6 ms·

The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered

195 points by hackerkid 9y ago

danderino 9y ago
Can someone explain what "selling web browsing and app usage data" really means? I don't imagine they literally package sensitive information and distribute it to anyone who pays. In which case, "they sell your data" is completely misleading.
- veidr 9y ago
  > * I don't imagine they literally package sensitive information and distribute it to anyone who pays.* Why on earth don't you imagine that? On this website alone, there are quite literally stories every week about various companies doing that exact thing. E.g.: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/04/23/heartbreaking http://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/04/23/heartbreaking
- acdha 9y ago
  It means exactly what it say on the tin. This isn't a hypothetical, either, but a class of behaviour which has happened repeatedly in the past. Here are a few examples of things which the FCC & FTC eventually stopped; there's zero reason to believe that this behaviour won't resume as soon as it's safe to accept that money. Large ISPs like Verizon altered HTTP traffic to inject a unique identifier which linked all of your traffic across devices and sites and sold a service linking those identifiers to demographic information. Even without paying, you could use that to reliably link user activity across every plain-text HTTP service: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://arstechnica.com/security/2014/10/verizon-wireless-injects-identifiers-link-its-users-to-web-requests/ https://arstechnica.com/security/2014/10/verizon-wireless-in... Going further back, a number of ISPs got heat for reselling access to customer activity to various tracking services: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/03/AR2008040304052.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04... Another interesting allegation came from Andreas Gal after he left Mozilla, claiming that Google's competitors were paying ISPs for copies of user's search activity so they could improve their search engine by using ranking closer to Google's. Given how many people search for sensitive or identifying terms, that's already a concern and, again, there's no reason to think companies with very limited competition won't expand their profits if it's safe: https://andreasgal.com/2015/03/30/data-is-at-the-heart-of-search-but-who-has-access-to-it/ https://andreasgal.com/2015/03/30/data-is-at-the-heart-of-se...
- grok2 9y ago
  A lot of tracking happens through other means so that Internet advertising agencies (Google/Facebook/etc) can show targeted ads to you across networks of sites. Having the data from the ISP allows them and others who need the data to better fingerprint you and show more targeted ads. But apart from advertising, isn't it conceivable that if the law doesn't forbid it and there is a buyer for your data, that ISP's would sell it to make easy money? There was that recent news of how Uber was buying Lyft email receipt data from a company whose product helped it's customer's manage their email.
ingenuous2 9y ago
I am so conflicted. At my core, I believe everyone, regardless of affiliation or beliefs has a right to online privacy. On the other, man do I freaking wish that one of the big porn sites would put up a billboard with the (private) sexual fetishes of these specific elected officials. Edit: I would wish more for the latter if I thought it would change anything.
- jle17 9y ago
  I don't see those views as conflicting. Everyone has a fundamental right to privacy, but one's rights end when stomping on those of others.
  - jaredklewis 9y ago
    This point gets made a lot. "Person/Group X doesn't believe in the right to privacy/free expression/due process/whatever so we shouldn't extend rights to those people." If it's a right, you have it just by being human; it's not given to you as a reward in exchange for good behavior. And there's a good reason for that, because such loopholes are ripe for abuse. Remarkably, people can label and truly believe ANYONE is a facist. When Bush was president, people compared him to Hitler. When Obama was president, people compared him to Hitler. Now Trump is Hitler. I've heard people non-ironically compare Steve Jobs to Hitler. Comparing an Apple CEO to history's most notorious genocidal dictator, in complete earnestness. Do we want us, a crazy bunch of humans that for the most part seem to be unable to differentiate between an idea we don't like and genocide, deciding who is deserving enough to have rights? Privacy is a complicated issue, and I don't think it would be hard to paint all but the most zealous of advocates as being soft of privacy and therefore undeserving. Not a path I hope we go down.
    - adrianN 9y ago
      Everyone has the right to go where they please but occasionally we put people behind bars as a punishment. That's not as contradictory as you make it seem.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
pedalpete 9y ago
There are two sides to the 'value' equation here. The telecoms can now sell your data, but that also means that somebody needs to be buying it on the other end. This campaign does a great job of calling out Senators who sold out their voters. I'd like to see us also call out the companies that buy the data from the telecoms. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is right. I'm not sure how one would track down who purchased the data, but if a billboard said "X bought your data without your consent", would shaming the purchaser also be a possibility?
- txmx2000 9y ago
  No they can't. It Has been illegal for nearly a century and it id still is illegal to sell telecommunication customers' data. Congress just reversed the FCC rules from October. It has to do with an government agency overstepping their authority and nothing to do with privacy. Anybody who says otherwise is lying or ignorant of the law regarding CPNI. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-2015-title47-vol3-part64-subpartU.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-...
  - SwellJoe 9y ago
    Either you're misunderstanding the impact of the change, or the ACLU, the EFF, and a number of reputable news organizations are misunderstanding it. ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-congressional-move-allow-internet-providers-sell-consumer-data-without-permission https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-congressional-move-al... EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-you... The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/28/internet-service-providers-sell-browsing-history-house-vote https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/28/internet-...
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
    How many bold faced lies can you fit into 3 sentences? > It has to do with an government agency overstepping their authority I've seen this horseshit repeated ad naseum.The U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to regulate how customer proprietary network information (CPNI) can be used and to enforce related consumer information privacy provisions. In 2015, Broadband Internet Service Providers were reclassified as telecommunications companies, meaning that these rules will apply to them. They are not an information service. Google is an information service. They provide me with an internet connection, they do not provide me with any content at all and no consumer expects that from them. Do you understand that an Act has to be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the president? I don't know how much more legitimate authority can get when you are granted authority by our elected representatives. > and nothing to do with privacy. From the very first sentence of the FCC's 2007 REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING [0] "In this Order, the Commission responds to the practice of “pretexting” by strengthening our rules to protect the privacy of customer proprietary network information (CPNI)" >It Has been illegal for nearly a century and it id still is illegal to sell telecommunication customers' data. FALSE AGAIN, from the FCC's 2007 REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING [0] "We modify our rules to require telecommunications carriers to obtain opt-in consent from a customer before disclosing that customer’s CPNI to a carrier’s joint venture partner or independent contractor for the purpose of marketing communications-related services to that customer.117 While we realize that this is a change in Commission policy, we find that new circumstances force us to reassess our existing regulations. As we have found previously, the Commission has a substantial interest in protecting customer privacy." "Based on this and in light of new privacy concerns, we now find that an opt-in framework for the sharing of CPNI with joint venture partners and independent contractors for the purposes of marketing communications-related services to a customer both directly advances our interest in protecting customer privacy and is narrowly tailored to achieve our goal of privacy protection" "Joint Venture and Independent Contractor Use of CPNI. We modify our rules to require carriers to obtain opt-in consent from a customer before disclosing a customer’s CPNI to a carrier’s joint venture partners or independent contractors for the purposes of marketing communicationsrelated services to that customer." > https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-2015-title47-vol3-part64-subpartU.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-... So do you think you can link to an obtuse document written in legalese, hoping that no one will read it? These are the rules from 2015...8 years after the FCC changed how telcos may use your CPNI Just reading the rest of your comment history, do you do this for profit or for pleasure? [0]: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.pd...
Kurtz79 9y ago
Off topic, but such a crass title makes me instantly disinterested in whatever the article has to say, even if I'm likely to agree with its content. Is this really the new normal for websites ?
- test1235 9y ago
  Agreed. Immaturity isn't something to strive for, or be proud of. It's something I've seen far too much of in recent years of politics.
  - andybak 9y ago
    I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously. Also - expressing emotion and anger is valuable when the situation calls for it. Personally I would have considered something stronger than 'turd' in this case. Oh. Here's Hitchens saying "Fuck" a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1fmWVECUI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1fmWVECUI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_dgqy6l4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_dgqy6l4k
    - user982 9y ago
      Hitchens was inexhaustibly eloquent and grandiloquent; his skill at using expletives for emphasis in service to his message reflected his mastery of the language. Gawker (and all of its puerile clickbait spawn) is no Chris Hitchens.
    - secfirstmd 9y ago
      I'm Irish and I agree. Think of some great comedians, especially Scots, like Billy Connolly and Frankie Boyle - who use a good swear word very well.
    - cat199 9y ago
      So.. article title - good or not? I agree with your point, and still also with OP.
    - 9y ago
glubGlub 9y ago
And nothing changes. They were unrecognizable nobodies before, and now they are unrecognizable nobodies with more money. They will become unrecognizable nobodies again, next week, or next month, or next year, and move right along with the rest of their lives. Conceptually, this is how legislation works. You start with politicians no one cares about, and you end with politicians no one cares about selling you out, because most of what they do is boring.
- daveguy 9y ago
  Here is the full list: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp... If you see your Congress people on the list you should help replace them with moderates in their primaries and call them more during the year. Everyone needs to get to know their Congress. Even if they aren't on the list, find out who they are and how to contact them. You only have 3 of them! 2 statewide senators and your house rep. Just 3!
  - wodencafe 9y ago
    Selling out your constituents isn't a part of conservative or liberal philosophy, just corrupt politicians. And the Republican party have become the moderate party, there is no truly conservative party anymore.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    My state does not have open primaries, and my rep tore his fax machine out of the wall to keep ResistBot from using it. Some of these people are like cockroaches. They scuttle into the closest hiding spot whenever the lights come on. Then they're back to crawling all over your food the instant the public gets distracted again. And they can get away with it, thanks to safe districts. What we need to focus on is purely algorithmic redistricting for 2020, and approval voting for all ballots. Gerrymandering and FPTP voting are deliberate impediments to political competition that must be removed if meaningful change is to occur. Your voice will not be heard on net neutrality if your rep doesn't have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on data privacy if your rep does not have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on allowing local municipal broadband systems if your rep does not have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on anything so long as your rep can safely ignore you term after term after term. So you really need to worry about your state legislature now, so you can abolish gerrymandering before 2020, and possibly also get rid of first-past-the-post voting.
smhenderson 9y ago
The title from the people who actually did the campaign is a little more morning coffee friendly[1]. If you get as upset as I do every time you see a story like this why not head over and donate today? [1]https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-05-03-crowdfunded-billboards-appear-in-districts-of/ https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-05-03-crowdfunde...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
libeclipse 9y ago
Is it possible to organise something like this in the UK? I would donate readily.

195 points by hackerkid 9y ago

Can someone explain what "selling web browsing and app usage data" really means? I don't imagine they literally package sensitive information and distribute it to anyone who pays. In which case, "they sell your data" is completely misleading.

veidr 9y ago
> * I don't imagine they literally package sensitive information and distribute it to anyone who pays.* Why on earth don't you imagine that? On this website alone, there are quite literally stories every week about various companies doing that exact thing. E.g.: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/04/23/heartbreaking http://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/04/23/heartbreaking
acdha 9y ago
It means exactly what it say on the tin. This isn't a hypothetical, either, but a class of behaviour which has happened repeatedly in the past. Here are a few examples of things which the FCC & FTC eventually stopped; there's zero reason to believe that this behaviour won't resume as soon as it's safe to accept that money. Large ISPs like Verizon altered HTTP traffic to inject a unique identifier which linked all of your traffic across devices and sites and sold a service linking those identifiers to demographic information. Even without paying, you could use that to reliably link user activity across every plain-text HTTP service: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://arstechnica.com/security/2014/10/verizon-wireless-injects-identifiers-link-its-users-to-web-requests/ https://arstechnica.com/security/2014/10/verizon-wireless-in... Going further back, a number of ISPs got heat for reselling access to customer activity to various tracking services: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/03/AR2008040304052.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04... Another interesting allegation came from Andreas Gal after he left Mozilla, claiming that Google's competitors were paying ISPs for copies of user's search activity so they could improve their search engine by using ranking closer to Google's. Given how many people search for sensitive or identifying terms, that's already a concern and, again, there's no reason to think companies with very limited competition won't expand their profits if it's safe: https://andreasgal.com/2015/03/30/data-is-at-the-heart-of-search-but-who-has-access-to-it/ https://andreasgal.com/2015/03/30/data-is-at-the-heart-of-se...
grok2 9y ago
A lot of tracking happens through other means so that Internet advertising agencies (Google/Facebook/etc) can show targeted ads to you across networks of sites. Having the data from the ISP allows them and others who need the data to better fingerprint you and show more targeted ads. But apart from advertising, isn't it conceivable that if the law doesn't forbid it and there is a buyer for your data, that ISP's would sell it to make easy money? There was that recent news of how Uber was buying Lyft email receipt data from a company whose product helped it's customer's manage their email.

ingenuous2 9y ago

I am so conflicted. At my core, I believe everyone, regardless of affiliation or beliefs has a right to online privacy. On the other, man do I freaking wish that one of the big porn sites would put up a billboard with the (private) sexual fetishes of these specific elected officials. Edit: I would wish more for the latter if I thought it would change anything.

jle17 9y ago
I don't see those views as conflicting. Everyone has a fundamental right to privacy, but one's rights end when stomping on those of others.
- jaredklewis 9y ago
  This point gets made a lot. "Person/Group X doesn't believe in the right to privacy/free expression/due process/whatever so we shouldn't extend rights to those people." If it's a right, you have it just by being human; it's not given to you as a reward in exchange for good behavior. And there's a good reason for that, because such loopholes are ripe for abuse. Remarkably, people can label and truly believe ANYONE is a facist. When Bush was president, people compared him to Hitler. When Obama was president, people compared him to Hitler. Now Trump is Hitler. I've heard people non-ironically compare Steve Jobs to Hitler. Comparing an Apple CEO to history's most notorious genocidal dictator, in complete earnestness. Do we want us, a crazy bunch of humans that for the most part seem to be unable to differentiate between an idea we don't like and genocide, deciding who is deserving enough to have rights? Privacy is a complicated issue, and I don't think it would be hard to paint all but the most zealous of advocates as being soft of privacy and therefore undeserving. Not a path I hope we go down.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Everyone has the right to go where they please but occasionally we put people behind bars as a punishment. That's not as contradictory as you make it seem.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago

pedalpete 9y ago

There are two sides to the 'value' equation here. The telecoms can now sell your data, but that also means that somebody needs to be buying it on the other end. This campaign does a great job of calling out Senators who sold out their voters. I'd like to see us also call out the companies that buy the data from the telecoms. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is right. I'm not sure how one would track down who purchased the data, but if a billboard said "X bought your data without your consent", would shaming the purchaser also be a possibility?

txmx2000 9y ago
No they can't. It Has been illegal for nearly a century and it id still is illegal to sell telecommunication customers' data. Congress just reversed the FCC rules from October. It has to do with an government agency overstepping their authority and nothing to do with privacy. Anybody who says otherwise is lying or ignorant of the law regarding CPNI. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-2015-title47-vol3-part64-subpartU.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-...
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  Either you're misunderstanding the impact of the change, or the ACLU, the EFF, and a number of reputable news organizations are misunderstanding it. ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-congressional-move-allow-internet-providers-sell-consumer-data-without-permission https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-congressional-move-al... EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-you... The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/28/internet-service-providers-sell-browsing-history-house-vote https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/28/internet-...
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
  How many bold faced lies can you fit into 3 sentences? > It has to do with an government agency overstepping their authority I've seen this horseshit repeated ad naseum.The U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to regulate how customer proprietary network information (CPNI) can be used and to enforce related consumer information privacy provisions. In 2015, Broadband Internet Service Providers were reclassified as telecommunications companies, meaning that these rules will apply to them. They are not an information service. Google is an information service. They provide me with an internet connection, they do not provide me with any content at all and no consumer expects that from them. Do you understand that an Act has to be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the president? I don't know how much more legitimate authority can get when you are granted authority by our elected representatives. > and nothing to do with privacy. From the very first sentence of the FCC's 2007 REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING [0] "In this Order, the Commission responds to the practice of “pretexting” by strengthening our rules to protect the privacy of customer proprietary network information (CPNI)" >It Has been illegal for nearly a century and it id still is illegal to sell telecommunication customers' data. FALSE AGAIN, from the FCC's 2007 REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING [0] "We modify our rules to require telecommunications carriers to obtain opt-in consent from a customer before disclosing that customer’s CPNI to a carrier’s joint venture partner or independent contractor for the purpose of marketing communications-related services to that customer.117 While we realize that this is a change in Commission policy, we find that new circumstances force us to reassess our existing regulations. As we have found previously, the Commission has a substantial interest in protecting customer privacy." "Based on this and in light of new privacy concerns, we now find that an opt-in framework for the sharing of CPNI with joint venture partners and independent contractors for the purposes of marketing communications-related services to a customer both directly advances our interest in protecting customer privacy and is narrowly tailored to achieve our goal of privacy protection" "Joint Venture and Independent Contractor Use of CPNI. We modify our rules to require carriers to obtain opt-in consent from a customer before disclosing a customer’s CPNI to a carrier’s joint venture partners or independent contractors for the purposes of marketing communicationsrelated services to that customer." > https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-2015-title47-vol3-part64-subpartU.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-... So do you think you can link to an obtuse document written in legalese, hoping that no one will read it? These are the rules from 2015...8 years after the FCC changed how telcos may use your CPNI Just reading the rest of your comment history, do you do this for profit or for pleasure? [0]: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.pd...

Kurtz79 9y ago

Off topic, but such a crass title makes me instantly disinterested in whatever the article has to say, even if I'm likely to agree with its content. Is this really the new normal for websites ?

test1235 9y ago
Agreed. Immaturity isn't something to strive for, or be proud of. It's something I've seen far too much of in recent years of politics.
- andybak 9y ago
  I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously. Also - expressing emotion and anger is valuable when the situation calls for it. Personally I would have considered something stronger than 'turd' in this case. Oh. Here's Hitchens saying "Fuck" a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1fmWVECUI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1fmWVECUI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_dgqy6l4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_dgqy6l4k
  - user982 9y ago
    Hitchens was inexhaustibly eloquent and grandiloquent; his skill at using expletives for emphasis in service to his message reflected his mastery of the language. Gawker (and all of its puerile clickbait spawn) is no Chris Hitchens.
  - secfirstmd 9y ago
    I'm Irish and I agree. Think of some great comedians, especially Scots, like Billy Connolly and Frankie Boyle - who use a good swear word very well.
  - cat199 9y ago
    So.. article title - good or not? I agree with your point, and still also with OP.
  - 9y ago

glubGlub 9y ago

And nothing changes. They were unrecognizable nobodies before, and now they are unrecognizable nobodies with more money. They will become unrecognizable nobodies again, next week, or next month, or next year, and move right along with the rest of their lives. Conceptually, this is how legislation works. You start with politicians no one cares about, and you end with politicians no one cares about selling you out, because most of what they do is boring.

daveguy 9y ago
Here is the full list: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp... If you see your Congress people on the list you should help replace them with moderates in their primaries and call them more during the year. Everyone needs to get to know their Congress. Even if they aren't on the list, find out who they are and how to contact them. You only have 3 of them! 2 statewide senators and your house rep. Just 3!
- wodencafe 9y ago
  Selling out your constituents isn't a part of conservative or liberal philosophy, just corrupt politicians. And the Republican party have become the moderate party, there is no truly conservative party anymore.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  My state does not have open primaries, and my rep tore his fax machine out of the wall to keep ResistBot from using it. Some of these people are like cockroaches. They scuttle into the closest hiding spot whenever the lights come on. Then they're back to crawling all over your food the instant the public gets distracted again. And they can get away with it, thanks to safe districts. What we need to focus on is purely algorithmic redistricting for 2020, and approval voting for all ballots. Gerrymandering and FPTP voting are deliberate impediments to political competition that must be removed if meaningful change is to occur. Your voice will not be heard on net neutrality if your rep doesn't have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on data privacy if your rep does not have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on allowing local municipal broadband systems if your rep does not have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on anything so long as your rep can safely ignore you term after term after term. So you really need to worry about your state legislature now, so you can abolish gerrymandering before 2020, and possibly also get rid of first-past-the-post voting.

smhenderson 9y ago

The title from the people who actually did the campaign is a little more morning coffee friendly[1]. If you get as upset as I do every time you see a story like this why not head over and donate today? [1]https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-05-03-crowdfunded-billboards-appear-in-districts-of/ https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-05-03-crowdfunde...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

libeclipse 9y ago

Is it possible to organise something like this in the UK? I would donate readily.