Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Thanks for expounding with your keen intellect. ::rolls Eyes::


It's as valid as what you posted. Regulations often comes from the need of it many times for the protection of the consumer. Businesses are terrible of self-regulating, the BP Gold disaster is a great example of that. Yes over regulations happens and there needs to be a better balance with some but the idea that less is always better is far from true and willfully ignorant.
 
If Pelosi was supporting the privacy rules enactment, that tells me all I need to know. That woman is only out for one thing -- for the government (and by extension, herself) to have as much power and control as possible.

If word gets out that certain ISPs are engaging in nefarious or unsavory practices with people's personal information, people can (and many will) take their business elsewhere. Money talks. If corporations think they've now been given the power to screw their customers, they'll think twice when they run the revenue numbers once they start hemorrhaging customers.

Every single American consumer has the power to remind the companies they do business with that they are in business to serve their customers. If you don't like a company's business practices, don't give that company your hard-earned money! Government doesn't need to get involved.

Remember, all Pelosi and others like her want are more power and control. They'll try to disguise their true motives to make it look like they're "protecting" the American people; but it's all about getting more power for themselves.

Where did you get this ludicrous idea, and why associate it to SJ Res 34 that Trump just signed into law? All the Democrats and 15 Republicans in the House voted against the damn thing. It wasn't just Pelosi who voted against it. My Congressman's a Republican and voted against it.

And by the way, there has been a lot of consolidation in the provision of internet services. Many areas only have two competitors and some only have one. Don't make it sound like the consumer has rafts of providers from which to choose.
 
Removed TPP, Created 300,00 jobs, reduced illegal immigration by 40%, is removing illegal aliens by the thousands daily, not to mention reducing the defecit by 12 billion and approving the pipes

Hahahaaha! Don't you know that those employment figures are bogus?! Trump himself said so...well, until he claimed credit for all the jobs the Obama administration created after the last Republican president destroyed the economy.

The deficit hasn't been reduced by $12 billion. As a matter of fact, the Department of the Treasury hasn't released the deficit for February or March yet. Trump was president for 11 days in January, which did register a surplus, but not as large a surplus as in January 2016.

The "pipes", presumably the Keystone Pipeline, that Trump reinstated will, after construction, carry nothing but foreign oil from Canada to Gulf ports, and will create every bit of 35 permanent full-time jobs and 15 full-time temporary jobs. These numbers are not disputed even by TransCanada, the company building the pipeline. Trump bragged that the pipeline would be made from U.S. pipe, a provision that was never agreed to by TransCanada.

And "deficit" is not spelled d-e-f-e-c-i-t, and three hundred thousand is not written "300,00".

Serious matters like these really ought to be left to the elites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kpeex and Macomatic
Other than stepping out of the TPP (which may or may not be a good thing), has Trump done anything good so far? It seems like all of his proposals so far are either blocked or deeply disliked by both parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redbeard331
It's as valid as what you posted. Regulations often comes from the need of it many times for the protection of the consumer. Businesses are terrible of self-regulating, the BP Gold disaster is a great example of that. Yes over regulations happens and there needs to be a better balance with some but the idea that less is always better is far from true and willfully ignorant.

So you admit that you are too stupid that you don't understand what rights you are giving up when you sign up for a service, and need Uncle Sam to "save" you from your own ignorance? And... BP, wah?!? Then you agree with me... wah?!?

Great. The future of America, right here, folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgara
Seems like "like" is being used in the sense of "for example" in that context.

Yes, when it actually means "similar to," but that isn't the only issue with using that vague means of comparison. The real question being raised here is whether these companies do in fact have the ability to sell your Social Security number. This has been considered private personal information for some time now so I doubt that anyone has gained that authority.
[doublepost=1491280965][/doublepost]
If you are entering you SSN onto the internet you deserve whatever happens to you. That is just foolish.

I'm sure I could spend a lot of time trying to figure out what this means and still not get it.
 
"but it's worth noting that the resolution contains language preventing the FCC from enabling similar privacy rules in the future."
You bet it's worth noting.
The sad thing is, is that this is just the tip of that Titanic-crushing iceberg. Hang on, going to be a rough ride.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macomatic
This is why I hate politics, especially the US 2 party politics. Not every idea from the other party/pres....was a bad one. I'd say this rep to dem too, have done so many times. the other side of the political spectrum...can have good ideas.


this would be among them. Pick your tinfoil here...this done just because a damned dem thought of this. Or backdoor hey buddy...hook us up with the chance for some pay data from PAC/really avid and influential backer.

Either tinfoil hot not a good one. Hell could be both.

See some apologists need the government to help you comment(s) somewhere. yes we do. It was a chokepoint out of the ISP's controls. Who can now either not mention this at all in the contract (the grey but very legal area of the service agreement never said we would not sell data) or bury the they may/will sell in subclause 6, paragraph 5 page 20 of the terms of usage agreement.

At least the latter would be honest and I'd respect that. I'd walk away unless no other option, but I'd respect that. We know chance high it will be the former. less of fight that way. You can trust us...current management's stance is we won't sell data. I am so relieved to hear that....now what will management's stance be 4 years from now. or after a few executive level changes and the old management gone.

See here is the fun part about corporate America. I have seen a few CEO changes in my company. Old CEO can promise and deliver 10 things. New CEO takes over....they are obligated to carry through on none of these if so desired. they are now the head mofo in charge, their house, their rules.

Major ISP probably has the money for the lawyers to sweet talk well the grey area of the agreement says in no way we won't sell data the other issue.
 
So you admit that you are too stupid that you don't understand what rights you are giving up when you sign up for a service, and need Uncle Sam to "save" you from your own ignorance? And... BP, wah?!? Then you agree with me... wah?!?

Great. The future of America, right here, folks.


Well that's not a very grown up response from you. Exactly what part of my post made you come up with this kind of response?

Considering I own my own home and all that comes with it, I know all about what info I give up when I sign up for a service. In some cases, sure regulations are unneeded, in others, they are. It really comes down to context, which is why regulations should be judged on their own and not in a generalized manner, sort of like what you did. For example regulations that prevent monopolies is generally good for consumers and for business in general. Regulations preventing companies from price gouging, preventing misleading advertising, contract protections and many other consumer protections have their place in society. These things couldn't exist without gov supporting it. It has nothing to do with saving us from our own ignorance but more from bad business practices.

It looks pretty bad to suggest someone else is "too stupid" while expressing such ignorance on your own part.
[doublepost=1491282846][/doublepost]
How is this Apple news?



It's not which is why it's in the political sub.
 
Less government regulation is always good. Conversely, you millennials will care nothing of Google collecting, tracking, and selling your data, right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Public utilities effectively have a captive audience, as most people have 1-2 choices of ISPs. They should be forced to accept limitations of what they can do.

So you admit that you are too stupid that you don't understand what rights you are giving up when you sign up for a service, and need Uncle Sam to "save" you from your own ignorance? And... BP, wah?!? Then you agree with me... wah?!?

Great. The future of America, right here, folks.

You know you misrepresented his words, yet you still chose to hit post. That really says something about you.
 
So what's next, telephone service providers complain that it isn't fair internet providers can sell your communications but the phone providers can't record and sell your conversations? This is bologna.
 
There seams to be a lot of people on here that don't understand that the law that was repealed hasn't gone into effect yet, nor do they understand SSL, nor the "black boxes" that are installed at all ISPs, nor that other laws are in place to protect you.

Just a bunch of mindless rants...

If Pelosi was supporting the privacy rules enactment, that tells me all I need to know. That woman is only out for one thing -- for the government (and by extension, herself) to have as much power and control as possible.

We need an Amen, Glory Hallelujah, and a Preach it Brother button... ;)

how can anyone rationally back up this fool?
seriously what does it say about your morals?
your a terrible person

Easy. We are educated, hold nice paying jobs, are not brainwashed, nor do we get are news from left wing outlets. We also understand statistics and don't make knee jerk reactions to exceptions to the rule.

-10, should be you're a terrible person, not your. While you're at it, work on your capitalization skills.

comments like this make me miss the downvote button. How the hell is the last thing a good thing?

Easy. More energy independence. Stop buying energy from counties that support pedophilia, raping and mistreatment of women, tossing gays off of tall buildings, killing of innocent people, and ****ing goats and camels.

Holy mackerel is that whole article ever fake news... Breitbart is just completely full of ****.

We have another winner. Yippie!!!
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.