Privacy Concerns Loom as Congress Moves to Allow Internet Providers to Share Users' Sensitive Data

[EdT]

No, since this is actual researched psychology/neuroscience.

Conservatives literally have different brains than liberals, where the irrational fear-response centers are larger in conservatives.

It's what people are, and are not, afraid of that puzzles me.

A poor immigrant, either legal or otherwise, who has no political clout, can't afford to pay off politicians, who has few people in any position of power in the legal, political, enforcement or large business arenas that will do anything to support them, although many large businesses do use them as cheap labor but disavow knowing that they were immigrants- these people are to be feared, hated and repressed.

A company that dumps millions of gallons of oil in the ocean, and sues (successfully) to escape having to pay the fines and cleanup costs originally levied against them, or an auto company which knows of a defect in its ignition key switch, or willfully alters software to pass emissions tests, or banks that knowingly market bad loans to investors, portraying them as good. These are fine, upstanding corporate citizens. No need to fear, and DEFINITELY no need to regulate these people. It's those dirty immigrants and minorities, the ones WHO ARE TAKING YOUR JOBS, that we should fear, hate, and legislate against. Because the poor have too much political power right now. Fear them.

 

[JayMysterio]

This is all politicians for the most part. Also, did the repubs in congress accept a payment for their vote?

If you read the article I linked, it has the political donations by the dollar each repub got.

If you are looking for a direct link to mitigate blame and cast all politicians bad in this case. Such as a check that says in the memo section "Hey, thanks looking forward to your support in our crappy evil plans to screw over your constituents. Couldn't have done it without you. Smiley face Wink Wink". Then no, there isn't that. But you know companies don't support & spend thousands of dollars on someone, unless they are expecting something back.

 

[ibookg409]

Lol. Keep passing your speculations off as "facts". MSNBC may just offer you a job.
[doublepost=1490807165][/doublepost]LOL. Keep passing your speculations off as "facts". MSNBC may just offer you a job.

 

[cerote]

Funny if he signs it since he is screaming he was being watched and "wiretapped" yet no issue just plain out selling the data collected from people without their consent.

 

[BeefCake 15]

Apple doesn't have the capacity for 1B users to have a VPN
plus they can't protect people and not get in trouble for other people's problems

The least they can do though is provide the option of HTTPS everywhere or the likes as almost all browsers have done except Safari.

I still haven't seen that option available on Safari yet... @Weaselboy correct me if I'm wrong on this.

 

[macTW]

The title should be changed to a more accurate description of event:

"Privacy concerns loom as congress shows their outdated, ancient stupidity."

 

[ibookg409]

Funny if he signs it since he is screaming he was being watched and "wiretapped" yet no issue just plain out selling the data collected from people without their consent.

Isn't this a very new law that they are repealing? Where was all the concern over this two years ago?

 

[unobtainium]

So are the democrats dude. This isn't a partisan issue. Our government is for sale. The only solution is to pool our resources and buy our politicians back.

Nah. Not a single Democrat voted for this. Don't be blind, dude.

 

[Weaselboy]

I still haven't seen that option available on Safari yet... @Weaselboy correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Nope.. still no option in Safari. Sadly, the EFF extension does not work in Safari either.

 

[Krevnik]

The least they can do though is provide the option of HTTPS everywhere or the likes as almost all browsers have done except Safari.

I still haven't seen that option available on Safari yet... @Weaselboy correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Not good enough, because the routing information of what IP address it goes to is outside of the HTTPS wrapper. So they still get full metadata on what sites you visit (reverse DNS lookup on the IP address, profit). Just like you can glean a lot by tracking a person in meatspace and seeing what buildings they visit, just knowing the IP address of sites gives you a very similar look into their behaviors and habits.

As a crude example, it's the fact that someone visited a brothel / escort that is damaging. It doesn't matter if all they did was talk for 30 minutes. HTTPS does nothing to shield you from the former, only the latter.

 

[Lord Hamsa]

If you are a Republican please explain your reasoning behind supporting this type of repeal.

The Republican position on this one - right or wrong - is that the FCC already has an internet privacy policy, and that to create a set of laws that vary based on where in the "food chain" you are creates a situation where some animals are more equal than others, so to speak. The thinking is that it makes no sense to have, say, Apple, Microsoft, and Google play by one set of rules while AT&T and Comcast have to play by a different set.

Again, I'll point out that it's certainly an argument that reasonable people can disagree with, but just because you disagree with it, that doesn't make the Republicans automatically wrong, evil, corrupt, whatever. It's a sad state we've reached in public discourse where differences on policy are treated as moral failings on the other side.

 

[whyamihere]

1) Since I already pay my ISP to utilize their service, I fully expect they will be discounting my service now that they will be double-dipping on my usage by selling my data to the highest bidder. I'll be sure to hold my breath on that...
2) We should all be calling our reps who voted for this and letting them know we will be purchasing their entire browsing data from their ISP to do with as we see fit.

Laws like this prove just how corrupt and/or inept our elected officials are.

 

[5105973]

.

This is sickening. Many people have no choice in their internet providers, so if a provider decides to sell their browsing data, people either have to go without an essential utility (internet) or accept that their data will be sold.

Hmm...can we be traced if instead of browsers per se, we access the web content via apps? I'm not technically savvy enough to know the answer to that so I'll leave that for more learned minds here to explain.

A lot of news that I read now is via some app or another rather than straight through a browser.

My big concern is my health information. As a mom with a kid on a sports team, I have to look up stuff like ticks and bed bugs and head lice so we can identify and avoid them when we travel. I don't want to be followed around for the rest of my life with pest control ads. Jeepers. It's bad enough all the cancer ads I was getting after getting early intervention surgery last year and researching my condition. At least that died out after I adjusted my browser settings and Google Account settings. My isp's access to this stuff is not something that can be easily peered into and controlled by the user.

 

[brendu]

Nah. Not a single Democrat voted for this. Don't be blind, dude.

Dude, my comment was pointing out that democrats are bought and paid for too. Not that they supported this.

 

[Swift]

Sickening. Net neutrality is next up on the chopping block, I hear. Our government: of big business, by big business and for big business. Screw the people.

And yet they call it "populism." Zombie populism.

 

[brendu]

1) Since I already pay my ISP to utilize their service, I fully expect they will be discounting my service now that they will be double-dipping on my usage by selling my data to the highest bidder. I'll be sure to hold my breath on that...
2) We should all be calling our reps who voted for this and letting them know we will be purchasing their entire browsing data from their ISP to do with as we see fit.

Laws like this prove just how corrupt and/or inept our elected officials are.

No. We should be calling our representatives and letting them know that because of their blatant ignoring of the interests of their constituents we will be doing everything in our power to vote in their competitor next election. People need to remember things like this for more than a month and follow through with punishing bad congressmen and women by voting them out and making it known why.

 

[ibookg409]

source where any politician was paid for their vote but it still happens. old mich sure said he was when he said he would not vote fora judge because the NRA would nutlike it.

LOL. Call 9-1-1. I think you're having a stroke.

 

[5105973]

The Republican position on this one - right or wrong - is that the FCC already has an internet privacy policy, and that to create a set of laws that vary based on where in the "food chain" you are creates a situation where some animals are more equal than others, so to speak. The thinking is that it makes no sense to have, say, Apple, Microsoft, and Google play by one set of rules while AT&T and Comcast have to play by a different set.

Again, I'll point out that it's certainly an argument that reasonable people can disagree with, but just because you disagree with it, that doesn't make the Republicans automatically wrong, evil, corrupt, whatever. It's a sad state we've reached in public discourse where differences on policy are treated as moral failings on the other side.

Thanks for explaining a reasonable take on that.

I'm not at all happy with all of this anyway and even as a former Republican I do not trust their intentions at this point. I don't know if they're all corrupt so much as ignorant of the potential consequences of just don't care as long as it seems to promote their determination to shrink government and damn the consequences to their constituents.

Either way, under the Democrats the American people were hurting due to the negative effects of globalization being swept under the rug for too long. The Democratic Party campaign did not adequately address that to the people and so too many of them voted for Trump. Also, the Clinton's name has been associated time and time again with big money interests that hurt the country before and people were understandably afraid of it happening again.

The problem is, the Republicans, while selling a somewhat appealing idea of smaller government, are executing the principle in ways that also have consequences that will hurt the American people's interests. Whether it's health care or net privacy or net neutrality, it seems it's big business that will win the day.

The deck is stacked in favor of "big money" no matter which side the people turn for refuge. I do think the Democrats had some candidates like Martin O'Malley who at least demonstrated some understanding of the importance and significance of net neutrality and privacy. (As a bit of a tech geek himself, I think Obama did have some grasp of it as well, despite some things that took place under his administration).

I didn't quite see that understanding on the Republican side this time. But then they were so busy arguing about wives and hand sizes that I might have missed it.

 

[MrGuder]

I read an article that there is a Kickstarter to get enough money to buy all the website data history of those in congress who want this passed that will be interesting lol I wonder if they will change there mind if all there personal data is given to the public.

 

[scapegoat81]

3 words. Virtual Private Network.

I currently use Private Internet Access w/ zero issues. Looks like I'll be renewing my subscription later this year

 

[Gasu E.]

You mean the protections that this blocks? The ones that never went into effect? This ruling passes the responsibility back to the FTC.

I think you are confusing this action by Congress with one a few weeks ago by the FCC. This article explains that, but read to the end-- this passing of the buck by the FCC to the FTC may be toothless, due to previous court decisions that limit what the FTC can do.

 

[EdT]

The Republican position on this one - right or wrong - is that the FCC already has an internet privacy policy, and that to create a set of laws that vary based on where in the "food chain" you are creates a situation where some animals are more equal than others, so to speak. The thinking is that it makes no sense to have, say, Apple, Microsoft, and Google play by one set of rules while AT&T and Comcast have to play by a different set.

Again, I'll point out that it's certainly an argument that reasonable people can disagree with, but just because you disagree with it, that doesn't make the Republicans automatically wrong, evil, corrupt, whatever. It's a sad state we've reached in public discourse where differences on policy are treated as moral failings on the other side.

The problem with your statement is that it implies that some form of privacy rule is already in place. Many reputable sites agree that a consequence of this decision is that ISP's can data mine and sell your browsing habits, and other than changing to a different ISP-which I can't, there's a grand total of one in my area- your options are a VPN at an additional cost and THEY could also decide to data mine, or a TOR browser, which might get you on some government list you would rather not be on because you are a potential hacker or pirate.

So my questions to you are:

1. Do you think ISP' should have this ability?
2. If data is used against someone, what recourse do you think an average person is going to have when facing a multi million or even multi billion dollar company?
3. Are you ok with corporations spending money on politicians to influence how they vote? Do you believe that even if those corporations do spend that money that it doesn't affect how a politician votes?

 

[Apple_Robert]

Welp, guess it's time to really start researching a good VPN. Any recommendations?

Private Internet Access is very good and very affordable, in my opinion.
[doublepost=1490816911][/doublepost]

.

Hmm...can we be traced if instead of browsers per se, we access the web content via apps? I'm not technically savvy enough to know the answer to that so I'll leave that for more learned minds here to explain.

A lot of news that I read now is via some app or another rather than straight through a browser.

My big concern is my health information. As a mom with a kid on a sports team, I have to look up stuff like ticks and bed bugs and head lice so we can identify and avoid them when we travel. I don't want to be followed around for the rest of my life with pest control ads. Jeepers. It's bad enough all the cancer ads I was getting after getting early intervention surgery last year and researching my condition. At least that died out after I adjusted my browser settings and Google Account settings. My isp's access to this stuff is not something that can be easily peered into and controlled by the user.

You can be still be tracked through apps, unless the apps you use are end to end encrypted. I suggest you get a VPN for your iPhone GM.

 

[EdT]

Private Internet Access is very good and very affordable, in my opinion.

What effect does a VPN have upon speed? I'm not terribly fast anyway- 15mb download, 512 kb upload, and I have no other choice for ISP unless I go to satellite, and those have data caps and the same really bad upload speed.

 

[Apple_Robert]

What effect does a VPN have upon speed? I'm not terribly fast anyway- 15mb download, 512 kb upload, and I have no other choice for ISP unless I go to satellite, and those have data caps and the same really bad upload speed.

It depends on how much current load is on the particular VPN server you are on, how far away you are from the server, as well as your personal router / gateway.

Generally speaking, if you have a good VPN service and you aren't having any problems with your current home set up etc. expect to see 10 - 15% (at the most) decrease in overall speed.