Congress Votes to Repeal Internet Privacy Regulations

[cr47t]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/28/the-house-just-voted-to-wipe-out-the-fccs-landmark-internet-privacy-protections/?utm_term=.b89dcba35178#comments

 

Welp boys hold on to your seats, and prepare for the ad barrage.

 

Discuss.

[Dad]

Jesus Christ, they really did it.  We're boned boys.  Prepare for total privacy invasion.

[cr47t]

Jesus Christ, they really did it.  We're boned boys.  Prepare for total privacy invasion.

Yup, I agree. It truly sucks.

 

Everyone get a look at all available Internet providers in your area, and review their privacy policies once this gets signed into law by Trump (which he probably will.)

 

Cause eventually we will need a way to keep Big Brother Corporations from watching us 24/7/365

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well here's your chance to, politely, but firmly write to the WH, otherwise we're in for the long haul in the courts

 

POTUS shouldn't sign this tbh

[mido9]

They didn't repeal anything, they just struck down a soon-to-be passed bill that would prevent them from selling your history. Your history's been probably sold 50 times now.

[vla1ne]

i'd say take the names of everybody who votes in favor of repealing or preventing privacy bills, and put them on blast, every detail of their own search history, should be given to any and all voters in their districts upon request. if they don't want to help protect people's privacy online, they deserve none in return.

 

at this point, i have more than a few concerns, i don't want businesses intruding on me with even more popup ads, i don't want my credit cards, passwords, and all manner of other data, in the hands of any company that would so willingly sell off my info (without my express permission) to make more profit. i think, that should this go through, it would be a prime time to try starting up an new internet providing business, with like minded individuals who don't want to have their data monitored and sold 24-7, let the market know, and teach them to speak properly with their wallets.

[Dad]

Here you go boys.  The sellout list.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[cr47t]

Well here's your chance to, politely, but firmly write to the WH, otherwise we're in for the long haul in the courts

 

POTUS shouldn't sign this tbh

 

I agree, I am against this bill as well and if Trump signs it the results could well harm a lot of us, including some of those who voted for him

[vla1ne]

I agree, I am against this bill as well and if Trump signs it the results could well harm a lot of us, including some of those who voted for him

hell, if he signs this bill, it'll be the literal destruction of everything he "claimed" he wanted to do. this thing's clearly one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation in congress. touching it with anything other than a flamethrower would kill any and all chances of a second term, or any positive features he may have in the eyes of any americans who retain faith in him. and that's saying nothing of the damage it would do to his businesses by association were he to sign it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

hell, if he signs this bill, it'll be the literal destruction of everything he "claimed" he wanted to do. this thing's clearly one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation in congress. touching it with anything other than a flamethrower would kill any and all chances of a second term, or any positive features he may have in the eyes of any americans who retain faith in him. and that's saying nothing of the damage it would do to his businesses by association were he to sign it.

Now I think you're overreacting a bit. The FCC can still bring charges against people who exploit it

 

 

"The short answer is “in theory, but probably not in reality.” Many Internet service providers (ISPs) have privacy policies that may cover this type of information. If an ISP shares or sells an individual's personal information in violation of its own privacy policy, a state attorney general could take the company to court, said Travis LeBlanc, a former enforcement bureau chief at the Federal Communications Commission. State attorneys general could also sue ISPs whose data practices could be construed as “unfair” to other businesses. Meanwhile, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has said what's left of his agency's privacy authority still allows him to bring lawsuits against companies — he just won't be able to write rules that look similar to what Congress rejected this week. That said, if the providers relax their privacy policies or if the FCC chooses not to take action, ISPs could conceivably share detailed information about a person's Web usage that could be used to discover his or her identity."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/29/what-to-expect-now-that-internet-providers-can-collect-and-sell-your-web-browser-history/?tid=pm_business_pop&utm_term=.1e1cbf7b89fa

 

Google and Facebook have been able to do exactly what this bill will now let AT&T and Verizon do. If you were fine with that (which clearly you were given no rage topics, this shouldn't bother you either)

[mido9]

 

 

Google and Facebook have been able to do exactly what this bill will now let AT&T and Verizon do. If you were fine with that (which clearly you were given no rage topics, this shouldn't bother you either)

Also, seriously, the rules that restricted ISPs from selling your info came out in December 2nd last year, the rules have been up for just 4 months and ISPs have been able to collect your data before and after that period for years and years and didn't use it (ever) because it's scandalous, awful, etc. So I really don't see what the outrage is about, this is just back to normal. Nothing's going to change for anything.

[Dad]

Except for years and years we've had the option to opt out from most of this data sheet.  The difference is, now, you ain't got a choice.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Except for years and years we've had the option to opt out from most of this data sheet.  The difference is, now, you ain't got a choice.

Have you used Google for years and years? If so you HAVEN'T been opting out

 

The only people who have been opting out are the guys hiding and using Tor w/ no social media

 

My bet, those people aren't the ones throwing a fit atm

[Halubaris Maphotika]

I love how the senate list went...

 

Mitch McConnell had the most money given with 251,110! LOL Mitch, you're not even trying to hide the fact you're a blatant shill!

 

John Thune with 215,000. Yeah, the guy who could have three watches on both wrists and still not be able to tell you the time.

 

On a weird note. John Neely Kennedy only got paid 1,000 for this. Does that mean if we raise 2,000$ we can get him to retract his support?

 

But the House of Reps is even worse. 90% of em didn't even ask for a good amount of money...

 

Gregory Walden and Fred Upton got over the 100K mark but Gregory had the most at 155,100. Many of them received below 50K. Shows how much they value their opinion.

 

Also... Phil Roe got 500$? That's it!? For funk's sake Phil, if you're gonna shill at least have the cost be higher than the allowance for a guy on a weekend trip to Vegas. Jesus, I bet if you give him 3K he'll suck your dick and call you the second coming of Christ.

[mido9]

Except for years and years we've had the option to opt out from most of this data s***.  The difference is, now, you ain't got a choice.

This bill strike-down does not change the ability or lack of to opt out. Anything you could opt out of before you still can, anything you couldn't you still can't, etc. Nothing has changed.

[Sunshine Jesse]

This is really bad, if only from a symbolic point of view. Telecom companies are literally the last companies that need any form of deregulation. Even if nothing changes in effect, all this does is give these companies new means to dick over unsuspecting consumers in an industry where they're already dicked over hard enough.

 

Get this sheet out of here.

[vla1ne]

Now I think you're overreacting a bit. The FCC can still bring charges against people who exploit it

 

 

"The short answer is “in theory, but probably not in reality.” Many Internet service providers (ISPs) have privacy policies that may cover this type of information. If an ISP shares or sells an individual's personal information in violation of its own privacy policy, a state attorney general could take the company to court, said Travis LeBlanc, a former enforcement bureau chief at the Federal Communications Commission. State attorneys general could also sue ISPs whose data practices could be construed as “unfair” to other businesses. Meanwhile, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has said what's left of his agency's privacy authority still allows him to bring lawsuits against companies — he just won't be able to write rules that look similar to what Congress rejected this week. That said, if the providers relax their privacy policies or if the FCC chooses not to take action, ISPs could conceivably share detailed information about a person's Web usage that could be used to discover his or her identity."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/29/what-to-expect-now-that-internet-providers-can-collect-and-sell-your-web-browser-history/?tid=pm_business_pop&utm_term=.1e1cbf7b89fa

 

Google and Facebook have been able to do exactly what this bill will now let AT&T and Verizon do. If you were fine with that (which clearly you were given no rage topics, this shouldn't bother you either)

i understand that the law preventing the sale of data hasn't been around too long, but the fact is, said law, was a massive step in the proper direction. repeasling it, is wrong on pretty much every level. also, i don't use facebook, (and don't use google too often either) simply because i don't trust either site, and know most of the sites i go to by heart. giving more people access to sell my info, when said list was just starting to shorten, is what i'm getting at. this is a clear step backwards, from what was clearly a good step forwards.

[a bad post]

Have you used Google for years and years? If so you HAVEN'T been opting out

 

The only people who have been opting out are the guys hiding and using Tor w/ no social media

 

My bet, those people aren't the ones throwing a fit atm

Actually, as someone who knows those people, they're not big fans of this either

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Actually, as someone who knows those people, they're not big fans of this either

That was worded wrong, I meant to say it's unlikely Dad and Val1ne, and the rest here are THOSE people.

[a bad post]

That was worded wrong, I meant to say it's unlikely Dad and Val1ne, and the rest here are THOSE people.

I see. 

 

Well, either way, I'm not a fan of this either. not particularly happy that the government can see what kinda weird porn i'm into I've honestly been considering getting TOR and investing in a VPN too and this might just push me to do it. Even then though TOR and all of those other anonymity programs aren't perfect and stuff like this just makes it harder to keep my privacy, well private. 

 

 

Now I think you're overreacting a bit. The FCC can still bring charges against people who exploit it

 

 

"The short answer is “in theory, but probably not in reality.” Many Internet service providers (ISPs) have privacy policies that may cover this type of information. If an ISP shares or sells an individual's personal information in violation of its own privacy policy, a state attorney general could take the company to court, said Travis LeBlanc, a former enforcement bureau chief at the Federal Communications Commission. State attorneys general could also sue ISPs whose data practices could be construed as “unfair” to other businesses. Meanwhile, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has said what's left of his agency's privacy authority still allows him to bring lawsuits against companies — he just won't be able to write rules that look similar to what Congress rejected this week. That said, if the providers relax their privacy policies or if the FCC chooses not to take action, ISPs could conceivably share detailed information about a person's Web usage that could be used to discover his or her identity."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/29/what-to-expect-now-that-internet-providers-can-collect-and-sell-your-web-browser-history/?tid=pm_business_pop&utm_term=.1e1cbf7b89fa

 

Google and Facebook have been able to do exactly what this bill will now let AT&T and Verizon do. If you were fine with that (which clearly you were given no rage topics, this shouldn't bother you either)

Also I really just want to point out that the last sentence is a logical fallacy. Just because this has been going on for a while now doesn't mean people knew about to it be outraged over it. Plus it's not like we post everything we do and do not like on this forum, so just because you didn't voice your anger on a children's card game forum doesn't mean you weren't upset about something.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) until 2015 was the cop on the beat for Internet privacy, data security, and consumer protection broadly.  The FTC had a well-developed framework that treated all the players the same way – Internet Service Providers (ISPs), search, advertising networks, and social media companies.

 

That all changed when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on a 3-2 party-line vote to adopt Barack Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet like a public utility.

 

That vote pre-empted the FTC’s jurisdiction and stripped Internet users of consumer protections – deliberately creating a vacuum which could then be used to shift the focus of the privacy debate to ISPs, taking the heat off Google, which has vastly more access to personal data.

 

The FCC took this party-line action despite warnings from the FTC that it would no longer be able to protect consumers as it had in over 100 privacy and data security cases and 150 spam and spyware cases.

 

FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen warned that “economists (and common sense) tell us that if different sets of rules govern competitors, companies subject to the more onerous or unpredictable regime are disadvantaged compared to those outside that regime.”

 

That’s precisely what happened as Google – which had an astonishing 250 personnel rotate into the Obama administration – used its stroke to hobble competitors.

 

Under the proposed FCC regulations, ISPs with limited market share and limited ability to collect user information would be subject to heavy-handed regulation effectively prohibiting running ads without a prior opt-in, while edge providers that have dominant market share and vast databases of user information are exempt.

 

The FCC claimed ISPs are uniquely situated to collect user information, but the best available data shows otherwise.  Steven Englehardt and Arvind Narayanan of Princeton University found that 61 percent of the top million sites on the web use Google Analytics.

 

The FCC claim that ISPs are uniquely situated to collect and use user information reflects a basic misunderstanding of how the Internet works.

 

The Institute for Information Security & Privacy at Georgia Tech concluded that ISPs are highly limited in their ability to collect user information because the average Internet user has more than six different devices, encryption is pervasive and employed by all 10 of the largest websites and 42 of the top 50, and users increasingly decline to use DNS services offered by their ISPs.  They found companies like Google have far more access to user information.

 

As Ajit Pai observed in his dissent: “due to the FCC’s action today, those who have more insight into consumer behavior (edge providers) will be subject to more lenient regulation than those who have less insight (ISPs).”

 

Pai continued, “when you get past the headlines, slogans, and self-congratulations, this is the reality that Americans should remember: nothing in these rules will stop edge providers from harvesting and monetizing your data, whether it’s the websites you visit or the YouTube videos you watch or the emails you send or the search terms you enter on any of your devices.”

 

Under the Democratic rules, ISPs can use personal data to tailor advertising or make you special offers – but they need to buy the data from Google first.  That’s crazy.

 

The vote in Congress wasn’t about whether privacy should be protected, but rather who should do the protecting – and whether there should be a level playing field or a sweetheart deal for Google; it’s unfortunate that so many “real” news organizations bought into the Obama Administration spin instead of checking the facts.