Let's discuss this ISP privacy bill.

Trumpirium · 4時間前

Please note that this does not reflect the position of the mod team as a whole, we each have our own opinions.

Mine being that aside from relegating control from the FCC back to the FTC and restoring the pre-Obama status quo, this is essentially a toothless piece of legislation, which has been the subject of massive amounts of exaggeration and shilling across various subreddits by the same organizations that actively suppressed any discussion about the TPP last year.

Hoffa · 7時間前

I am against anything and anyone that can track and sell my internet browser history.

dilth98 · 6時間前

The free market has a way of working things out. Should the demand for privacy increase to the point that it's economically viable for an ISP to advertise that they don't collect any of your data, it will happen.

There is no economic incentive to do this because there is near zero competition in the ISP space.

ISP is not a free market. Most of them have government granted monopolies on their service area.

90s_camp · 6時間前

You don't have to use google, facebook etc. You have to use your ISP. Big difference.

StirlingG · 6時間前

I think there needs to be a new bill that introduces an all encompassing privacy protection. I don't like ISPs or websites selling my shit, and I don't see any major positives to this.

loopdojo · 6時間前

I see your point about certain entities being able to access your data previously, and that this just enables the ISP to do the same.

However, if I may offer an admittedly not perfect analogy...

I can choose which websites and services to use, like which stores and places I drive my car to.

I cannot choose whether I am driving roads or not, the ISP being the road.

448Ul61VunsU · 6時間前

Imo, it's one thing when amazon targets me by analyzing my purchase history; it's another thing entirely when usps opens my amazon packages then starts sending me ads based on the packages they opened.

Now, if this bill accompanied a deregulation of ISPs, allowing for competition of ISPs that either do or do not analyze traffic, IMO that would be fine.

unfetteredbymemes · 7時間前

It makes me uncomfortable.

But then I remember the NSA scandal, and Vault 7 and I think about going off the grid.

Then I remember there is no T_D off the grid.

fuck.

Southern_deplOregon · 7時間前

slippery slope intensifies

DJ_Trump_2016 · 7時間前

Glad this is being addressed. Thanks mods

TheMadmanDidIt · 6時間前

I had this discussion yesterday with someone- I think we should address the real issue which is the monopolization of ISPs. If we allow the ISPs to sell our data, then it's a choice of the one Internet service provider or having no Internet right now. However, if we are able to encourage the increase of multiple choices in the ISP market, then there are bound to be ISPs that protect vs those that sell. Thus you can pay for service for those ISPs protecting your data.

IvetteAramis · 7時間前

Personally I don't want my information sold, I understand some of it already is but if I can prevent it from happening I would want to keep it that way. It'll up for sale, anyone can buy it and use your browsing history against you.

jdovejr · 6時間前

As a network engineer, I see this from both sides.

First, I believe this is a good way to allow ISP's make targeted ads. It also allows for a customized internet experience. A lot of braindead people want this.

From my rational side, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? VETO THIS SHIT NOW

Ruktov · 7時間前

Thank you for offering both sides of the issue.

trumps_amygdala · 6時間前

How about NO companies have access?

MichiganMaga313 · 5時間前

Don't give me the "free market will fix it" response here when the telecom companies are a giant monopoly and the cost of entry is so high that even Google is having second thoughts on implementing fiber.

And this opt out nonsense? Please. These companies know they have a monopoly and they will not care one way or the other, because if anything happens all they'll receive is a slap on the wrist.

Trump isn't attached to this. This bill is Congressional. This bill is dangerous Neo Con bullshit right here. Let Trump know that you hate this and to veto it.

butka · 6時間前

The difference is Google, Facebook, etc. provide a free product to consumers where the data is to be sold in exchange for the free service.

ISPs are charging for their service, and now they get to sell our data? There's a chance to avoid using facebook and Google. You can't avoid connecting through your ISP, and often times there's only one or two choices for ISPs.

It's not apples to apples and you shouldn't bend over for this shit. Fuck that.

Ukatox · 6時間前

The free market has a way of working it out... guess I'll goto a competing cable company that won't sell my data if Comcast decides to sell my data.. oh wait...

Lpup · 5時間前

This is a gross oversimplification, and I'm sorry a free market only works when there is transparency. What are the many different ways this can be abused?

Say goodbye to the anonymized profile you had. Could you be figured out before based on some of that info? Sure, if one spent enough time. This allows you to go directly to the ISP only say who you wanted to collect specific data on.
Free markets only work when there is transparency. This isn't a free market. It is turning you into a commodity, not opening up a whole new world as a consumer.
Say goodbye to torrents. Entertainment companies that are vertically integrated as monopolies (Comcast) will just scrape the data claiming they bought it from themselves so it's OKAY and sue into oblivion.
With journalism the way it is, do you really want to trust journalists with access to your browser records? Keep in mind, Gawker published the phone numbers and socials of all gun owners in Ney York because... reasons? Imagine A group like ANTIFA being able to get access to your data. Then looking up where you work and tattling to your boss
Oh, don't forget foreign countries now can buy up unanonymized data. Rather than before when someone put a request a certain type of client and received anonymized
Opt-out; but makes it hard to find out how, doesn't have to give you a time window for opting out, or even any consequences if they lie and say it's opted out but 'WHOOPSIE' they made a boo boo and have been secretly selling it and telling you otherwise. That is assuming that they even let you and follow the law. Well at least you can always just change service provid.... oh wait, most can't.
BTW, you thought the NSA and CIA being able to blackmail people based on browsing history was scary? How scary do you think it's gonna get when you can target specific individuals and LEGALLY give any horrible browsing history away.
VPN will save us? Maybe. Keep in mind using a VPN or TOR is probable cause for law enforcement. Even then, most lower to middle class people can't afford another $20 fee on top of their current internet fees while ISPs are looking to cap the amount of data people can use on their network without getting slammed with extra fees. At best this is selling out the voters who voted for Trump. At worse, it's opening the door for no longer allowing middle/lower class internet access through price hiking to optimal cockbag levels, because profit doesn't lie with providing EVERYBODY internet.
What do you think would of happened in the 2016 election if this happened? If you guessed 'everyone who looks at wikileaks or anything wikileaks related becomes an 'enemy of the state' or 'aiding an embedding terror' or worse... then you are correct!

I voted for Trump because I was scared of the Draconian overreach that Hillary had exposed via Wikileaks, not so Trump could sign off on the different kinds of Draconian measures.

DrSultanPhDD · 4時間前

Trump needs to veto this.

Jack_Candle · 6時間前

It's taking us in the wrong direction. We should be limiting the kind of data, not just saying "Hey those apps get more data then I doooo Not fair!" Then say here you go Comcast, Verizon, and other companies that have been known to screw us over all the time. We're going to give you power over us even more.

This is a bad bill. I'm all for the free market but this sort of thing shouldn't be for sell in the market in the first place. We need to worry about whats best for America and quit riding the dick of the premise of whats best for the free market ideology.

xenonsupra · 6時間前

VETO VETO VETO

Fatema_Spanky · 5時間前

ISPs do not operate in a competitive marketplace. They are MONOPOLIES. Thus any argument stating that they should be provided relief a business operating in a free market is invalid.

Second, ISPs have a huge advantage here, hence the reason why they lobbied so hard for it. They capture ALL your web traffic, the whole thing. You simply cannot compare a web site with a telecom giant. There's simply ZERO comparison and blatantly misleading to assume that whatever happens to a fucking website should happen to the ISPs.

The GOP has stated many times that they are against Net Neutrality and are willing to provide the cable lobby a blank fucking check. This, in essence, provides the Democrats the sword to which the GOP will fall upon.

WHY NET NEUTRALITY IS IMPORTANT

Net Neutrality PREVENTS ISPs from discriminating data THEMSELVES. So this myth that Net Neutrality will allow the FCC to "fine websites" is irrelevant because the only fining the FCC would do is against Verizon for throttling Milo Yiannopoulos' website, not websites themselves.

Problem is that the ISP industry is an essential monopoly. You cannot have free market values in a market where no competition can enter. The reason why no new competition can enter is over regulation and bureaucratic red tape at state and federal levels, that I don't see the GOP fixing any time soon, let alone attempt.

If the GOP is really worried about the FCC over-regulating the internet, then they have to pass legislation to that effect, ensuring that ISPs cannot discriminate data packets by law. But if they are unwilling to do so(and they are), then our only method of relief is through the FCC.

The ISP monopolies have a vested interest in preventing any type of competition, to which they have successfully managed due to massive lobbying campaigns. Furthermore, since the cable companies are regional monopolies, then there is ZERO incentive for them to develop and invest in technology and infrastructure. So the GOP argument that ISPs need more profit for infrastructure, is a bullshit argument.

The ISPs won’t reinvest their “protection money” in infrastructure. They already have incredible monopoly profits. Here’s their net income (after-tax profits) from 2016:

AT&T: $16 billion
Verizon: $13 billion
Comcast $8 billion
Charter $8 billion

Net Neutrality is, it is a concept to which Internet Service Providers (ISPs) cannot:

Block content from legal websites
Slow down content from legal websites
Accept money from websites to speed up their content

WHY IT WILL BITE US IN THE ASS

We all know that Shareblue and Reddit are in a mutually beneficial relationship with each other and as a result Reddit has been less of a free speech platform and more of a machine to control and suppress our movement.

Take that concept and apply it toward a macro level.

George Soros, or any large, heavily funded organization could approach ISPs in order to wage war against any blog or website that supports our cause all while the ISPs is giving them priority access to the world wide web. It's a double edge sword, one we will fall upon if Trump does not fire Ajit Pai, a former lawyer for Verizon and current FCC chair. This will happen should Trump allow Pai to destroy Net Neutrality.

Ajit Pai served at the behest of Verizon Communications, a company who donated the MOST of their campaign contributions to HILLARY FUCKING CLINTON

Quincy Larson of Free Code Camp, has written an extensive expose' on how Net Neutrality is the only thing holding free speech together on the web and how the internet is a shining example of free market capitalism.

But somehow... the GOP is fucking themselves in the ass.

ObiMemeKenobi · 6時間前

This is much appreciated

Texas-Centipede · 6時間前

ISPs can't collect and sell my data. But websites and apps can? ISPs claim they are at a disadvantage. OK, so ban everyone from selling personal data. I don't support anyone collecting and selling my data. If your company needs to make money, make it in a different way. Selling out privacy should not be an allowable business model.

OldRuskiNoir · 6時間前

"Opt-in/out"

That will work great! Just like the Do Not Call list has!

Wtf_socialism_really · 6時間前

ISPs and free market don't work together in the U.S. Unless the federal government places regulations on ISP or on the city/state level, no new ISPs can break into the market.

Start up costs are astronomical, and that's assuming the city or state even allows you to do it, because they all make back door deals with the ISPs.

Google has been in battle with the big name ISPs (Comcast, ATT, Verizon) because they made such deals, and they utilized loop holes forcing Google to create entirely new infrastructure.

This has completely stopped the free market -- monopolies and oligopolies are counters to capitalism -- and without first stopping those situations, nothing will happen.

Not every start up has Google's brand or wealth -- in fact, none do. So how does a free market work in this situation? It doesn't.

Additionally, I do not empathize with "ISPs feeling disadvantaged". They get a shitload of my money, they don't get to save and sell my data in the future. I don't want my data to come back and bite me in the ass years later like the left tried to do with the "grab them by the pussy" crap.

I have the options to avoid people who sell my data. I don't have to use Google, I don't use Twitter, I don't use Facebook.

There are no options with ISPs. They ensure that in most cities, in most states. They also don't invest in their infrastructure using all that extra profit, making me emphasize even less. We are so far behind in our infrastructure, and people are brainwashed into thinking that 12Mbps is "high speed internet".

If people want a free market in internet, then there is a paradox. There must be regulations somewhere, be it on city/state governments or the ISPs themselves.

Finally, if the argument truly was that "wahh we are disadvantaged", then they could amend it to stop everyone from selling our data.

But it turns out that people are willing to let their data get shopped around as a commodity, and oh if the government happens to pay for certain data, well there's a loophole for them too. Oh, and if someone has anything against one of my fetishes, who knows! It might come up in some form of background check. Oh, and if I say something stupid, it might get pulled out of context because it's saved and sold.

The arguments in favor of allowing ISPs to sell our data are illogical and do not take into account reality in the market.

Hilariously if this argument worked, we would actually have more ISPs than we do, but instead we have a shining example (Google) of how hard it is to offer actually good speeds and not play by the ISPs' rules.

This push against net neutrality is something I do not approve of and I will be voting against my current representative for voting for this. My data is not a commodity. My data is mine. I can walk around the world without having someone spying on me 24/7, why can't the internet be that way?

XMAGA_1776X · 6時間前

[removed]

51Bootwearer · 6時間前

Against, but I'm against most of what the Republicans do.

It's usually just pandering to the people who pay them the most.

I'm hopeful that Trump will veto the fuck out of this bill.

RightTheirWrongs · 6時間前

Anytime you give a company with no direct competition MORE power, it's not a good thing. Those who obtain power will fight to keep it. When given the tools and the power, they will both be abused.

It's like when comcast started putting data caps on home Internet, because there is only one ISP choice, I HAVE to live with it. So now its data caps and selling my personal info, all while charging me INSANE prices, all thanks to no competition.

To argue, " Well others do it too " is not good enough for me. I am not worried about the poor ol ISP company not getting more of me than some other crummy website I don't believe in. I can choose not to use Facebook and apps, I cannot choose my ISP. Let's do away with rules that allow these monopolies to exist, and maybe when there are numerous options, THEN we can discuss what a free market may or may not do, but right now, we do not have one.

CrossCheckPanda · 6時間前

I think the issue is the monopoly and difficulty of finding a new ISP. If I don't like Googles data collection policy I can use bing or yahoo. If I don't like reddits policy I can use voat or 9 gag or something.

If I don't like time Warners policy I can suck it up and deal or simply not have Internet.

Hillarysdilddo_2016 · 6時間前

You're free to NOT use a particular website.

What are you going to avoid the entire internet now to avoid spying?

Your ISP is not the same as a website.

Wolf3500 · 6時間前

Companies always say they want to collect data for the sake of marketing. I don't care whether that is true or not, if we keep increasing data collection on average people it will lead to an Orwellian world. That is why this data collection needs to regulated or throw out completely as a violation of the forth amendment.

Optimus_Prime3 · 6時間前

I haven't seen where you can opt out of the data collection from your ISP, can you point me to that?

PC4uNme · 3時間前

I am against any form of a violation of our 4th amendment. With that said, I understand that when I use services available, I am at the mercy of their privacy policy, which I like to read. I also understand that if something is free, then I am the product.

I am ok with Facebook doing what it does (it makes sense, but I no longer participate due to not wanting to give too much info about myself to people I will never meet or see) but for some reason I am NOT OK with my ISP selling my information because, to me, internet should be a utility, not a product like Facebook, or an iPhone. I pay for internet access, I don't want to pay AND give up my data. If I am paying, I should get what I pay for and it should be mine. However I also want competition and a degree of choice with regard to the quality and speed of that utility, in exchange for higher costs, of course.

If the internet was free, but the caveat is that your information is sold, then that makes sense, because YOU are the product.

Since I pay for my internet, it should be 100% mine.

Since I do not pay for Facebook, I understand that the service has a cost, and that cost is my information.

Unfortunately, internet access is not seen as a utility, and instead, is seen as a product.

sh2003 · 6時間前

I've read both sides. The difference is - with Netflix/Facebook/Twatter, you can OPT OUT of using those services if you don't want them collecting your data. I've deleted my Facebook for example. You can't just stop using an ISP if it's the only one in your area (COMCAST). If we had more ISP choices that offered privacy protections and offered up some real choices then I'd be ok with it since I had a choice to have a private connection or not.

InvictumAquilae · 6時間前

Personally I don't want anyone to have a right to see or sell data they have collected from me unless they get express permission separate from terms of service.

I'm of the opinion that no one including the government and private companies has the right to gather personal information and that the constitution guarantees that right.

Poinciana_Tree · 4時間前

I think there's a time to toe the party line, and be a good Republican.

I also think there are times to stand up to the leadership and assert what's right with regards to OUR REPUBLIC AS OUR FOUNDERS INTENDED. I believe in a right to privacy, as protected under the 14th Amendment.

If I can't get off of Comcast's e-mail spam list or their affiliates who call me, you think we should trust them not to sell our browsing history after telling them not to? Sorry for my French, but FUCK THAT.

This bill is an abortion. It must get killed in the HOR.

*EDIT - HOR passed it, mostly along party lines. If not for the HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS we'd be totally fucked. Only a few libertarian minded Republcians voted NEA.

You will now have to either (1) GET A VPN if you don't already use one; or (2) SEND AN OPT OUT NOTICE, VIA REGISTERED MAIL, TO YOUR ISP'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND CC YOUR ATTORNEY. Damn. I lean Republican very strongly but this a fucking embarrassment to our party.

trumpple · 6時間前

So if it reverses something that was done 3 weeks before Trump's inauguration then where was the controversy for 8 years?

Goldman_Blackz · 6時間前

Trump please drain the swamp and VETO THIS PIECE OF SHIT. I shouldn't have to opt out to not have my fucking internet history sold to the highest bidder.

deucebolt · 6時間前

V

E

T

O

flingingpoo · 4時間前

The issue I have is you must pay an ISP to access the internet. Sites like Facespace are free and need to generate revenue somehow.

I believe that if you pay for the service, then you should have to opt-in to allow sharing of data collected by the provider. If the service is free then the service should provide an opt-out option.

vpny · 6時間前

Difference is I have a choice to stop using Twitter or Facebook or any other service that collects my data. Ontop of that, they are free services so that's the trade off in this case. I don't have a choice to change ISP when they're all collecting the data AND when I'm PAYING them for the service in question.

jChristopherj · 6時間前

Non-ISPs can only see a small part of the puzzle, whereas ISPs can see everything. ISPs also have a huge fucking monopoly; you can choose not to use Facebook, but you rarely have a choice in who your ISP provider is.

I would be ok with this if you do in fact have the ability to opt out, but it is my understanding that you won't be able to. This is a key point.

If you can't opt out, then there is nothing fueling this other than outright corruption, and in that case I really hope President Trump vetos this.

ZippyTheChicken · 5時間前

shadowman3001 your thoughts on this subject are political not technology based..

I have been on the Net since before the first .com way back into the mid 1980's when I had to Telnet to IBM in armonk ny on a IP Address to read their technology files or to the Library of Congress or to a variety of other Labs on the Internet ... and there wasn't much else out there before >I< and many others built a huge chunk of what you kids today call the internet.

I have over 30 years working with computer networking.. I started before there was TCP/IP available to most people. I HAVE WRITTEN INTERNET PROTOCOL SOFTWARE INCLUDING FTP, HTTP BROWSERS, TELNET AND OTHER SPECIFIC APPS THAT ONLY HAVE ONE USE............

I am not the know all end all person of knowledge about the internet but at one point I was a contributor to the Linux Document Project and that brought me in contact with a lot of people that are much more informed than I am about how the internet works.

I have known people that ran the largest ISPs from Philadelphia PA and across our country to past the Mississippi.

If an ISP collects your data at the port or the router they know everything you do..

IF GOOGLE COLLECTS YOUR DATA THERE ARE WAYS YOU CAN BLOCK THAT.. you can not use google's services.. you can use methods to block 100% of any beacon pixels or other assets that can track you...

YOU CAN NOT BLOCK YOUR ISP FROM TRACKING EVERYTHING YOU DO

It is a completely different animal......

Choosing to use a Company's Service .. VS choosing to use the Internet at all

There is no VPN .. No Anyomizer... No HTTPS ... NO NOTHING THAT CAN STOP THE PEOPLE I KNOW FROM TRACKING EVERY LAST THING YOU DO.

If you use a VPN that VPN has incoming and outgoing traffic

Lets say you are using the vpn to watch a video on PornHub

That VPN has External Routers it connects to..

You click on a video in your browser on pornhub .. the request goes out to your VPN and then your VPN requests the video from PornHub..

The packets are sent back to the VPN and then to your computer....

HA AND YOU THINK YOU ARE ANONYMOUS ... THATS INSANE.....

The easiest way to find out what you are watching is intercept the packets from the video going into the VPN before they are sent through the VPN to your computer..

THEN ALL YOU DO IS MAKE THE VIDEO STUTTER IN A PATTERN

THE ROUTER FEEDING THE VPN HOLDS PACKETS AND YOUR BROWSER DOESN'T EVEN NOTICE BUT THE TRAFFIC COMING OUT OF THE VPN IS THE SAME PATTERN

1 - 5 - 3 - 7 - 8 - 2 - 9 - 2 - 4 GOING IN

1 - 5 - 3 - 7 - 8 - 2 - 9 - 2 - 4 COMING OUT

VPN OR NOT YOU JUST GOT BUSTED

You don't need to worry about encryption or salts or anything .. just measure time.

so you have skips or holding onto packets and the in and out is compared and they know that the video going into the vpn is being sent to the VPN USER ON A COMPUTER IN ALABAMA...

They don't have to hack the VPN Encryption because they insert skips by holding packets in a pattern... thousands of packets .. they put a stutter in them.. maybe not even enough for you to see because your browser buffers video before it plays it...

BUT THE ROUTERS CAN SEE IT...

People don't know enough about the basics of the internet because they don't care to find out about it.. all this information is out there.

Although it is important that companies like Facebook and Google get restricted from distributing our information

It is nothing in comparison to your internet connection being monitored.

NOW WITH THAT SAID...

I am not a fool .. I already know that the Government monitors all of this and they have been doing it since dialup ...

I know they do.. I know an ISP that had the Government come in an put in a system to monitor all traffic...

It was called Carnivore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)

and today they are even better at it.

AND IF YOU THINK USING OPEN INTERNET AT STARBUCKS IS GOING TO PROTECT YOU .... BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

your device is fingerprinted .. Google is about to stop requiring you to login with passwords because they are so good at fingerprinting our devices now that you can just go to gmail and autologin without a password because they know you are using IP 127.127.0.0 located in this GEOIP Area and your browser is Firefox 47 and you have these exact plugins loaded in your browser and you are using this specific operating system that has these features...

This is a bad deal and trump should veto anything that allows ISPs to sell your browsing history

OR EVERYONE THAT VISITS https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ .. is going to be on a DNC Database....

let alone any other personal sites you might visit...

YOU ARE NOT PRIVATE ON THE INTERNET.. YOU CAN NOT HIDE ON THE INTERNET.. THEY CAN AND WILL FIND YOU ... THAT IS THE TRUTH..

If you believe otherwise you are a fool....

but comcast shouldn't be helping the DNC know my political views or if I am shopping at Amazon for a new belt for my clothes washer...

its a bad deal

Trump will get a lot of credit if he vetoes it and a lot of hate from the internet if he allows it.

CovenantX · 6時間前

I think of an ISP much differently than I do an app or a browser. Apps and browsers collect only a fraction of my data and I can choose not to use our disable permissions. The ISP, however, sees all and knows all from browsing to apps because it can collect base level data. We are already surveilled by the government enough why should an ISP, to which I pay for money to, further monetize my life?

jiujiujiu · 6時間前

I'd prefer no company be able to sell my internet usage history or even keep tabs on that history in any way. If it is part of their terms of use for their service then make it obvious so I can opt-out of using their service. YOU KNOW WHEN YOU RUN FOR OFFICE IN THE FUTURE FUCKERBERG WILL PULL UP ALL THE SHIT YOU'VE EVER TYPED INTO THE INTERNET AND SPREAD IT FAR AND WIDE FOR ALL TO SEE. Privacy is paramount.

6j546h54654 · 6時間前

In my humble opinion, the government shouldn't allow some companies access to your data, while restricting other companies access to that same data.

apples and oranges, you don't have to go through those data collectors, you do have to go through the isp

Gdott · 6時間前

Not happy. We should shut it down.

IrritatedSquirrel · 5時間前

Can we please have more posts like this? This is fucking great info. Presented both sides and gave his opinion.

YouDontSeeMe420 · 4時間前

Is there any way we can get god emperor and his advisers to veto this? this is a brutal anti-privacy bill.

i guess this'll be a test to see if he is a real populist after all.

ShiveShivu · 4時間前

OP, you support the bill to let all private information be gathered perfectly by ISPs, because other companies already get a little bit of information. This is a crawl-argument. "They did it, so I can do it too".

This is morally Wrong. It's not a good argument.

You also state that the government shouldn't play favorites, well this bill does that. An ISP can make a search engine if they want, they can make websites to track information too. They were never stopped from doing that.

How wrong or how good data-collection in general by other means is a different topic, but this way is brain dead. It surprises me, truly, that this is even a discussion.

No one in this debate stand to gain anything from this - only lose. This is a lose-situation for million and millions of people, but it helps out 5 companies, who doesn't need it. It's foolish beyond belief. Obvious no to this bill.

Changing this to an Opt-Out is also absolutely ridiculous.

You are literally giving up your privacy for no gain. You just...give it up. And you're giving it up on behalf of others as well.

terribletweets · 4時間前

OP, please post your full name, address, date of birth, place of birth, and log of your browsing history.

1245789012457890 · 3時間前

The problem is that I can choose to avoid Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.

I cannot choose my ISP. It's a completely noncompetitive market, and you cannot deregulate noncompetitive markets.

LtPatterson · 3時間前

Data Management Marketer here - this bill will make your ISP specific data unavailable to 3rd parties on an opt-out basis compared to the current opt-in basis. Whether or not you'd have to opt-out in the future is dependent on an ISP case by case basis. But I would say most, if not all, would sell this data, so you should immediately opt-out. Unlike facebook, google, etc, who allow opt out if you delete your account only in some cases - ISPs would still deliver you service without selling your data. That is a big difference here. I am not in favor of this bill because of it. There should either be a blanket regulation on privacy, or we will have many more bills like this for each specific service.

Generally speaking, opt-in data is that which you don't normally know is even being collected unless you read the fine print when you signed up. Opt-out data is that which you can get out of, but may not be aware you were opted into in the first place when you created an account. This thereby leaves the vast majority opted-in because they are unaware of how to opt-out, and it can be hard to get out.

Overall, the law as it stands limits your exposure to ISPs to allow data mining of their pool of data from 3rd parties from obtaining your (anonymized) data.

The law as proposed would require you to find methods of opting out of ISP sales of your data, or going with a provider who does not sell their subscriber data (oh wait, you can't because most markets have one to choose from because the industry is now pretty much locally monopolized. Also, good luck finding one ISP who wouldn't sell this data - it isn't like they are the worst service industry in America or anything.

Since this industry sucks so bad, I am very much against this bill. Net neutrality is already dead, this bill just turns it into a zombie of sorts.

Also: mods sticky this OP plz!

qaaqa · 3時間前

That is not the bill. This is the bill.

President Trump should veto this to protect us, his voters, from the swamp.

This joint resolution nullifies the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission entitled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services." The rule published on December 2, 2016: (1) applies the customer privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet access service and other telecommunications services, (2) requires telecommunications carriers to inform customers about rights to opt in or opt out of the use or the sharing of their confidential information, (3) adopts data security and breach notification requirements, (4) prohibits broadband service offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights, and (5) requires disclosures and affirmative consent when a broadband provider offers customers financial incentives in exchange for the provider's right to use a customer's confidential information.

So signing this would REMOVE your privacy.

Every specific search you made on politics, jobs searches, diseases, yes porn, and more could be individually sold to anyone who pays. Anyone.

And as we all know even if "anonymized"... which there is no requirement for.. people can still traces specifics to you personally.

bleedgr33n · 3時間前

There is a prime difference here. We pay ISPs (way too much) for our internet access. That Gmail account you have? Google maps usage? All free. Free because Google is using the data you provide with your usage.

Let's see a show of hands who believes the cost of broadband access is going to drop due to the increased influx of money to ISPs now.

Asscroft · 6時間前

How much would Clinton/Soros pay to have Comcast dox all the people who frequent this sub?

DJT4PRZ · 4時間前

"That means that information generated from looking up the latest Cardinals score or checking the weather in Scottsdale is treated the same as personal health and financial data."

Whoever said this doesn't understand how little data it takes to uniquely identify a person, that person's political affiliation, etc.

The 4th Amendment gives a right to privacy in "papers". Today that would include web searches.

And we don't need this shit to do counter-terrorism. Control immigration from places where there's widespread hatred of our way of life, use regular old policework and warrants, and you won't have a problem.

SilverShibe · 4時間前

This is a ridiculous post. If I use an app, I expect them to know how I use it. If I get online and buy a 3' vibrating dildo, I expect the company I bought it from to know I bought it. I wouldn't be surprised to get junk mail about giant dildo sales in the future. I don't expect the electric company to know every time I plug it in, then start sending me dildo ads in my electric bill, just as I don't want my ISP to have any idea what websites I visit.

seandidnothingwrong · 4時間前

/u/shadowman3001 stop pretending that ISPs work in a free market.

GasDoves · 3時間前

You say the free market has a way of working things out. In what way do we have a free market regarding ISPs?

imfineny · 3時間前

All this concern about privacy and yet no one seems concerned about the government who has done this are a far greater and malevolent scale.

Varrick2016 · 2時間前

If POTUS were to Veto this bill then HE HIMSELF could make this an issue and explain to the American people why this is a problem and demand Congress send him a better bill. Right now the general public isn't understanding this and until now even I didn't read the finer points listed here.

If President Trump were to make a YouTube video about this you better believe it's gonna be the top news story for this week and maybe a month and the general public will finally start taking Internet privacy seriously from a legal standpoint.

2時間前

[removed]

IRNGNEER · 1時間前

I own a small ISP. There is absolutely no reason for the ISP to be collecting data on its users. While users can choose not to use certain websites or services if they don't agree with their data retention policies, the same is not necessarily true of their ISP. This bill amounts to a dragnet of personal and private information that the user has no control over. Users who wish to protect their privacy must now choose to either use the internet or not use the internet, and that is a whole different ballgame than users choosing to use or not use a particular service or website.

VPNs do help a lot to protect privacy, but they come with their own set of problems. For one, VPNs almost always add significant latency and speed reduction to your connection. Second, it's not a mainstream technology that most people are going to fuss about with.

This bill is a complete failure of consumer protection. Between this and the death of net neutrality the Trump administration is venturing way off their message of "America First" when it comes to the internet.

Commander_KEK · 6時間前

My problem here is that I am paying my Internet Service Provider for a service. As long as they are taking my money they should be advocating for me, Not advertisers.

It is no different then the employee that steals all the left overs from a catered lunch at the office after everybody else goes home for the day. Why do ISP's feel entitled to take data that dosn't belong to them, just because they have access to it and sell it for a profit?

Fred_Bastard · 6時間前

I commend you for presenting both sides of this argument, and a reasoned case for why you believe as you do.

I personally don't think that letting more companies collect and sell my data is the answer to crony capitalism.

I think the answer is forcing ANYONE who would collect and sell my information to:

A) Receive my explicit permission B) Compensate me for it.

The current argument made by companies like Facebook is:

A) Accepting the TOS is granting explicit permission B) The otherwise free use of the platform is your compensation.

I invite others to discuss.

Saltmineinspector · 7時間前

My two cents.

It is government regulation therefore it is bad.

solsken77 · 6時間前

The GOPe is at it again. I DO NOT SUPPORT the bill that went through yesterday, might I add, universally by house republicans.

bitchalot · 6時間前

So far anti privacy legislation and data aggregation hasn't been positive for the public. After watching the Trump witch hunt with the Media and others twisting every bit of information they could find into propaganda, it surprising any politician would support it. Trump supporters were outed, harassed. On Reddit some from the T_D are labeled and banned. Conservatives have been censored on Twitter, Youtube and other sites. What stops ISPs from sharing who goes to those sites? I just don't see any upsides to sharing/selling this information. Would love it if Trump came out against it.

invertedwut · 6時間前

“Under the FTC’s watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the world. The agency’s evidence-based approach calibrates privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of information collected,” Senate lead sponsor Flake wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

This guy is a fucking liar, a hack, and a fool. Privacy controls are not at all tuned for the importance of the information as it is, and nothing about our internet is the envy of the world. Our prices and service provider choice have made us the fucking laughing stock of the western world and the only people that appreciate any aspect of our privacy related laws are literal fascists that go around jailing people for tweets and facebook posts demonstrating wrong-think.

They are only able to do so elsewhere because there are no laws preventing internet applications and service providers from intrusively collecting internet activity information on users.

“The FCC rules subject all web browsing and app usage data to the same restrictive requirements as sensitive personal information. That means that information generated from looking up the latest Cardinals score or checking the weather in Scottsdale is treated the same as personal health and financial data.”

That's a strong argument against this bill, lol. browsing history being treated as sensitive private information is a fucking good thing. it's nobody's fucking business what I'm looking up on the internet.

Why I support the bill, though, is different. As it stands, every website/app/etc that you use has the right to collect and sell your private data (with a few exceptions, medical data and whatnot).

So put them under the kind of rules the FCC has and bring them up to the ISP's level of required protection of private information. raise the bar, don't lower it.

Keep in mind that it's neigh impossible to use the internet without websites and apps, and with a relatively small demand for websites that don't collect and sell, a relatively small supply has appeared.

yeah we're aware, and the exact same thing will happen when selecting an ISP. you won't have any choice if this bill passes. you'll be forced to sign an intrusive EULA to even use the internet now, at all.

Also worth noting that you can opt out of your ISP's data collection should you choose.

not when this bill passes you won't.

The free market has a way of working things out.

Not when the interests of the service providers are diametrically opposed to the interests of the users. And none of this would a fucking issue if, by the very nature of the medium and technology involved, the information being collected weren't so vulnerable to being stolen or abused. If the government couldn't subpoena (or secretly steal or secretly ask nicely for) that browsing history "being collected for marketing purposes", this wouldn't be a problem. but they can. and thus it's a problem as long as they are collecting it.

Let me reiterate, because people don't seem to be reading the text that isn't big and bold. ISPs are required to let you opt out (though they make it difficult to find out how).

That's the case now with the FCC rules, isn't it? Isn't that going out the window if this bill passes?

MagaMagaChooChoo · 6時間前

I really don't like this bill. I get what the Republicans are trying to do but it isn't smart or popular. It's a losing issue even this sub is split and we're hardcore to the right.

I personally don't think it's smart to say "well Facebook gets to fuck over all its users so instead of not allowing Facebook to sell your personal data and search history, we're just going to let Comcast sell the list of porn sites you visit along with your real name and address. There, problem solved!". That's just retarded. We should be protecting our freedoms, not selling them out. This bill is a clear violation of the 4th amendment and anybody under the age of fucking 80 whose ever used a computer could tell you that.

kwame_kilpatrick · 6時間前

This should be vetoed. The argument that ISPs are somehow at a "disadvantage" vs. online social media sites is very weak at best. I choose not to use Facebook, etc. because I don't want my privacy invaded. I remain as anonymous as possible on pretty much every site I use now. I don't have that option with an ISP. In many cases -- most people have only one option for an ISP (outside of cellular), and they are forced to accept it.

Selling people's browsing history, etc. is ripe for abuse. With all the leaks we have these days, how long before someone hacks this info and publishes a database of stats with your public real name, and a list of all the sites you've visited in the last year. This is dangerous and we should fight every time to err on the side of restricting people's privacy.

Drinkourwayoutofit · 6時間前

Dump the regulation and have Congress pass a bill outlawing the collection and marketing of Internet users' personal information. Let's not have any more of this crap, "Oh, the bureaucracy implemented a regulation and it's up to Congress to herd enough cats to toss out the regulation within 90 days or it's permanent!" No. Congress has legislative authority, not some bureau's full-time intern's summer intern, in charge of drafting something that sounded cool when Steve Colbert said it once.

meinbruder14 · 5時間前

thanks for doing PROS v. CONS instead of shilling for one side or the other. i've been all for the repeal, but i understand the other side.

my argument would be: REPEAL AND REPLACE!!!!! we need protection and privacy, but this is not the way to do it by allowing this FCC resolution to stand. some of the ideas in it are great, but it moves the jurisdiction of oversight from FTC (track record for breaking up monopolies) to the FCC (track record for approving mergers of existing monopolies). i agree we should be able to opt out of data collection, but there are means of combating the ISP from collecting data such as VPN (notice how VPN are taking advantage of this to drum up fear for business???) whereas where is your recourse against ever expanding federal government. my privacy can take a hit to limit the government. i would prefer if the GOP would talk beyond the repeal and into legislating law for FTC to enforce.

trumpisnowpresident · 5時間前

Simple: MAKE IT OPT-IN INSTEAD OF OPT-OUT. SOLVED.

bennybugbug · 4時間前

Big companies like InfoGroup, Acxiom, Dun & Bradstreet, and countless other thrive with personal information data sets. No doubt they partner with the likes of Facebook, Twitter, etc to maximize advertising dollars.

This is simply a money grab. Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.

PLEASE NOTE: DO NOT FILL OUT WARRANTY CARDS OR SUBMIT THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ASKED. If you buy a toaster there is no reason to self submit answers to whether or not you own a dog/cat, your household income, your children's age, if you like magazine subscriptions, etc. They sell this data and cooperatively work with the above companies and credit card companies to target you EVERYWHERE.

panzermaster · 4時間前

The issue with saying "internet companies do it, why can't we" is that we get thousands of options in those. And only 2-3 ISPs in the area, and only one providing Broadband speeds.

Wireless companies add more competition, especially with ones like T-MOBILE offering unlimited data. But they have even more power in that they are able to know your exact location, intercept text messages, and intercept calls.

coupdetaco · 4時間前

Free markets could solve it if monopoly-protective laws didn't mysteriously keep getting propped up:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/18/heres-a-better-idea-than-net-neutrality-knockoffs/

TLDR: telecom lines aren't like plumbing pipes and can be routed with much more 'sway' in path. They want to break-up utility collusion and encourage competition by discouraging exclusive use/access to 'rights of way space'.

highlife64 · 4時間前

VETO!!!!!!!

gnexuser2424 · 4時間前

Thing is I do a lot of sensitive IT work including beta testing... What if a competitor to a product I'm testing wants to purchase my history? I can very in serious trouble if they find that data.. That could possibly happen

xerr · 4時間前

"That means Google, Facebook, that farming app on your phone, all legally allowed to collect and sell."

There is a big difference between selling your history with one site and selling your entire internet history ever.

DOUBLE_ANAL_DISASTER · 6時間前

We should be doing what's best for American citizens instead of advertisers. Ever google or buy something and see ads for it pop up a day later? Ever go into Google's or Facebook's privacy settings and see that it's impossible to turn off targeted ads?

It's creepy, it's disturbing, it needs to end.

nonameforyou1234 · 4時間前

This country needs opt-in laws. I'm so fucking sick of this opt-out bullshit.

If I notice an uptick in junk mail or whatever it's getting stuffed in an envelope and going to my representatives.

Sick and tired of shit like this.

Gridorr · 6時間前

You offered both sides????? You ARE real news. Thank you. You just did better journalism then all of MSM simply by giving both sides

DickFeely · 6時間前

ISPs are swamp creatures that spend millions to block competition from the market and screw Americans. Other countries have faster and cheaper internet service. The industry needs more competition, much like the health insurance industry, not less consumer protections. We're already at their mercy due to lack of choice and the difficulty of new entrants into the market, thanks again to their willingness to pay off officials.

Trump must veto if he wants to signal that he's a trust-buster who will help the average American. He knows how far the deep state will go to keep control.

Besides, how the hell does this crap get passed before gun rights bills??

Rekd998 · 6時間前

Is this why now my amazon kindle seems to know what books to recommend based on what I've been doing on my computer?

Kinda creeped me out... I don't have anything to hide but it's still discerning.

AverinMIA · 6時間前

I want zero data collection from any company unless I opt-in for a "better user experience" or whatever bullshit lie they feed to get people to drop trow and bend over.

ADHD-FrontalLobe404 · 5時間前

I highly recommend that EVERYONE gets on a VPN provider that does not maintain logs / records. I happen to use Private Internet Access but any provider will do, assuming they respect your privacy.

Name	Date
President Donald J. Trump	07/27/16
Kaya Jones	03/28/17
Peter Boykin	03/27/17
Corey Stewart	03/24/17
Trump's First Member	02/03/17
Madison Gesiotto	02/02/17
Joe Biggs	02/01/17
Robert Spencer	01/27/17
James Allsup	01/26/17
Howie Carr	01/26/17
Tucker Carlson	01/13/17
Dave Rubin	12/19/16
General Bert Mizusawa	11/08/16
Mike Cernovich	11/04/16
Bill Mitchell	11/03/16
Paul Nehlen	11/02/16
Chuck Johnson	11/01/16
Malik Obama	10/31/16
Richard Davis, M.D.	10/26/16
Brad Parscale	10/25/16
Ben Garrison	10/18/16
Wayne Dupree	10/17/16
James O'Keefe	10/14/16
Curt Schilling	10/12/16

The_Donald

TWITTER @TheDonaldReddit

RULES

Recent AMAs (see full list)

IMPORTANT LINKS

RELATED SUBREDDITS

調停者

Argument for:

Argument against:

My two cents:

Let me reiterate, because people don't seem to be reading the text that isn't big and bold. ISPs are required to let you opt out (though they make it difficult to find out how).

VETO

B U S T T H A T T R U S T

INFOWARS.COM

VETO VETO VETO

It is a completely different animal......

Choosing to use a Company's Service .. VS choosing to use the Internet at all

Also: mods sticky this OP plz!

VETO!!!!!!!