5 ms·
‘Nobody’s got to use the Internet’: A GOP lawmaker’s response about Web privacy
- r00fus 10y agoSame guy probably thinks no one "needs" health insurance either (while both having premium internet access and health insurance).
- hawkice 10y agoHe gets to make laws, that's not something you _need_ either. Aside from mocking the, oh-you-could-just-do-without tone, I think we should talk about what we want the future of the internet to be like, and how it could fit into our lives. If we want it to be a tool for rural poor to lift themselves up by their bootstraps because there's no other way they'd have access to world-class educational material, we need it to be a place where people aren't being extorted, frightened, or humiliated. And honestly, if browsing history is up for grabs, that's what we need to be worried about. No normal human understands the difference between selling that data and humiliating someone for money, because there _is_ no difference.
- r00fus 10y agoIt's not really about selling browsing history, it's the inferences that can be made by piecing it together. It's about spying and the ways that can empower the security state.
- paulddraper 10y agoAh, see he'd be clearly wrong. Everyone needs health insurance, whether they like it or not.
- educar 10y agoIs there a market for privacy respecting ISP? For example, Start the ISP in places where consumers have no choice.
- feld 10y agoSearch HN for the recent article on starting an ISP. It's expensive and not worth your time.
- hive_mind 10y agoHis internet browsing history is needed.
- toyg 10y agoSomebody who spent 50 years in Congress doesn't have a browser history: he likely employs someone to read him the lunch menu, let alone turn on a pc.
- hive_mind 10y agoHe probably has a phone though ;-) http://www.dailyedge.ie/news-reporter-pornhub-bookmark-1310905-Feb2014/ http://www.dailyedge.ie/news-reporter-pornhub-bookmark-13109...
- joshmn 10y agoWhy don't we just go back to using horse-drawn carriages while we're at it?
- awqrre 10y agoHe is not serious, he just doesn't like everyone having access to this much information...
- damm 10y agoDude has been in office almost as long as i have been alive (1978) (I was born in 75) .. holy hell what does he get for 50 years in congress? That's really not dedication nor is it really someone who is goal oriented if you think about it; what is his growth potential except in congress around little teams jockying for their own position. Reminds me of high school tbh
- erentz 10y agoA 12 year term limit seems reasonable for congress. Ditto the Supreme Court.
- AdamJacobMuller 10y agoI'm not sure about the supreme court, but congress absolutely needs term limits.
- tempestn 10y agoThis is a good case for supreme court term limits: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/14/15295474/how-to-fix-supreme-court http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/14/15295474/ho... Since staying in Congress requires repeated re-election, I'm not sure term limits are as important there, personally. There is value to experience, which has to be weighed against the stagnation that can occur.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Viper007Bond 10y ago> Since staying in Congress requires repeated re-election, I'm not sure term limits are as important there, personally. Being president requires being elected but we impose term limits there. It's because it can be very hard to defeat incumbents.
- 10y ago
- brightball 10y agoI like how in politics we skip his/her name and use the party for the headline.
- kurthr 10y agoWell, if the vote hadn't been party line, it might have made a difference. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/28/the-house-just-voted-to-wipe-out-the-fccs-landmark-internet-privacy-protections/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/28...
- paulddraper 10y agoTrue, though the vote and the justification of the vote are different things. The most common opinion of those on that side is "Internet is not fundamentally different from other communications (e.g. cable)"
- JoBrad 10y agoThat's a good point. Although your ISP can gather a lot more data than your cable provider.
- maxerickson 10y agoYes, the thing to do would be to regulate them all similarly. No commercial trade of personally identifiable information, limits on use of aggregate information, short limits on data retention.
- killwhitey 10y agoThe comparison to TV/cable is a good one. I don't think people who feel this way would say the same about telephones or the postal service.
- paulddraper 10y agoAFAIK there are no laws preventing telephone and postal providers from collecting and selling metadata.
- kurthr 10y agoCongressmen don't need to use the internet for their election bids (fund raising, attack/support ads, GOTV) either. I would encourage Sensenbrenner to try that approach. Although, it would seem every single successful representative does use the internet, the "Let them eat cake" attitude, seems to come from those with the most to lose. "choice" https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/one-broadband-choice-counts-as-competition-in-new-fcc-proposal/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/one-b...
- YesThatTom2 10y agoYou DONT have to use the internet. You can ask your personal assistant to use it for you! #sarcasm
- awqrre 10y agowhat if your assistant uses your Internet connection?
- colmvp 10y agoI'm sure this'll be taken down from HN in a matter of minutes, but I'd just like to add that it really bothers me how so many politicians and lawmakers have such narrow mindsets. It doesn't take a genius to see how the internet has a profound impact on the education and day-to-day life of Americans.
- ohyes 10y agoHope it's not taken down, seems relevant to hackers and other people who create beautiful things on the web for fun and profit. Saying that nobody really needs the thing that is essentially my life and livelihood informs me about the type of people who are getting elected in the USA. In fact I can't think of a topic more relevant to hacker news. The benefactor of this site was made rich by an open and free internet.
- alphonsegaston 10y agoWe shouldn't engage with their rhetoric at face level. What the congressman is really saying is "I'm a member of a party/system so obviously corrupt and entrenched that this question isn't worthy of a dignified response." The sooner Americans start engaging with the actions of their politicians, rather than their stated rhetoric, the better off we'd all be.
- monk_e_boy 10y agoWhat's the darkest path America could take? Gazing across the Atlantic from Europe, the USA is walking a dark path. I have to remind myself that as well as Trump, they created Seinfeld, for every bomb dropped the civil rights movement has saved another person... it's a crazy country. I hope it swings left next time.
- alphonsegaston 10y agoI'd say something like Russia, although probably more overtly brutal and violent. We don't have anyone nearly as capable as Surkov to "manage" our democracy, and would probably devolve into another civil war if the same level of authoritarianism took hold. But fundamentally, you're right, America is a crazy country. That the citizens of the world's military super power are this irrational is a frightening turn in history.
- PaulHoule 10y agoOften you need to use the internet to do your homework, apply for school and jobs, do your work, etc.
- Cozumel 10y agoEarning his $30,000 'Here’s how much Comcast paid members of Congress to sell your browser history' - http://resistancereport.com/class-war/comcast-congress-browser-history/ http://resistancereport.com/class-war/comcast-congress-brows...
- dakinsloss 10y agoI don't expect this reply to be popular, but I thought it would be helpful to share an alternative perspective in the name of open dialogue. I am not sure what the senator intended precisely, but I think a reasonable interpretation would be the following (which I claim only as my argument, not he senator's): It is a choice to use the internet or not, just like it is a choice to purchase and eat food, purchase and live in a house, or to pursue a career and earn money. Obviously, if you want to live a long and happy life, these are good choices to make. However, each choice has a cost depending on the terms of the trade between you and the provider. You have to pay for your food and your home and come to an agreement to the terms and conditions with the seller. If you don't like the terms and conditions available, you have to choose whether you want the services bad enough to use them under the terms offered or to search for better terms offered. If in a particular real estate market, the norms for purchase terms are not what you prefer, you are free to choose to live elsewhere where more favorable terms exist (e.g. leave the Bay Area to get more affordable housing). The choice is yours. The same is true for the internet. If you want internet (which I wholeheartedly agree we all should because it offers so many life promoting and time saving benefits), then the choice is yours what ISP to use and where to live to have a pro-privacy ISP if that is a priority. Now some will say this is different because choices are limited by the ISP monopolies. I have two thoughts on this: 1. How did these become monopolies? Primarily because of government interference. Here is a quick link with more information (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-t...), but you can find much more detailed articles as well if you are curious. 2. If you don't find that compelling and believe ISPs would be "natural monopolies" without government interference, then ask yourself this... what is the meaning of telling that ISP what it can and cannot do with the data it consensually agrees to collect from customers? What is the meaning of a "right" to receiving internet without one's usage data being sold? At whose expense? The only way to enforce a right to a service someone else provides is government to force someone (the ISP) to provide their services to someone else (the consumer). If it is wrong for the ISP to consensually sell your usage data, why is it right for government to force the ISP to provide you a service with different terms than you consensually agree to? Is it right for the government to tell you what you can and cannot purchase? Is it right for you the government to tell you what you can and cannot eat? Is it right for the government to tell you what home you can and cannot purchase? I think the answer is no of course, because I think that all of these are forms of violating individuals rights: the right to voluntarily trade (as a consumer and a seller).
- smkellat 10y agoNot quite a fair headline. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin should be identified by name even if that is the exact headline at WaPo's site.
- hysan 10y agoYou hear that? This Representative just promised to change the FBAR (FinCEN Report 114) so that you can file it by mailing the form in! Oh and not to mention free copies of all of the various tax forms and instructions for both federal and state governments! /s Yes, I get that this is different from using the internet as a consumer, but there are so many things today that NEED the internet in America that his statement, "Nobody’s got to use the Internet." either shows zero thought into the nuances of this topic OR that he is willfully ignorant. Seriously, how much of his job requires the internet? I'm willing to bet most of it. The most basic of which is e-mail. Given a Representative who won't use email and one who will, which do you think would be more effective at their job?
- pasbesoin 10y agoWell, this takes "not knowing the price of a gallon of milk" to a whole new level.
- woodandsteel 10y agoIt seems that the internet is not personally important to this politician, and he mistakenly assumes that is the case for all other people.
- davidg11 10y agoOnce people start to purchase the web history of members of congress, this will get corrected fairly quickly. Has the makings of another high-profile SOPA style reversal.