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

[MrGuder]

Here is the article I saw earlier today with a go fund link.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/29/technology/internet-privacy-outrage/index.html

https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData

 

[Peel]

What's the best way to go about setting up a whole house VPN? I've got one on my Mac, iPhone and iPad, but my Apple TV, PlayStation, and various internet connected devices are exposed. I'm vaguely aware of the DD-WRT firmware project, but I love my Airport Extreme. Would I go ISP Modem -> DD-WRT capable router -> Airport -> devices?
What DD-WRT capable router would you recommend?
Or is this too convoluted, and there's a better approach to this without DD-WRT?

 

[wmealer]

In a nutshell, the conservatives' argument in favor of the repeal is that the FTC already has jurisdiction with regard to Internet Privacy. Giving another government agency (FCC) redundant jurisdiction over such, is another instance of "Big Government overreach." Also, the FCC already has some authority to enforce privacy obligations of broadband service providers on a case-by-case basis.

Since the repealed law was only in effect for a few months, this was an easy piece of low-hanging fruit for conservatives to follow thru on cutting regulations.

 

[Apple_Robert]

What's the best way to go about setting up a whole house VPN? I've got one on my Mac, iPhone and iPad, but my Apple TV, PlayStation, and various internet connected devices are exposed. I'm vaguely aware of the DD-WRT firmware project, but I love my Airport Extreme. Would I go ISP Modem -> DD-WRT capable router -> Airport -> devices?
What DD-WRT capable router would you recommend?
Or is this too convoluted, and there's a better approach to this without DD-WRT?

This is a good DD-WRT Router. It is easy to flash.

 

[mozumder]

Again a generalization.

Right. That's how science and demographics work - through generalizations. Statistics means that I only need to sample a small subset of the population to understand the full population.

When scientists found a higher fear component in conservatives brain, do you think they dissected every conservative?

I don't understand people that don't understand how science works.

 

[dogslobber]

Can we get to see the web history, etc, of all republicans who voted for this? It's out right now.

 

[iapplelove]

Damn I'm going to have to set up a VPN now at the house too. This sucks. Millions of Americans don't even know what a VPN is or does. So I imagine someone is going to make $$$$ selling all this info.

How greedy can people be.

 

[bopajuice]

Funny

What a ridiculous assumption (bolded statement). I'd challenge you to select any national political figure you voted for and review their policy stances and voting record. I will bet you will find that you do not support every single thing they do. Since this country has a largely binary voting process we all need to select the candidate that best aligns with our belief and make our vote; we may still disagree with specific actions they take.

I was not commenting to compare how your favorite politician voted compared to mine. Whenever I read a comment bringing up something so and so did in the past to prove a point, it drives me crazy.

I am specifically talking about the title of this thread...

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

There was a policy in place set to go into effect protecting our private data. The current Congress is repealing the measure to allow internet providers to collect and sell our private information. I am not talking about other providers, how other politicians voted, who is right or wrong, or why it's ok for one person to do it so its must be ok for the other. None of that.

My question was how do Republicans feel about having their party vote to expose and sell their private information to other corporations. Is this the type of thing a Republican supports?

If your argument is to compare what others have done in the past, don't bother to respond. We have heard it all before. Both parties screw each other when they have the power. No big secret. But as a citizen I am curious to know why a Republican would support something like this.

 

[Peace]

Keep making claims you can't source. It's very entertaining.

Are you for this bill or against it ?

Do you approve of it or disapprove ?

Simple answer will do fine.

 

[brendu]

Right. That's how science and demographics work - through generalizations. Statistics means that I only need to sample a small subset of the population to understand the full population.

When scientists found a higher fear component in conservatives brain, do you think they dissected every conservative?

I don't understand people that don't understand how science works.

I don't understand people who insist on making ridiculous claims that try to belittle other people so they can feel better about themselves.

 

[AlliFlowers]

They are so bent on undoing anything Obama did, they don't pause to see how it affects the people.

 

[edk99]

You guys are getting all up in arms about NOTHING. The rules have not been implemented yet . ISP will do no different tomorrow then they are already doing today.

All that is happening when the president signs the new FCC rules this one will not be implemented. It was set to go into effect in December of THIS year. So nothing is changing.
[doublepost=1490829112][/doublepost]

They are so bent on undoing anything Obama did, they don't pause to see how it affects the people.

Undoing a rule that has not gone into effect yet will have not have an affect on anyone.

 

[Apple_Robert]

If people want to be mad, be mad at the hacks who wrote and supported the rule, that was slated to go into effect in December. That is the rule that was putting privacy at risk, not the Republicans, who voted 'Nay" to stop it from being implemented in December.
[doublepost=1490829696][/doublepost]MacRumors writers: A rule is not the same thing as a law. Whoever wrote the article, @Mitchel Broussard is either all kinds of confused or heavily partisan. Either way, somebody didn't have a clue what he or she was talking about. And because of that, you have gotten a lot of people upset here for the wrong reason(s).

In my opinion, MacRumors should apologize for making such a mess of something so simple.

 

[Peace]

If people want to be mad, be mad at the hacks who wrote and supported the rule, that was slated to go into effect in December. That is the rule that was putting privacy at risk, not the Republicans, who voted 'Nay" to stop it from being implemented in December.
[doublepost=1490829696][/doublepost]MacRumors writers: A rule is not the same thing as a law. Whoever wrote the article, @Mitchel Broussard is either all kinds of confused or heavily partisan. Either way, somebody didn't have a clue what he or she was talking about. And because of that, you have gotten a lot of people upset here for the wrong reason(s).

In my opinion, MacRumors should apologize for making such a mess of something so simple.

Link the one that was to go into effect in December please.

 

[edk99]

Link the one that was to go into effect in December please.

https://arstechnica.com/information...n-sell-your-web-history-and-how-to-stop-them/

The US Senate yesterday voted to eliminate privacy rules that would have forced ISPs to get your consent before selling Web browsing history and app usage history to advertisers. Within a week, the House of Representatives could follow suit, and the rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission last year would be eliminated by Congress.

So what has changed for Internet users? In one sense, nothing changed this week, because the requirement to obtain customer consent before sharing or selling data is not scheduled to take effect until at least December 4, 2017. ISPs didn’t have to follow the rules yesterday or the day before, and they won’t ever have to follow them if the rules are eliminated.

http://privacylaw.proskauer.com/201...comply-with-the-fccs-broadband-privacy-rules/

Notice Requirements and Opt-In/Opt-Out Consent

The rules regarding notice and consent may be effective as early as December 2, 2017. The notice rules require ISPs to provide notice regarding an ISP’s privacy practices when a customer signs up for the service and whenever there is a material change to such practices. The notice must specify (1) the types of customer PI that the ISP collects and how it is used; (2) the circumstances under which the ISP discloses such information; (3) the types of entities to whom the ISP discloses customer PI; and (4) a description of customers’ approval rights. Information regarding the ISP’s privacy practices must also be made available on the ISP’s website or mobile application.

In addition to providing notice to customers regarding data collection and use, opt-in or opt-out consent is also required for most uses of customer PI. Opt-in consent is required for the use and sharing of sensitive customer proprietary information (as defined above). Opt-out consent is required for the use and sharing of non-sensitive data. Despite the foregoing, consent is not required to use or share customer PI in the following circumstances: (1) to provide and market services in connection with the broadband service; (2) to initiate, render, bill and collect for the service; and (3) to protect the ISP and its customers from fraudulent use of the provider’s network. Further, de-identified information falls out of the scope of the consent requirement provided that the ISP (a) de-identifies the data, (b) publicly commits to maintain and use the data in an unidentifiable format and not attempt to re-identify data; and (c) contractually prohibits the re-identification of shared information.

 

[LizKat]

Can we get to see the web history, etc, of all republicans who voted for this? It's out right now.

My Congressman is one of 15 Republicans who actually voted NO on the thing. Of course he may have one eye on how purple his district was in 2016, and the other on the fact that his seat is already announced as one that will be targeted by the Dems at the midterm.

Nonetheless it's nice to know that at least a few of the GOP went on record that consumers should have to opt-in to getting their personal data sold out from under them by their service providers. otoh probably that list and the Dem's top 15 targets for 2018 are a perfect match.

 

[chiefsilverback]

Why would they want to know my favoirite porn sites?

So the puritans can hunt you down and stone you for your impure thoughts!
[doublepost=1490837926][/doublepost]

Whatever. Personally I think the majority of people who are upset about this are worried that their PORN BROWSER HISTORY will be leaked.

Just read an article that says a hospital in Silicon Valley is telling patients not to google their diagnosis without using a VPN or privacy service. What stops your ISP selling that info to an insurance company...

 

[blackfox]

not sure if posted, but the creator of cards-against-humanity has pledged to buy all Congress members web-history and publish it.
http://www.trueactivist.com/cards-a...y-and-publish-congresss-internet-history/(the best link I could find)

 

[ibookg409]

not sure if posted, but the creator of cards-against-humanity has pledged to buy all Congress members web-history and publish it.
http://www.trueactivist.com/cards-a...y-and-publish-congresss-internet-history/(the best link I could find)

I'll support that.

 

[blackfox]

I'll support that.

Hell. We agree. Nice. While I sit (mostly) on the other side of the aisle...I respect traditional Conservatism - but the bastardization of that makes me angry.The GOP now is a goddamn train-wreck. Perhaps something like this will give them a wake-up call.

 

[ibookg409]

Hell. We agree. Nice. While I sit (mostly) on the other side of the aisle...I respect traditional Conservatism - but the bastardization of that makes me angry.The GOP now is a goddamn train-wreck. Perhaps something like this will give them a wake-up call.

The dems and repubs are train wrecks. We all skewer (and rightly so) the opposition but we defend our own party. The Ds and the Rs are ****ing us hard core. Each one is very awful.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

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

After all you voted these guys into office, so I assume you support a lack of privacy and the sale of your private information?

Funny


I was not commenting to compare how your favorite politician voted compared to mine. Whenever I read a comment bringing up something so and so did in the past to prove a point, it drives me crazy.

I am specifically talking about the title of this thread...

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

There was a policy in place set to go into effect protecting our private data. The current Congress is repealing the measure to allow internet providers to collect and sell our private information. I am not talking about other providers, how other politicians voted, who is right or wrong, or why it's ok for one person to do it so its must be ok for the other. None of that.

My question was how do Republicans feel about having their party vote to expose and sell their private information to other corporations. Is this the type of thing a Republican supports?

If your argument is to compare what others have done in the past, don't bother to respond. We have heard it all before. Both parties screw each other when they have the power. No big secret. But as a citizen I am curious to know why a Republican would support something like this.

"After all you voted these guys into office, so I assume you support a lack of privacy and the sale of your private information?"

Perhaps you didn't communicate your point well then since you've used the word assume and tie people who voted republican to support of privacy and the sale of private information. My point in response is that anyone can vote for a candidate or even support a party in general without agreeing with everything that candidate or party says or does. I then challenged you back that I expect your experience to be the same. I am generally right of center and have often voted republican (although I did not vote for Trump), I don't support this action. It's ridiculous to think that the voting populous is in lock step with the candidates they elect.

As to why some republicans would support this measure, I spoke to it elsewhere in this thread but the republican party generally believes in limited government, free market solutions, and a laissez faire approach business. For example, I think treating the internet as a public utility is a dual edged sword as it then opens the internet to potentially burdensome regulation that could stifle innovation but then we have situations such as this where modern life has made use of the internet - in some cases for purposes that many would consider very sensitive such as finances, health, and sexuality - and a need to protect individuals' privacy. There are legitimate questions to be asked and room for debate. In this case I'm firmly on the side of protecting our privacy at the most basic level of our connectivity but when it comes to net neutrality I'm torn. I think it's an abuse of the system for ISPs to charge say Netflix to provide full bandwidth to their networks. I've subscribed for a particular bandwidth and service level, I'm paying for my ISP's network and if I want to use that bandwidth to its fullest for any reason they should have to provide it, without extorting fees from (potentially competing) services. On the other hand, if core networks approach saturation and I want to pay for low latency high bandwidth connectivity I think that's something I should be able to do. If I have a service that demands extreme reliability and low latency for real time processing of large volumes of data but I'm hamstrung of not being offered the opportunity for a higher tier with higher QoS because we're not allowed to differentiate between real time communication, Netflix, and email, that's a pretty dismal side effect of net neutrality.

So to answer your question A) your assumption is BS, we're all individuals and entitled to differing opinions regardless of our vote and B) I can see how some people would have legitimate questions about the role of government as opposed to private contracts in regulating telecommunications.

 

[mozumder]

The dems and repubs are train wrecks. We all skewer (and rightly so) the opposition but we defend our own party. The Ds and the Rs are ****ing us hard core. Each one is very awful.

The only people that ever say this are Republicans, because they know their party sucks, so they claim ALL parties suck.

Remember, only the Democrats actually pushed for health care coverage for all Americans... it's as if they were two completely different political parties?!

 

[ibookg409]

The only people that ever say this are Republicans, because they know their party sucks, so they claim ALL parties suck.

Remember, only the Democrats actually pushed for health care coverage for all Americans... it's as if they were two completely different political parties?!

LOL This is funny. It's not health care. It's health CONTROL. you'll see. The SNC also comspired against Bernie to circumvent the will of the people. That's a train wreck that's f***ed up!

 

[riverfreak]

LOL This is funny. It's not health care. It's health CONTROL. you'll see. The SNC also comspired against Bernie to circumvent the will of the people. That's a train wreck that's f***ed up!

You're worried about machinations within a political party? You realize that's the unsavory essence of politics, right?

But at least it keeps attention off of collusion with foreign intelligence agents, self-dealing, nepotism, fake morality, etc