Congress just killed Internet privacy protections

[pcgeek11]

I do not agree with this either. Correct me if I am wrong, but the protections were never in effect to begin with IAW the article linked.

" The rules, which had not yet gone into effect, would have required Internet service providers to get your permission before collecting and sharing your data. The providers have data on your web browsing history, app usage and geo-location. "

 

[ch33zw1z]

Iirc, that was a new FCC thing last fall, set to go into effect late this year.

Not sure what your point is, other than ISP'S having been making shitloads of money off us on both sides for longer than most realize.

The FCC ruling was a step in the right direction to protect users privacy.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

wait.. the co-sponsor of the bill abstained from voting?!
wtfWHY?

Because *they're all the bad guys*.

 

[brandonbull]

Good thing there are not more important issues to address than this FCC ruling.

 

[fskimospy]

I do not agree with this either. Correct me if I am wrong, but the protections were never in effect to begin with IAW the article linked.

The regulation had been passed (after conservatives and ISPs furiously fought it) and was scheduled to go into effect but Republicans in Congress used the Congressional Review Act to kill them because they hadn't been on the books long enough.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Good thing there are not more important issues to address than this FCC ruling.

We can work on more than one thing at a time, and honestly I'd say the privacy and profitability of US citizens on the most advanced, ubiquitous information and communication medium in history is a pretty solid issue.

 

[momeNt]

Here's an interesting thought. Perhaps it is too much three dimensional chess for even the best and brightest of Washington DC though.

• Google and Facebook are already doing this.
• Telecoms wanted in
• Democrats knowing this was going to get done, and knowing they were losing power, decide to pass regulations they otherwise would never have passed, dems can't afford to lose telecom support.
• Republicans come in, nix regulations that were never going to pass except in the above instance, and look terribly bad in the process.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Here's an interesting thought. Perhaps it is too much three dimensional chess for even the best and brightest of Washington DC though.

• Google and Facebook are already doing this.
• Telecoms wanted in
• Democrats knowing this was going to get done, and knowing they were losing power, decide to pass regulations they otherwise would never have passed, dems can't afford to lose telecom support.
• Republicans come in, nix regulations that were never going to pass except in the above instance, and look terribly bad in the process.

This might be too conspiracy-theorey. In all likelyhood, dems passed it originally for +voter points, repubs ditched it because +moneys. Don't really have to dig deeper than that imo.

 

[momeNt]

This might be too conspiracy-theorey. In all likelyhood, dems passed it originally for +voter points, repubs ditched it because +moneys. Don't really have to dig deeper than that imo.

Telecoms don't back democrats? I really don't know, I have not looked up campaign contributions by these telecoms.

 

[fskimospy]

Here's an interesting thought. Perhaps it is too much three dimensional chess for even the best and brightest of Washington DC though.

• Google and Facebook are already doing this.
• Telecoms wanted in
• Democrats knowing this was going to get done, and knowing they were losing power, decide to pass regulations they otherwise would never have passed, dems can't afford to lose telecom support.
• Republicans come in, nix regulations that were never going to pass except in the above instance, and look terribly bad in the process.

You're saying the FCC chair passed internet privacy regulations that didn't get much news coverage in order to improve Democratic electoral prospects? That seems unlikely as while telecoms contribute to both parties as most megacorporations do they favor Republicans.

 

[momeNt]

You're saying the FCC chair passed internet privacy regulations that didn't get much news coverage in order to improve Democratic electoral prospects? That seems unlikely as while telecoms contribute to both parties as most megacorporations do they favor Republicans.

Then maybe they should hire me as a strategist. I'm sure there are plenty of lame duck opportunities that can really sway public opinion.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Telecoms don't back democrats? I really don't know, I have not looked up campaign contributions by these telecoms.

It's a cost-risk analysis. I'm sure everyone gets bribed/attempted bribes, but the democrat's primary constituents care about things like privacy more than republican's constituents (generally), so the value of the popular opinion is worth more than the raw cash. This would normally be true for Republicans as well if they were leading up to an election (the votes must flow) but now that they won? Might as well ditch it and pocket a few million where they can.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Then maybe they should hire me as a strategist. I'm sure there are plenty of lame duck opportunities that can really sway public opinion.

Most public opinion opportunities *are* lame duck. See: bathroom signage, abortion laws, war on x

 

[fskimospy]

Then maybe they should hire me as a strategist. I'm sure there are plenty of lame duck opportunities that can really sway public opinion.

Yeah but regulations often take many many months or years to get into the register. It's not like the Democrats lost and then decided to publish a new regulation, (it was passed before the election), it's based on work that had been going on since 2012 and the rulemaking process appears to have started in early 2015.

 

[brandonbull]

We can work on more than one thing at a time, and honestly I'd say the privacy and profitability of US citizens on the most advanced, ubiquitous information and communication medium in history is a pretty solid issue.

Other things to address than repealing consumer protections. Multitask on other items. Maybe try removing the muslim indoctrination program that is being funded by the department of education.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Other things to address than repealing consumer protections. Multitask on other items. Maybe try removing the muslim indoctrination program that is being funded by the department of education.

I'm sorry, citation for your allegation that there's a conspiratorial DoE program in place to indoctrinate American youths into Islam?

 

[brandonbull]

I'm sorry, citation for your allegation that there's a conspiratorial DoE program in place to indoctrinate American youths into Islam?

Google Access Islam Department of Education. You can decide if any of the links are valid or alt facts. I hate posting links because someone always discredits the source chosen.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Google Access Islam Department of Education. You can decide if any of the links are valid or alt facts. I hate posting links because someone always discredits the source chosen.

There might be a reason for that. If your information is coming from unreliable or extremely biased sources, then the information is not to be trusted in its presented state. And your post essentially just said 'Look it up man, it's on the internet', so no.

Post links from credible sources, or don't divert the topic with FUD.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Here's an interesting thought. Perhaps it is too much three dimensional chess for even the best and brightest of Washington DC though.

• Google and Facebook are already doing this.
• Telecoms wanted in
• Democrats knowing this was going to get done, and knowing they were losing power, decide to pass regulations they otherwise would never have passed, dems can't afford to lose telecom support.
• Republicans come in, nix regulations that were never going to pass except in the above instance, and look terribly bad in the process.

1. Google and Facebook are services that are NOT necessary for a network connection.

2. Telecoms already had the "in". Yet the difference still remains that I can't opt out of an Internet connection and still keep up with things, unlike Google or facebook.

3. Republicans do a great job looking bad without Democrat assistance.

 

[HomerJS]

Here's an interesting thought. Perhaps it is too much three dimensional chess for even the best and brightest of Washington DC though.

• Google and Facebook are already doing this.
• Telecoms wanted in
• Democrats knowing this was going to get done, and knowing they were losing power, decide to pass regulations they otherwise would never have passed, dems can't afford to lose telecom support.
• Republicans come in, nix regulations that were never going to pass except in the above instance, and look terribly bad in the process.

Flaws in #1,2

Google and Facebook are apps people can easily move away from. Changing ISPs is way more problematic.

Flaw in #4. Presume Republicans will act like assholes against the interests of people....ooops

 

[chubbyfatazn]

https://searchinternethistory.com/

Heh.

 

[DarthKyrie]

I think I figured out what brandonbull is going on about. He's pissed we use Arabic numerals instead of Roman numerals, and we all know how hard algebra is, which is also Arabic in origin.

 

[bob4432]

Trumptards are probably wooing this on.

I have been on a few right leaning forums and I can assure you that they are not happy at all about this. Nobody should be happy about this.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I can see young people from both sides upset over this.

Trump won the 60+ crowd, IIRC, try talking to one of them about it lol...

 

[shortylickens]

I cant find the one democrat who voted for this.
https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/58786?s=party#.WN5M2TvytjE
I can find 3 who did not vote at all, but thats it.

https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/58773?s=party#.WN5NLTvytjE