moving a common practice closer to the user. Let's not forget that Google and Facebook already normalize your traffic and sell it without your consent. Now ISPs can enter that market directly and completely bypass Google and Facebook.

KZeillmann 10y ago
Don't you consent to let them use your data when you sign up for their services? You don't need to use Google and Facebook to use the Internet. You do need an ISP to use the internet.
- austincheney 10y ago
  Google will track even on non-Google products by virtue of their various media and analytics products that are prolific on many sites. No consent required. A couple of years ago they were caught collecting private home wifi traffic from their map/photo cars.

nkrisc 10y ago

I suppose an upside of this is it affects everyone: including those who voted Republican and for Trump. We ought to make sure they understand what's happening too.

anigbrowl 10y ago
It's a peculiarly American conceit to assume that people of opposite political views lack understanding of an issue. In reality, some people lack understanding, while some understand an issue perfectly well but have a different value system. They may regard privacy as genuinely unimportant because they are authoritarians, or they may consider themselves to be qualitatively different from their political opponents and therefore wish for different treatment for themselves and for others.
- nkrisc 10y ago
  Except that this is an opaque issue that the general public often does not understand. Most people probably couldn't not explain what happens when you visit a webpage, let alone what data exists around that and what can be done with it. I would also assume most Democrats don't completely understand either, but they didn't vote for the majority of people who passed this measure. >they may consider themselves to be qualitatively different from their political opponents and therefore wish for different treatment for themselves and for others. Of course, but what they wish and what is reality is not always the same. The will not be treated differently. Republicans tend to be opposed to government intrusion into their lives and privacy. In this case it is not the government doing the intruding directly, but it's not a far cry. Lastly, rural Republicans usually don't have much love for giant corporations weaseling their way into their lives to begin with.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I don't mean his to be snarky but your comments strike me as naive given the daily displays of cognitive dissonance in matters political.
    - 10y ago

danso 10y ago

I thought the concept of purchasing history for a specific person was not possible? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13992953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13992953

z3t4 10y ago

the fact that the info is stored at all makes it possible for someone to use it. in the holocaust records was used to kill people.