US Congress votes to shred ISP privacy rules

Robert

Robert

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
10,280
Reaction score
6,250
ISPs now able to act like Google, Facebook, etc.

This approval means that whoever you pay to provide you with internet access – Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, etc – will be able to sell everything they know about your use of the internet to third parties without requiring your approval and without even informing you.

Your ISP already knows quite a lot about you: your name and address, quite possibly your age, and a host of other personally identifiable information such as your social security number. That's on the customer information side. On the service side, they know which websites you visit, when, and how often.

That information can be used to build a very detailed picture of who you are: what your political and sexual leanings are; whether you have kids; when you are at home; whether you have any medical conditions; and so on – a thousand different data points that, if they have sufficient value to companies willing to pay for them, will soon be traded without your knowledge.
Click to expand...

That all sounds wonderful. :confused:
 
the_leander

the_leander

Active Member
Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
1,707
Reaction score
447
Robert said:
I'm not sure this wouldn't have happened under Clinton anyway; she wasn't exactly known for a public-friendly stance on the internet.

That said, it has happened on his watch, not hers.
Click to expand...

I think this is more reflective of his being a business man - he sees it purely in terms of profit.
 
redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,014
Reaction score
2,037
the_leander said:
I think this is more reflective of his being a business man - he sees it purely in terms of profit.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing his circle of advisers aren't explaining to him the privacy implications, otherwise I doubt Trump would sign such a terrible bill. Trump really needs to bring in someone like Ron Paul, Rand Paul or even possibly Dennis Kucinich as an adviser when it comes to constitution rights issues. Trump is a elderly real estate guy, I doubt he understands technology beyond how to write a tweet.
 
the_leander

the_leander

Active Member
Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
1,707
Reaction score
447
redrumloa said:
I'm guessing his circle of advisers aren't explaining to him the privacy implications, otherwise I doubt Trump would sign such a terrible bill. Trump really needs to bring in someone like Ron Paul, Rand Paul or even possibly Dennis Kucinich as an adviser when it comes to constitution rights issues. Trump is a elderly real estate guy, I doubt he understands technology beyond how to write a tweet.
Click to expand...

I don't know these people so I'll take your word for it that they're up on constitutional issues. What I would suggest is someone who is tech savvy being brought into the mix. Sadly this lack of expertise is lacking on both sides of the pond.
 
J

JoBBo

Member
Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
517
Reaction score
138
Robert said:
I'm not sure this wouldn't have happened under Clinton anyway; she wasn't exactly known for a public-friendly stance on the internet.
Click to expand...
Based on the leaked Podesta emails, we know that even in private she was not against net neutrality but, before being briefed on the details, she was unsure if using "Title II" was the right regulatory approach. That is a fairly nuanced stance, which I have no issues with. The news headlines reporting that, despite her public commitment to defending it, she was "ambivalent" about net neutrality in general appeared to be essentially inaccurate.

That said, it has happened on his watch, not hers.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Plus, it should not come as any surprise. He posted all the way back in 2014, before he ran for president, that "net neutrality" was somehow targetting conservative media. Just shows there is yet one more topic he knows next to nothing about, yet will boldy take a stance on...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/532608358508167168
 
Last edited:
Robert

Robert

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
10,280
Reaction score
6,250
JoBBo said:
Based on the leaked Podesta emails, we know that even in private she was not against net neutrality but, before being briefed on the details, she was unsure if using "Title II" was the right regulatory approach. That is a fairly nuanced stance, which I have no issues with. The news headlines reporting that, despite her public commitment to defending it, she was "ambivalent" about net neutrality in general appeared to be essentially inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Well, I have no faith she would have done anything different.
She was as beholden to corporate and monetary interests as anyone else.
She also has previous for talking out of two sides of her mouth and changing her position with the wind. Of course, in that regard, she isn't that different to Trump.

But perhaps you're correct. We'll never know.

Indeed. Plus, it should not come as any surprise.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone, other than his most blinkered of fans, is even remotely surprised.

Just shows there is yet one more topic he knows next to nothing about, yet will boldy take a stance on...
Click to expand...

I thought that was *every* topic.
Remember, he's a smart guy who knows the best words. :D
 
Robert

Robert

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
10,280
Reaction score
6,250
the_leander said:
What I would suggest is someone who is tech savvy being brought into the mix. Sadly this lack of expertise is lacking on both sides of the pond.
Click to expand...

Indeed; we have the utterly horrific and clueless Amber Rudd, demanding even more access to everyone's "privacy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top