5 ms·

Congress’s vote to eviscerate Internet privacy could give the FBI massive power

91 points by zaroth 10y ago

sschueller 10y ago
I am a bit confused as I have read that this bill only reverses a bill that was past last year and isn't even in effect yet. Would also explain the split right down the political ile. Or am I interpreting this incorrectly? Internet privacy in the US may be non existent but it hasn't changed in many years from what I can tell. The outrage seems overblown or at least misplaced as nothing has actually changed if that is true.
- unlikelymordant 10y ago
  My understanding is that the ftc was protecting things, this protection was removed recently, then the fcc bill was introduced to try and maintain privacy. This too has now been removed. So now there is no protection for privacy. Things are absolutely different now.
- guelo 10y ago
  What you have read is propaganda. ISPs have never been allowed to do what they are about to do. Between the move to common carrier until the new privacy rule was to go into effect ISPs could theoretically have started new data selling programs but they had not because of the legal uncertainty and they knew the new rules were coming. As usual some of the best technical reporting on the issue is at ars 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...
mbloom1915 10y ago
honestly can we stop fanboying over Comey's twitter account and see some real action against this shit - tech giants super quiet this past week
- mbloom1915 10y ago
  p.s. Ajit Pai is a puppet
  - EGreg 10y ago
    Why do Republicans really seem terrible? The party of hypocrisy - eg had only one 9/11 commission but ten Benghazi commissions, or eg cared about deficits only when Democratic president is in power Gerrymandering (REDMAP) Threatened US default over debt ceiling Wanted to gut ethics committee as soon as they could Refused to hold a vote on a supreme court justice indefinitely as long as a Democrat president nominated him/her Told CBO not to calculate cost of repealing Obamacare Want to roll back civil rights of gays Want to roll back environmental protections Want to make coal and fossil fuels win over clean energy, are angry about investment in green energy Want to roll back privacy and net neutrality Want to use taxpayer money to expand the army already past ridiculous levels Are angry about universal healthcare even though rest of the developed world has it and has cheaper better outcomes What is the explanation for why they seem to be against everything that a person would normally consider good? I realize they say they want personal freedom and smaller government. But then they want to expand the army, keep increasing fossil fuel subsidies, etc. And when someone is incompetent, they seem applaud it... they seem to be against college education, teaching evolution, skeptical of global warming to the end, etc. and (with some exceptions) are ok with Donald Trump's blundering and appointments of people to agencies who have explicitly said in the past they want those agencies eliminated. Why? Am I really being partisan and Democrats break just as many rules? I just don't see it. Both parties have their problems but Democrats seem to at least care about competence and fairness while Republicans honestly seem to find new rules to break all the time, on top of everything I mentioned above. And then when the Democrats follow suit they get upset.
    - arca_vorago 10y ago
      Yes you are being partisan and not seeing how the D's do the same things. If I wasn't on mobile I'd explain more in detail, but essentially its a corruption, oligarchy, corporatacracy problem that transcends parties.
yeukhon 10y ago
If Google, Facebook and other major tech giants did lobby recently, then I consider the passing of this bill a major failure for those companies on lobbying effort. Would it be okay for Mark Zuckerberg to donate a huge private money to the Republican Party and overturn the ISP's influence?
- deelowe 10y ago
  None of this is ok.
edko 10y ago
Would states individually have the ability pass laws that restrict this Federal law in their territory, making it virtually inapplicable?
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/03/minnesota-senate-votes-58-9-pass-internet-privacy-protections-response-repeal-fcc-privacy-rules/ https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/03/minnesota...

91 points by zaroth 10y ago

I am a bit confused as I have read that this bill only reverses a bill that was past last year and isn't even in effect yet. Would also explain the split right down the political ile. Or am I interpreting this incorrectly? Internet privacy in the US may be non existent but it hasn't changed in many years from what I can tell. The outrage seems overblown or at least misplaced as nothing has actually changed if that is true.

unlikelymordant 10y ago
My understanding is that the ftc was protecting things, this protection was removed recently, then the fcc bill was introduced to try and maintain privacy. This too has now been removed. So now there is no protection for privacy. Things are absolutely different now.
guelo 10y ago
What you have read is propaganda. ISPs have never been allowed to do what they are about to do. Between the move to common carrier until the new privacy rule was to go into effect ISPs could theoretically have started new data selling programs but they had not because of the legal uncertainty and they knew the new rules were coming. As usual some of the best technical reporting on the issue is at ars 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...

mbloom1915 10y ago

honestly can we stop fanboying over Comey's twitter account and see some real action against this shit - tech giants super quiet this past week

mbloom1915 10y ago
p.s. Ajit Pai is a puppet
- EGreg 10y ago
  Why do Republicans really seem terrible? The party of hypocrisy - eg had only one 9/11 commission but ten Benghazi commissions, or eg cared about deficits only when Democratic president is in power Gerrymandering (REDMAP) Threatened US default over debt ceiling Wanted to gut ethics committee as soon as they could Refused to hold a vote on a supreme court justice indefinitely as long as a Democrat president nominated him/her Told CBO not to calculate cost of repealing Obamacare Want to roll back civil rights of gays Want to roll back environmental protections Want to make coal and fossil fuels win over clean energy, are angry about investment in green energy Want to roll back privacy and net neutrality Want to use taxpayer money to expand the army already past ridiculous levels Are angry about universal healthcare even though rest of the developed world has it and has cheaper better outcomes What is the explanation for why they seem to be against everything that a person would normally consider good? I realize they say they want personal freedom and smaller government. But then they want to expand the army, keep increasing fossil fuel subsidies, etc. And when someone is incompetent, they seem applaud it... they seem to be against college education, teaching evolution, skeptical of global warming to the end, etc. and (with some exceptions) are ok with Donald Trump's blundering and appointments of people to agencies who have explicitly said in the past they want those agencies eliminated. Why? Am I really being partisan and Democrats break just as many rules? I just don't see it. Both parties have their problems but Democrats seem to at least care about competence and fairness while Republicans honestly seem to find new rules to break all the time, on top of everything I mentioned above. And then when the Democrats follow suit they get upset.
  - arca_vorago 10y ago
    Yes you are being partisan and not seeing how the D's do the same things. If I wasn't on mobile I'd explain more in detail, but essentially its a corruption, oligarchy, corporatacracy problem that transcends parties.

yeukhon 10y ago

If Google, Facebook and other major tech giants did lobby recently, then I consider the passing of this bill a major failure for those companies on lobbying effort. Would it be okay for Mark Zuckerberg to donate a huge private money to the Republican Party and overturn the ISP's influence?

deelowe 10y ago
None of this is ok.

edko 10y ago

Would states individually have the ability pass laws that restrict this Federal law in their territory, making it virtually inapplicable?

aaronbrethorst 10y ago
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/03/minnesota-senate-votes-58-9-pass-internet-privacy-protections-response-repeal-fcc-privacy-rules/ https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/03/minnesota...