Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congressmen Worried About Amazon Silk Privacy Issues

Posted by Soulskill on from the not-that-they-know-what-those-issues-are dept.

suraj.sun sends this quote from an article at Ars: "Congress is trying to wrap its collective head around Amazon's new Silk Web browser. At a privacy hearing yesterday, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) expressed outrage at the way Silk's 'split' design can funnel all user browsing data through Amazon's backend servers. 'My staff yesterday told me that one of our leading Internet companies, Amazon, is going to create their own server and their own system and they're going to force everybody that uses Amazon to go through their server and they're going to collect all this information on each person who does that without that person's knowledge. Enough is enough.' Today came a similar shot from the other side of the aisle, with Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) dashing off a letter (PDF) to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos about the same privacy concerns. 'Consumers may buy the new Kindle Fire to read 1984, but they may not realize that the tablet's "Big Browser" may be watching their every keystroke when they are online,' Markey said in a statement."

148 comments

  1. If this is an issue... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...then where is all the outrage over Facebook tracking you even when you're not signed in to Facebook? Why now, in other words, and why Amazon? How do they compare to what Facebook, Google, Apple, and others already do now?

    1. Re:If this is an issue... by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      ...then where is all the outrage over Facebook tracking you even when you're not signed in to Facebook? Why now, in other words, and why Amazon? How do they compare to what Facebook, Google, Apple, and others already do now?

      Amazon mustn't have bought them off.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    2. Re:If this is an issue... by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      And why is it a congressional issue? I think those lazy bastards have some other more pressing issues to look into... like how to get America working again.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    3. Re:If this is an issue... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have a sneaking suspicion that this has a lot less to do with privacy, and a lot more to do with the sales tax fight. Guess they'd better add a few more zeros to their "lobbying" budget. Either that or they're not honoring the unwritten "matching donations" rule that requires Big Business to pay off both parties equally.

    4. Re:If this is an issue... by HogGeek · · Score: 1

      Amazon mustn't have bought them off, yet

      FTFY

    5. Re:If this is an issue... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhhhh - yeah, I think they have bigger fish to fry in congress. But, this really is a congressional issue. Privacy has been encroached on for a couple of decades now. Especially with the un-Patriot act, and all the storms in teacups with the "terrorists". Yes, it's time for congress to address the issue of privacy for private citizens. Facebook, Amazon, nor any other corporation should be collecting information on citizens of the United States. (note the use of the word "citizen", rather than "consumer")

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:If this is an issue... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2

      While we're at it, where is the outrage over everything you type in the Firefox address bar being sent to Google by default?

    7. Re:If this is an issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy has been encroached on for a couple of decades now.

      Not really. It's an ongoing push-and-pull that isn't objectively better or worse than it's always been.

      Yes, it's time for congress to address the issue of privacy for private citizens.

      They have been for as long as we've had a congress.

      A good visual timeline of selected privacy issues in the US, 1600-2008:
      http://issuu.com/sciam/docs/extended-privacy-timeline/3?mode=embed&documentId=080905202111-362202d8bd0b48319813a4aac215b34c&layout=grey

      I think you'll be surprised.

    8. Re:If this is an issue... by hedwards · · Score: 0

      They do, however the GOP has decided that it's not going to participate in fixing that particular problem, and is not interested in allowing the Democrats to even try, so this is at least something.

    9. Re:If this is an issue... by Neptunes_Trident · · Score: 1

      This, Tax issue, And perhaps the data Amazon is collecting is not being shared with the government.

      Concern about companies that don't collude with government to track and streamline targeted life oppression upon the public, groups or individuals.

    10. Re:If this is an issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Amazon silk service is a physical device, tied to a service, so the politicians feel they understand it enough to fight it. As opposed to:
      a) regular web sites, which are "on the internet and unregulatable"
      b) devices like an android phone, which are not tied to a particular service(except a carrier)

      That b) is not much more dangerous than the amazon silk is quite laughable, and the underpinnings of a) have legal loopholes you can roll fort knox into

      But politicians will believe what they will

    11. Re:If this is an issue... by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      That can be changed fairly easily. I'm thinking this Silk Browser on the Kindle Fire not so much.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    12. Re:If this is an issue... by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      I stand corrected!

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    13. Re:If this is an issue... by jjp9999 · · Score: 1

      True. The first thing I thought of when I read this was Verizon's recent announcement they'll be watching all user Web activity; learn what they like, whether they own pets, whether they like sports; and even track their locations.

    14. Re:If this is an issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no, you're doing it wrong. Everything now is worse than it used to be and it's all [insert villain of choice the following list: The Government, MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple, patent law, copyright law, Wall St]'s fault.

    15. Re:If this is an issue... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Well there's a few other firms doing the same thing. Opera for one. (read the section mentioning the "turbo" servers)

      And every company that hasn't yet heard of split vpn routing does it for their employees.

    16. Re:If this is an issue... by mark_elf · · Score: 1

      I think corporate oversight is an urgent issue that they should do something about. Lawmakers don't seem lazy to me, only frozen by obstructionism, generated in large part by corporate interests that love a weak, divisive and gridlocked congress. Then they can do whatever they want to destroy our freedoms, without government interference. Do you realize they even pay people to sit around and post anti government talking points on message boards? It's gotten so out of hand. At least people are finally waking up to whats really going on. America's not working because trillions of dollars have been horked out of our monetary system by Wall St sharpies, banks and corporations. They swindled us. They're parasites. They're going to suck the blood of middle class americans as long as they can get away with it. An affluent middle class is just money that's not in their pocket.

    17. Re:If this is an issue... by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Especially with the un-Patriot act, and all the storms in teacups with the "terrorists". Yes, it's time for congress to address the issue of privacy for private citizens

      I'm confused. Because Congress has rampantly violated privacy, this gives them justification to go try to "protect" our privacy from others? Or do you feel that Congress' egregious violation of privacy rights makes them qualified as experts in the issue? I don't understand; I'm getting a complete non sequitur here. From where I sit, Congress doesn't know anything about privacy and shouldn't be trusted in the slightest with power to specify standards for privacy in other situations. This is a little bit like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    18. Re:If this is an issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook? What about the government? They are upset when Amazon is doing exactly what they have been doing since 9/11.

    19. Re:If this is an issue... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Oh, Congress is definitely the expert in violations. They're just mad that others are trying to muscle in on their turf without paying the tithe.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    20. Re:If this is an issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up you fat piece of shit. Nobody gives a fuck what a third rate part switcher like you thinks.

    21. Re:If this is an issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STILL to afraid to post the correct quote huh? Afraid? For those that would like to know HERE is the whole quote and I DARE anyone to prove me wrong: as far as the user is concerned there is NO CLI in Windows and ANYONE with a brain (except fucknuts here, who was trying to insist that users launch programs by using start>>>run) would know THAT IS A FACT. Try it yourself, walk up to the next dozen people you see on the street and ask them "How do you get command line in Windows?" and they'll say "What is command line?" Because UNLIKE LINUX you do NOT NEED CLI IN WINDOWS. Don't blame me YOU HAVE A BROKEN OS fucknuts, I didn't design the POS.

      As far as the user is concerned, there's not a lot of things in a lot of things. Newsflash: advanced functionality is for advanced users. Duh. All you are illustrating is the typical Windows user is clueless about the features embedded in their OS of choice. They probably don't know much about "Administrative Tools" either. But for advanced uses, like, oh, I don't know, Goup Policy editing, it is a must. So, to follow your logic, there is no such thing as "Group Policy Editor" in Windows. You are a myopic trollish fool.

      Oh and a final gift for fucknuts, here is some of the companies that have abandoned Linux, maybe you have heard of a few of them? Like ASUS who has given up on your bullshit or Walmart running away from linux as fast as it can? Could it be because they don't want to run their own repos Dell has to to keep Linux from shitting itself?. You've lost, give it up. Even for free you can't give that POS away, you are even lower than JavaME. Nobody wants it, nobody runs it, hell you celebrate when you get a lousy 1% market share. Face it you couldn't give it away in a prison wrapped in pardons. Stick a fork baby, its done.

      Simple Simon always looking for the simple answer. Obviously for an operating system to succeed, it needs a complete package. And for an OS to succeed against Windows that is completely entrenched in the consciousness of billions of people and the entire computing landscape will require a monumental effort. There are two main reasons consumers reject Linux on the desktop: lack of familiarity and lack of a win32-sized application ecosystem. It didn't help that the Linux systems sold in Wal-Mart had shit for a distro and the Eee-PC wasn't much better. Linux on the desktop for the mass market is probably a lost cause as Windows only developers are just too ubiquitous. No matter how good Linux is if the applications aren't there, it won't matter. Now, let's consider another sphere. Mobile. Linux stomps Microsoft in the ground on the smartphone. It's not even sad. The main difference on the phone is people didn't come in with a lot of expectations as long as it was kind of like an iPhone and available on their carrier, you were golden. Windows Mobile was a piece of shit. Blackberry was a piece of shit and Symbian was MIA. Fast forward a couple of years and now you have the app ecosystem, a much more polished interface and a shit-ton of momentum. So shove you Linux hate up your ass because it is walking all over your beloved Microsoft. We'll see what happens with ICS and tablets but, remember, Honeycomb just came out in February and has had some growing pains. ICS promises to remedy many of HC's issues and might just show the iPad a thing or two.

    22. Re:If this is an issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, let me ask you a question, shit for brains. Just how exactly does a fat piece of shit like you wipe his own ass anyway? I do you just not "worry about it" you nasty motherfucker?

    23. Re:If this is an issue... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      To bad you're posting as AC - whoever you are, thanks for that link. I'm probably less surprised by some of that than you think - but there ARE some surprises. For instance - sealed envelopes for mailing letters were invented "mid-1800's". Prior to that, I guess everything was written on postcards? Hmmm - I probably won't spend much time on the subject, but it is enlightening!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    24. Re:If this is an issue... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I really don't get this sudden surge of amazement regarding Facebook's tracking.

      Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of http knows that for every request, your browser automatically sends cookie data. And that when you request an image, your request gets logged against the server that hosts that image.

      Hell, doubleclick was doing the same thing a decade ago, and you didn't even have to sign up for them to track you.

      It's also not like the user isn't given a choice - I remember when browser's used to ask you to confirm whether you wanted to allow a cookie to be set. It seems that the default setting is now "allow all", presumably because that's what users found most convenient. Well, there's a reason you were initially asked to confirm a site's request to set a cookie - it gave you control.

      All these people bitching about "non-opt in" tracking have had the mechanism to "opt-out" of such tracking sitting in their browser the whole time. Delete the damn cookie, and get your browser to prompt you when a site asks you to set a cookie. If that's too much effort, well, you've made your own decision about where you lie on the convenience-control line.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    25. Re:If this is an issue... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      They would fold the letter over on itself, and seal it with wax, often with a characteristic indentation from a stamp. Although the Wikipedia page for sealing wax disputes that arrival date for envelopes ; it has them arriving in the 16th century.

      And of course, people freely use email with an expectation of privacy but are ignorant that it's akin to sending a postcard via an association of disreputable postmen, not limited to thieves, spies, secret police, and salesmen, and that each of them must read the postcard to be able to pass it onwards. The envelope icon present in the GUI of most modern email programs is pretty misleading from this point of view.

      People have been using encryption methods for thousands of years though. But only the elite. It would seem the common man really does believe he has nothing to hide...

    26. Re:If this is an issue... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Man, you have issues. You should consider finding a good therapist, that much anger can't be good.

    27. Re:If this is an issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The others who "are not an issue" probably are funneling the data to CIA, so it's all good bro.

    28. Re:If this is an issue... by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      I simply hate liars and hypocrites. How would YOU like it if I took your posts and edited them so that they mean the opposite of what you said because I was a religious zealot that refuses to accept my god is false?

      The fucknuts in question actually was trying to argue that Windows users use start>>>run to launch all their programs and when pointed out that not only do users NEVER use start>>>run (hell I've never even met an admin that used start>>>run for program launching) but that as far as users are concerned there is NO CLI in Windows and I DARE anyone to prove me wrong. Do you HONESTLY think the majority of users use CLI in Windows?

      But I will bet my last fucking dollar that EVERY Linux user DOES use CLI, how do I know this? it is simple, THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. They really don't. I have yet to have a single Linux user have the balls to take they Hairyfeet challenge, which is simply remove the CLI from the OS for just ONE year. That's all. If Linux can function without CLI, surely losing it a year won't be a great hardship?

      But you see THERE is the lie they so desperately want to hide, THERE is the ugly truth like Dorian and the painting they try to hide from the light. The TRUTH is this: Linux will not run without CLI and all your snarky remarks, all the lies and bullshit will NOT change this simple fact. THIS is why you have no share, THIS is why you gain no traction, THIS is why the ONLY time Linux has gained ANY share was when Google simply stole it and told the community to go suck cock. What is Android? Why its all GUI, NO CLI, all clicky clicky easy, and it sells? Well surprise surprise, who would have fucking thought. Oh right, that would be me who has been saying that FOR A FUCKING DECADE NOW.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    29. Re:If this is an issue... by vadim_t · · Score: 2

      The fucknuts in question actually was trying to argue that Windows users use start>>>run to launch all their programs and when pointed out that not only do users NEVER use start>>>run (hell I've never even met an admin that used start>>>run for program launching) but that as far as users are concerned there is NO CLI in Windows and I DARE anyone to prove me wrong. Do you HONESTLY think the majority of users use CLI in Windows?

      Here, meet one.

      Start/run/cmd/ipconfig is a very standard troubleshooting step. Usually the first thing I do when something network related is not working, and the first thing I ask the normal users to try to gather some information.

      Let's see, also net start/net stop commands, telnet, netstat, arp, runas, regsvr32, msc just off the top of my head.

      Of course, since the commandline sucks so badly on Windows more advanced usage is limited, but there you go. What little there is comes handy sometimes.
      But I will bet my last fucking dollar that EVERY Linux user DOES use CLI, how do I know this? it is simple, THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. They really don't. I have yet to have a single Linux user have the balls to take they Hairyfeet challenge, which is simply remove the CLI from the OS for just ONE year. That's all. If Linux can function without CLI, surely losing it a year won't be a great hardship?

      Why would I want to remove it? That's stupid. Some things are more comfortable on a CLI, and some on a GUI. I could do stuff like mass search/replace in a hundred files in a GUI, but then I'd need to find a specialized program for that, or mind numbingly do one at a time in a text editor.

      But you see THERE is the lie they so desperately want to hide, THERE is the ugly truth like Dorian and the painting they try to hide from the light. The TRUTH is this: Linux will not run without CLI and all your snarky remarks, all the lies and bullshit will NOT change this simple fact.

      Who's hiding anything? I use Linux in good part because it has a good CLI

      THIS is why you have no share, THIS is why you gain no traction, THIS is why the ONLY time Linux has gained ANY share was when Google simply stole it and told the community to go suck cock. What is Android? Why its all GUI, NO CLI, all clicky clicky easy, and it sells? Well surprise surprise, who would have fucking thought. Oh right, that would be me who has been saying that FOR A FUCKING DECADE NOW.

      And I'm supposed to care why exactly? I use whatever I like best, market share is irrelevant. I have a CLI on my phone btw (Nokia N900), android is too locked down for my liking.

    30. Re:If this is an issue... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh - yeah, I think they have bigger fish to fry in congress. But, this really is a congressional issue. Privacy has been encroached on for a couple of decades now.

      Um, no, this ISNT a congressional issue. I fail to recall a constitutional right to privacy, nor any place where it gives congress the power to mandate business privacy powers.

      Really, this is a market issue-- and I dont say that because Im a wacky libertarian who thinks any and all legislation is evil, I say it because legislation is almost always the worst way to accomplish a goal-- especially when that goal can be achieved simply by voting with your wallets.

      Look, this isnt hard. Kindle1 had no web browser. This kindle has a web browser, which might have privacy concerns. If its such a huge issue, DONT USE THE BROWSER, and your kindle is still a kindle. Why could Amazon's response to congressional interference not simply be, "Nuts to all of you, future kindles wont have a browser at all, enjoy your privacy". Or should Congress then mandate that they HAVE to provide a browser of the users' choice?

      Do you see how it gets ridiculous super fast when you try to replace simple market mechanics with legislation?

    31. Re:If this is an issue... by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      This is a classic case of what we call "Moving the goalposts" which is frankly ALL Linux users can do. It is NO different than if I said "The Kia is a nice car" and you replied "You can't fly to Italy in a Kia!" Well WTF does THAT have to do with anything?

      Here, I'll spell it out, even make it bold so its easy, kay? here goes WE ARE TALKING ABOUT USERS not, in any particular order, hackers, crackers, admins, DBA, engineers, or the guy that wants an OS on his toaster, okay? Is that REALLY so fucking hard to follow? Do you HONESTLY believe that 90% of the fucking population use IPconfig? Because if so there is some penny stocks i think you should be interested in.

      As for why you should remove it? simple because if your OS WORKS then it should function without it. I could remove CLI from Windows and OSX and guess what? the users would never know the difference and it would just keep happily chugging along. do that in Linux? It shits itself and dies hard and THAT is a fact. hell most of them won't even boot with Bash gone, another fact.

      If you want to use CLI? cool, I know guys that prefer bell bottoms. what do you and they have in common? Both like things that are NEVER COMING BACK IN STYLE EVAR. In fact the bell bottom guys have better odds of making a come back than Linux has on the desktop!

      Just be honest with yourselves is that SOOOO much to ask for? Accept the fact that if you refuse to give the consumer what they want they WILL ignore you,simple as that. Stop all this "Linux is ready for the desktop!" horseshit, which you KNOW is horseshit BTW, because there is no way in hell the 90% are gonna back to fiddly 70s era term bullshit, stop pretending that users use start>>>run to launch programs, or that Windows USERS, not admins, not DBAs, but users, actually give a fuck or even know where the fuck the CLI is on their OS, and accept that you will ALWAYS be last place, and frankly that is where you deserve to be.

      Its REALLY simple, give the people what they want and they will buy your product, you don't do that. Instead you think you can get the world to go back to 70s terms, embrace CLI "Fixes" and forum dances, 6 month deathmarches and all the included driver borkage, and frankly it makes you look more than a little insane. Want share? KILL CLI DEAD. Don't want to? Then STFU and quit pretending that your OS is gonna go anywhere but last place. because we retailers are frankly tired of your bullshit and exucuses, which is why NO major or even minor B&M will touch your product, not Best Buy, not walmart, hell not even little shops like mine, even though I could undercut the competition. Why? Because YOUR SHIT BE BROKEN and we don't want our reps ruined by selling broken shit, THAT is why!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    32. Re:If this is an issue... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      and all the storms in teacups with the "terrorists"

      I don't remember anyone describing it like that in the US after 9/11 and during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts that have wasted billlions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    33. Re:If this is an issue... by Noitatsidem · · Score: 1

      Mod this Anonymous Coward up.

      --
      Feel free to mod me down, just know that unlike some Anonymous Cowards I'm not afraid to express my views as myself.
    34. Re:If this is an issue... by vadim_t · · Score: 2

      This is a classic case of what we call "Moving the goalposts" which is frankly ALL Linux users can do. It is NO different than if I said "The Kia is a nice car" and you replied "You can't fly to Italy in a Kia!" Well WTF does THAT have to do with anything?

      Here, I'll spell it out, even make it bold so its easy, kay? here goes WE ARE TALKING ABOUT USERS not, in any particular order, hackers, crackers, admins, DBA, engineers, or the guy that wants an OS on his toaster, okay? Is that REALLY so fucking hard to follow?

      What moving of goalposts? You said, and I quote, "hell I've never even met an admin that used start>>>run for program launching)". So I replied to that.

      Do you HONESTLY believe that 90% of the fucking population use IPconfig? Because if so there is some penny stocks i think you should be interested in.

      Very likely, yes. At some point in their lives I'm pretty sure every user will have at least one instance of losing network connection for whatever reason, and support is very likely to ask them to run ipconfig.

      As for why you should remove it? simple because if your OS WORKS then it should function without it. I could remove CLI from Windows and OSX and guess what? the users would never know the difference and it would just keep happily chugging along. do that in Linux? It shits itself and dies hard and THAT is a fact. hell most of them won't even boot with Bash gone, another fact.

      So? Bash is needed for shell scripts. Windows also needs a huge amount of stuff most people never invoke manually, like regsvr32 and gacutil, and would also break if it was removed. I'm pretty sure OS X has shell scripts in it somewhere, and needs whatever shell it uses to run those.

      If you ever looked a bit under the hood, you'd see that Windows simple at all, and that there's plenty stuff that gets done and invoked behind the scenes. And yes, some Windows problem solutions involve very command line-ish actions like messing with registering DLLs and the registry editor.

      If you want to use CLI? cool, I know guys that prefer bell bottoms. what do you and they have in common? Both like things that are NEVER COMING BACK IN STYLE EVAR. In fact the bell bottom guys have better odds of making a come back than Linux has on the desktop!

      Your point being? I like it, so I use it. Your opinion is irrelevant.

      Just be honest with yourselves is that SOOOO much to ask for? Accept the fact that if you refuse to give the consumer what they want they WILL ignore you,simple as that. Stop all this "Linux is ready for the desktop!" horseshit, which you KNOW is horseshit BTW, because there is no way in hell the 90% are gonna back to fiddly 70s era term bullshit, stop pretending that users use start>>>run to launch programs, or that Windows USERS, not admins, not DBAs, but users, actually give a fuck or even know where the fuck the CLI is on their OS, and accept that you will ALWAYS be last place, and frankly that is where you deserve to be.

      Modern Linux distros don't require usage of it, though it's certainly still there if you want it.

      Its REALLY simple, give the people what they want and they will buy your product, you don't do that. Instead you think you can get the world to go back to 70s terms, embrace CLI "Fixes" and forum dances, 6 month deathmarches and all the included driver borkage, and frankly it makes you look more than a little insane. Want share? KILL CLI DEAD.

      Nope. CLI fixes are actually most convenient, because troubleshooting GUIs is such a monumental pain in the ass. You'd know it if you ever tried to explain somebody how to configure a network over the phone. Multiple OS versions with different UIs, different languages, people doing weird stuff like moving the taskbar to the side... it's an enormous pain in the ass. CLI is mu

    35. Re:If this is an issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't an issue at all. If they had bothered to do any fact checking (or get a competent lacky to do it) rather than take what they were told at face value they would know that for one Amazon Silk will be able to be configured to access sites directly without going through Amazon's servers and for two the users will have the option of installing other browsers.

      Sure, users should be made aware of how Silk works and its privacy implications, but that isn't the job of congress.

    36. Re:If this is an issue... by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Hey, bitch, I just turned this laptop on after a few days and this tab was open. Couldn't help but notice how you got owned by my sibling poster. Now cry, fucker.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  2. It's a me, Mario! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big Browser

    Okay, where is Mario when you need him? Oh wait, you meant BROWSER? -facepalm-

  3. I wish by Osgeld · · Score: 2

    The whole personal information collection bubble would just pop already, how much useless data can they collect to try and target ad's you block or ignore anyway?

    1. Re:I wish by planimal · · Score: 1

      i don't think it has even begun. in 10 years we'll see personalized ads within the walls of commercial facilities.

    2. Re:I wish by Surt · · Score: 1

      In 20 years (at the latest) vending machines will be able to use magnetic fields to induce advertisements directly into your brain.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:I wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call it an advertisement, I call it an unexplainable irresistible urge to consume.

      Alcoa: strong buy.

    4. Re:I wish by Tsingi · · Score: 1
      I have no link, it may have been SlashDot. I read an article with video about a year ago that involved directional audio that did just that. You could be standing in a crowd and be the only one that heard something, sounding like it was in your head.

      They were testing it out in public, and it WAS freaking people out.

      The context was advertising.

    5. Re:I wish by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      You call it an advertisement, I call it an unexplainable irresistible urge to consume.

      I think enough people already have that.

    6. Re:I wish by adrn01 · · Score: 1

      i don't think it has even begun. in 10 years we'll see personalized ads within the walls of commercial facilities.

      In 11 years men's room stalls will have vending machines that offer to sell you condoms that fit you EXACTLY.

    7. Re:I wish by planimal · · Score: 0

      just filed a patent claim. what bitch?

    8. Re:I wish by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      A story(CNET; but enough company names to fire up google).

      The technology is actually damn clever, ultrasonic emitter with carefully tuned wave interaction creating audible sounds only at a specific point, total sci-fi stuff; but using it to beam ghostly whispers into pedestrian's heads was pretty tactless of them.

    9. Re:I wish by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Thanks for providing the link.

      A more innocuous use of the technology. You could see how it could be used for evil purposes. In fact, I don't think it could be used subversively in any fashion that could be described as anything other than evil.

      If this happened to me, a person who does not watch TV because I HATE commercials and the psychological effect they intend to have on me. I'd be flipping out.

    10. Re:I wish by Noitatsidem · · Score: 1

      Well, I did just buy a large iced coffee (with an espresso shot) from Dunkin' Donuts despite already being wide awake.

      --
      Feel free to mod me down, just know that unlike some Anonymous Cowards I'm not afraid to express my views as myself.
  4. hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Someone should explain facebook and "like" buttons to this guy.

    "Wait, you mean every porn video or news story or picture of a puppy that I look at is logged and connected to my real name?"

  5. Opera does the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Opera's Turbo mode does the same thing, Opera's servers handle the request and compress and re-send the images, and probably some other tricks too, I never heard anyone get worried about that. What about all the supposed anonymizing web proxies that will gladly hand records over to the government? Silk doesn't seem quite as bad by comparison, or so new. The difference here I guess is Amazon has a financial incentive to record and index some of that data for advertising and metrics.

    1. Re:Opera does the same thing by peragrin · · Score: 2

      The difference is Amazon is a known retailer who uses lots of advertising, and is well known for collecting information for advertisers.

      Opera hasn't been caught doing that yet. (it is a revenue stream they are missing)

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Opera does the same thing by Teun · · Score: 1

      But Opera is based in Norway, a country that has strong ties to the EU and therefore no doubt has strict consumer protection and privacy laws.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    3. Re:Opera does the same thing by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Google uses lots of advertising too. Remember Microsoft's video showing how Chrome leaks every keystroke in the URL address bar?

  6. turn it off by XaXXon · · Score: 4, Informative

    seriously.. just turn it off

    In an email, an Amazon spokesperson said "users can completely turn off the split-browsing mode and use Amazon Silk like a conventional Web browser."

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2394732,00.asp#fbid=GbO7By1YITI

    1. Re:turn it off by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      I fucking hate opt out, I should not have to nag every damned website I visit to not spam me cause they think they are somehow providing me a service.

    2. Re:turn it off by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Do you expect rationality from Joe "You Lie!" Barton. He is a goon, and this attack against Amazon likely has a political back story.

    3. Re:turn it off by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plus all the plugins you need to have installed to make sure they won't just track you anyway. I wouldn't mind so much if it was a permanent, once and for all opt-out, but it seems like more and more businesses just update something every few months and turn the shit right back on again, since the default for everything anymore is "PRIVACY IS ANTI-AMERICAN, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE?"

    4. Re:turn it off by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      seriously.. just turn it off

      Look... it's a well established fact that people are lazy.
      When companies make something opt-out, they do it because they know that most users will not.
      And vice versa, when good things are an opt-in, we know that most people won't opt-in to it.

      Good public policy is to make 'bad' ideas an opt-in, because we know most people won't opt-in to it.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:turn it off by esocid · · Score: 1

      Or buy another kindle. Or any other e-reader. I fail to see that this is an issue, when they tell consumers they can use Amazon's pre-caching, or not use it. I think I agree with another comment about the sales tax fight. Someone's making a stink about nothing for some leverage later.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    6. Re:turn it off by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Given that he voted "yea" on H.R. 5304, the delightful FISA retroactive-immunity-for-any-illegal-spying-the-telcos-certainly-didn't-engage-in-but-if-they-did-it-is-now-legal act, I have a few proctological suggestions about where he can shove is alleged concern for internet privacy...

      Let's be clear here, this 'silk' is, indeed, an almost cartoonishly invasive technology, enabled b default, on what is likely to be a very popular consumer device(yes, Opera mini/opera turbo, and various dialup "accelerator" proxy services have been doing similar things, so it isn't really new; but 'Silk' is the boldest and highest profile); but Mr. Barton can be judged only to be crying crocodile tears, given his record.

      Pro surveillance, anti state records transparency, pro "PATRIOT" act, etc, etc.

    7. Re:turn it off by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1, Informative

      Do you expect rationality from Joe "You Lie!" Barton.

      Except that it was a lie.

      Maybe you should try a different example next time.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    8. Re:turn it off by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Why not approach it like the EU, and require Amazon to provide users with a simple choice screen when they first use the new Kindle? "Welcome to Amazon Silk! Would you like to speed your browsing by sending all of your requests through our servers, or would you prefer to use Silk in a conventional manner?". Opt-Out tends to leave non technical users in the dust. That said, Amazon is starting to lack credibility when it comes to privacy issues. Their actions regarding 1984 + Kindle left a dark stain on their reputation. "Opt-Out" privacy isn't going to help.

    9. Re:turn it off by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except it was Joe Wilson, not Joe Barton.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    10. Re:turn it off by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Why should consumers have to guess or even look for setting to not be spied upon?? Advertise the fact that they can do this if we allow them to spy. Its called advertising, making a product people want.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    11. Re:turn it off by Jay+L · · Score: 1

      This is good news. I was worried about Silk's privacy implications, but if Joe Barton is worried too, Silk must be freaking unicorns.

    12. Re:turn it off by dlb · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of Joe "You Lie!" Wilson.

      Joe Barton was the one who apologized to Tony Hayward of BP for having to, god forbid, create an escrow fund to compensate Gulf oil spill victims.

      Either way, they're both fools.

    13. Re:turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an advertised feature of the device which makes your browsing faster. The opt-out is entirely for paranoid people.

    14. Re:turn it off by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      Anyone else think it's weird that Amazon chose the name silk for this? Does anyone remember the old black hat term "silk rope"?

    15. Re:turn it off by oursland · · Score: 1

      Lazy?! Most users will be ignorant of the details of the inner workings of their browser.

      This is true for everyone about something. Do you really know all the details of how the latest car engines work? It really doesn't matter as long as it works correctly and doesn't affect you. But this, when working correctly, monitors your every move and logs your every activity. Someone has to inform the users or stop Amazon lest we let every user walk into this ignorant. Members of our Congress, elected to represent their constituents, have decided to stand up to Amazon.

    16. Re:turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone remember the old black hat term "silk rope"?

      Or what about the black guy named Silky Johnson?

    17. Re:turn it off by greap · · Score: 1

      If you care enough about what they are providing to sign up then clearly they are providing you a service.

  7. Keeping their monopoly by ff1324 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Its not that Congress is truly outraged about Amazon invading privacy. They're outraged they have competition in privacy invasion.

    1. Re:Keeping their monopoly by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Its not that Congress is truly outraged about Amazon invading privacy. They're outraged they have competition in privacy invasion.

      More likely, they're upset that Amazon's response to Congress's demand for a copy of the information was to send them the price list for various classes of information. Congress wants to get that information for free (like they do now from google); they don't want to be treated like an ordinary corporate customer who pays for information about you.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  8. Big Browser by cpghost · · Score: 1

    Amazon's "Big Browser" shows that even non-slashdotters can come up with a catchy new meme every now and then.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  9. Going after Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon is just one of the many companies that is doing this, and they are rather late to a game that has been played by Sony, Facebook, Apple, and possibly Microsoft for half a decade. It looks like this congressman didn't receive his regular "donation" in time and finds this is the best way to go after amazon.

  10. Uh huh by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'My staff yesterday told me that one of our leading Internet companies, Amazon, is going to create their own server and their own system and they're going to force everybody that uses Amazon to go through their server and they're going to collect all this information on each person who does that without that person's knowledge. Enough is enough.'

    Translation for those who don't speak Congress-critter or those who live in other countries:
    "One of Amazon's competitors has decided to donate to my re-election campaign. A study group our pollster ran shows that we might get some TV time bitching about 'privacy concerns' hahahaha."

  11. What's all this I hear about web trousers? by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    I mean, who'd want to wear them anyway? Wouldn't they be cold?

    What's that? Oh, never mind.

  12. Other browsers.. by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    Err, Chrome collects data. Opera Mini and Skyfire run you through their servers. etc etc How come none of those companies are out in front of Congress getting reamed?

    1. Re:Other browsers.. by smi.james.th · · Score: 1

      Just what I was thinking... It's not as though this hasn't been done before, though, isn't this the exact sort of approach that RIM introduced with their first BlackBerries?

      The other issue that I have is, ok, so Amazon is collecting data on you, so who really cares? It's not as though someone is sitting there reading it, all it's used for is so that scripts can target adverts at you. Big whooping deal. I don't see how this is a threat to my privacy or anything. If anything, I prefer having better adverts targeted at me, so that I don't get bothered by ones I'm not even remotely interested in.

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    2. Re:Other browsers.. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I don't know why *none* of these are getting reamed, but Chrome? It collects data and stores it *on your local machine.* It doesn't route every request through Google.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:Other browsers.. by cpghost · · Score: 1

      don't see how this is a threat to my privacy or anything

      Never underestimate the danger of corporate data mining.

      Want an example how this can be abused? Alright. Suppose someone with a minor disease visits websites or forums talking about that. Fast forward a few years. Said person seeks health insurance, but can't get any, because the insurance companies will have access to that person's surfing habit, and will flag this person as undesirable customer. So no coverage, right?

      This is just one of many, many examples what can all go wrong and it's barely scratching the surface.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:Other browsers.. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Want an example how this can be abused? Alright. Suppose someone with a minor disease visits websites or forums talking about that. Fast forward a few years. Said person seeks health insurance, but can't get any, because the insurance companies will have access to that person's surfing habit, and will flag this person as undesirable customer. So no coverage, right?

      Well, I'm a doctor, I look up major and minor diseases all the time. I'm going to be in BIG trouble, right?

      I don't think it will be that obvious, nor that intrusive. I'm not in favor of everyone on the planet logging every keystroke I send into the Internet but I believe the ramifications are going to be more annoying than dangerous. The government can barely keep up with the information I send them (I'm looking at YOU, IRS). The credit databases like Experian are so full of incorrect data that it's laughable.

      If people were really trawling search histories with an eye towards looking for bad guys, we'd all be in jail.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Other browsers.. by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Said person seeks health insurance, but can't get any, because the insurance companies will have access to that person's surfing habit, and will flag this person as undesirable customer. So no coverage, right?

      Not right... because starting in 2014 health insurance companies will be forced to offer coverage to everyone. That's the flip side of forcing everyone to have health insurance (the individual mandate).

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:Other browsers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never said at what price though. If they find out you have something expensive to treat, they'll just jack up coverage to extortionate prices.

    7. Re:Other browsers.. by smi.james.th · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily... I look up random diseases all the time, not because I have them but I'm curious. I understand the point that you're trying to illustrate though.

      AFAIK, however, that sort of information wouldn't be available to e.g. health insurance companies, because all that companies like Google and Amazon sell is targeted advertising. Wouldn't put it past Facebook to sell the data out though. I stand under correction, though. Anyone have better insight than me?

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
  13. Um -- PATRIOT act anyone? by wealthychef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Congress is concerned about privacy, maybe they should stop warrantless wiretapping and war by executive fiat. Just a thought.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
  14. equines vs. pachyderms by tverbeek · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm showing my partisan bias here, but I think it's telling the Republican gave us the not-quite-calling-it-tubes comment that "they're going to force everybody that uses Amazon to go through their server", and the Democrat gave us the literary word-play of "Big Browser".

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  15. Joe Barton and his staff are idiots... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    My staff yesterday told me that one of our leading Internet companies, ...

    First. Why is his penis talking to him?

    ... Amazon, is going to create their own server and their own system...

    Um, like amazon.com?

    ...and they're going to force everybody that uses Amazon to go through their server...

    Um, like amazon.com?

    ...and they're going to collect all this information on each person who does that...

    Um, like amazon.com?

    ...without that person's knowledge.

    Um, I'm sure there will be a lengthy and detailed privacy notice/disclaimer telling us all the things they're going to track and collect, like amazon.com.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Joe Barton and his staff are idiots... by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      People read that? I only read the Apple store agreement after that South Park episode. And, no, I don't have my mouth sewn to someone's ass yet... and I'm not gonna!

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    2. Re:Joe Barton and his staff are idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually expecting to see conservatives start proposing that companies can't force web browsers to use their servers. With the alternative being... um... something. Probably they'll all have to use servers owned by Saudi Arabia, it seems conservatives can't do anything that doesn't have a scam rolled into it.

  16. Big Bowzer? by ZipK · · Score: 0

    Since when is Jon "Bowzer" Bauman a national threat? Perhaps the low note on Blue Moon rattles the Senator's fillings?

    1. Re:Big Bowzer? by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Most politicians are dip-da-da-dipsticks.

  17. Man - is it getting worth getting exited? by no-body · · Score: 1

    Aren't Opera and Bolt mobile browsers routing their web traffic through their respective proxy servers anyway and potentially logging everything one browses to?

    1. Re:Man - is it getting worth getting exited? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Isnt opera made in europe? i havent a clue who bolt is or what it is lol.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
  18. I hate this slippery slop arguments by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    'Consumers may buy the new Kindle Fire to read 1984, but they may not realize that the tablet's "Big Browser" may be watching their every keystroke when they are online,' Markey said in a statement."

    Having data isn't enough to qualify as "big brother". Recording massive amounts of data on minute details of your life isn't what made the book big brother scary. It's what they did with that knowledge.

    Fact is we're moving into an age where we will be recording more and more data on everyone. It's more important to setup a legal framework for what that data can be used for from an ethical/moral standpoint rather then attempt to stop massive data from being collected in the first place as it can be used for good as well as evil.

    1. Re:I hate this slippery slop arguments by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The trick with laws unless it is explicitly outlawed it is legal, and therefore fair game.

      Do not ask what the law was meant to achieve but how can it be abused by anyone else.

      Since there is no law against doing stuff with that knowledge it will be used against people.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  19. nothing compared to the ISPs by optimism · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes...Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, etc can log your keystrokes and behaviors through their servers and their widespread affiliates.

    But this is nothing compared to your ISP. Comcast, AT&T, Roadrunner, etc have access to EVERYTHING their customers do on their Internet connections (minus a fractional percentage of encrypted traffic, of course).

    Funny that most folks seem to ignore this elephant in the room.

    1. Re:nothing compared to the ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA has connections into the ISP's already, and the telecoms have retroactive immunity in breaking the law to allow this. Maybe congress is worried about lots of people using a giant proxy and having to get a warrant every time.

    2. Re:nothing compared to the ISPs by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's kind of creepy when I've made a typo in my address bar and get a search page generated by Cox that's filled with ads clearly generated by my browsing.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    3. Re:nothing compared to the ISPs by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      Only if your ISP sucks. Mine lets me do whatever the hell I want with my space, and ignores threatening letters from lawyers. They even provide a proper reverse DNS. I have a network service provider, not an ISP. They simply pass all management concerns along to me.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    4. Re:nothing compared to the ISPs by davecason · · Score: 1

      This comment right here should seriously end this conversation.

    5. Re:nothing compared to the ISPs by optimism · · Score: 1

      Only if your ISP sucks. Mine lets me do whatever the hell I want with my space

      Not sure what you mean by "my space". Your account on myspace.com?

      I was talking about your network traffic,. Which, for most folks, goes through a cable or phone line and various routers that do guarantee any privacy whatsoever. Unless your traffic is encrypted, which for most folks is not the case unless they are sending a password or credit card or bank account number. And even then, you can see from the logs that there was a certain amount of traffic from X to Y at time Z, even if you can't read it.

      Your ISP has access to far more information than any web network like Facebook, Google, etc.

      Please do tell us more about your ISP, and their contractual agreement to anonymize all of your network traffic. Who are they? Where are they? How much do they charge for that level of privacy?

    6. Re:nothing compared to the ISPs by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      And I can put a vampire tap into my next-door neighbour's cable line and read all his stuff too. Being able to is not the same as doing. Here in Canada, at least, you still require a court order to start sniffing someone's network traffic. And my provider (no, I won't tell you who) doesn't bend over just for the asking. In all likelihood, if I were to be investigated for something, they could make the claim that I was the owner and the court order would come through me.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    7. Re:nothing compared to the ISPs by optimism · · Score: 1

      ...still require a court order to start sniffing someone's network traffic without their consent, which they can can grant by simply accepting the terms of service.

      FTFY. Go read the fine print on your terms of service. Even better, post a link to the ToS for your wonderfully-private ISP.

      -----

      my provider (no, I won't tell you who)

      That's a very strange statement. Why can't you name your mythical power-to-the-people ISP?

    8. Re:nothing compared to the ISPs by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      Yeah take off the tinfoil hat already. No, they are not contractually obligated to, but they have shown in the past how they will deal with MAFIAA lawyers. They are trustworthy. I choose not to disclose my ISP because you are obviously trying to troll me into giving out more personal information than I normally would. Go play your teenaged games with someone less experienced.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    9. Re:nothing compared to the ISPs by optimism · · Score: 1

      Lawyers coming after you is an entirely different scenario from personal data collection.

      Like I said, go read your ISP's ToS, or privacy policy, or whatever they call it.

      Chances are, your ISP logs whatever they want from your traffic. That information is proven valuable, and companies are in business to make money, so they will exploit it. Unless you personally know and trust the board & management of your ISP, you have absolutely no reason to trust the company.

      Go play your teenaged games with someone less experienced.

      From your replies, I'm fairly sure that I have at least 10 years more experience than you. Perhaps even 20 or 30 years more experience.

      Unless you run all of your Internet traffic through a very sophisticated & trusted anonymizing proxy, every website that you visit knows your ISP. Plus they can "fingerprint" your specific machine with at least 95% confidence.

      Wake up.

  20. Security Theater. by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

    If they get all bipartisan and outraged about this, it's because they're both covering for the domestic spying that a real Big Brother system has been engaging in since the Patriot Act. Funny how they can compare Amazon to "Big Brother" from 1984, but our own NSA now spies on us, without any warrant whatsoever.

    Rake Amazon over the coals for gathering information that relates to advertising, but give AT&T a free pass for hosting NSA spy rooms in their facilities.

    1. Re:Security Theater. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      But the NSA does it for our own good.. while amazon does it for their own good ( at least until they pay off congress to get on their good side. )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Security Theater. by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the Federal Government needs a privacy agreement people will find difficult to refuse. Like when you sign your W-2 or 1040, you agree to surrender your privacy rights.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    3. Re:Security Theater. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      How many children were killed by US bombs yesterday? And these guys have the temerity to express outrage over a web browser while that is going on?

      Congressmen: do your fucking job. It's described in the instruction manual.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Security Theater. by optimism · · Score: 1

      I think you mean your W-2 form. You know, the form that all American wage-slaves sign, to tell their slave-master how much of their paycheck should automatically go to the government.

      Logically, I'm not sure why anyone would want to sign a privacy agreement that is attached to their agreement to pay money. IMHO they should pay you if they want your private information.

      But of course it doesn't work that way. All it takes is for the sheeple to remain ignorant. Witness the recent 4-year extension of the USA-PATRIOT Act.

      Besides, the sheeple have proven themselves to be remarkably stupid when it comes to actively signing away their life savings to "financial institutions" in the form of mortgages, retirement accounts, etc.

      Just keeping watching those TV shows with a laugh track. They will tell you what to do.

    5. Re:Security Theater. by optimism · · Score: 1

      D'oh!

      I meant to say W-4 form.

      All else still applies.

    6. Re:Security Theater. by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Ditto. Haha thanks.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  21. Congress's Collective Head by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    We already know where Congress's collective head is, and it's not wrapped around any browser.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Congress's Collective Head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, the expression "backend server" and Republican Congressmen...

      ack
      cannot.go.there.

  22. Stupid, stupid legislators ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They display their ignorance over and over. Everybody's data goes through somebody's private server somewhere. Usually more than one. There is no privacy. Get over it. If you want to be private, move out to Montana and get off the Internet.

  23. Congress has other priorities... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Congress should be worrying about it's criminal ignorance of the constitution and not micromanaging the entire economy...

  24. Force? by ResQuad · · Score: 1

    "going to force everybody that uses Amazon to go through their server " ??? Once again, congress has no idea how computers work.

    #1 - Amazon isn't going to "force" everyone that uses Amazon. Silk is only available on a single device, the Kindle Fire (For now).

    #2 - According to Wikipedia [1] and several dozen news stories, you can turn off Silk.

    Granted, It is still a privacy concern, but lets at least get the facts remotely close first.

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Silk

    --
    snowulf.com
    1. Re:Force? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Do people know silk is on one machine? Do they even know what silk IS? and why should we have to even worry about it. When i buy a device i don't expect it to collect the data i make unless i am asked first. Whats with this BS opt-out? If your product is good enough and we get something in return like Discounts then maybe people wouldn't mind. I don't understand why businesses think its their god given right to spy on what we do so they can make more money from us.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    2. Re:Force? by mcavic · · Score: 1

      It's a performance feature. If you don't trust Amazon not to spy on you, then don't buy a Kindle.

    3. Re:Force? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      I don't think its a performance feature with the speeds we have now. How mush faster is instant? A few milliseconds isn't a feature worth being spied upon.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    4. Re:Force? by mcavic · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Depending on the device and the web site, a lot of time can be wasted when the browser has to handle multiple TCP connections. The wireless provider is as big of a concern. They usually force you through a proxy and could spy from there if they want to.

  25. how does this differ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From BlackBerry, which has always operated in this fashion?

  26. Nothing new here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is exactly how RIM handles data traffic on the BlackBerry...all your browsing, emails, PIM Sync, etc, goes through there server and no one seems upset by that.
    Also, the Opera Mobile browser does this to accelerate browsing and no one cares.

  27. This is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera mobile has been doing this for nearly 10 years, cept with them you couldn't turn it off.

  28. RIM by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Does this too for the most part when you are attached to a BES server, and it's already 'government approved'.

    We really should ban non technical people from making laws that effect the technical world.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  29. The Real Issue Here by Nebulious · · Score: 2

    Let's not forget that Joe Barton is perhaps the dumbest and most openly corrupt person in congress today. Yes, that is saying a lot too. This is the man who thought he stumped Energy Secretary Stephen Chu with the question "Where does oil come from?" This is the guy who apologized to BP for Obama making them pay New Horizon reparations in the Gulf Coast. Joe Barton represents everything wrong with modern American politics and he does it with a holier-than-thou attitude.

    What I'm saying is if Joe Barton went on TV and said the sky was blue, I'd go out and see if it had changed to green.

    1. Re:The Real Issue Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod...parent...up. BTW, I heard Joe Barton said water was perfectly safe last week. Been acting as if under a boil warning from the EPA now. :-P

  30. Chrome is Google spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to burst your Google fanboy intelligence .... but Chrome is Google spyware. Google has said so many times.

    The difference is only in the Google is very up front about it. The only thing that they are not up-front is what data they collect and what they don't. They don't even claim that the browser does not log information when you visit HTTPS websites (like accessing your bank account).

    1. Re:Chrome is Google spyware by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Chrome is Google spyware.

      Citation needed.

      They don't even claim that the browser does not log information when you visit HTTPS websites (like accessing your bank account).

      Yeah, and?

      I don't have a problem with a browser logging information... on my own machine. If my machine is compromised, no browser will save me. If it's not, then having that information is actually really convenient to me.

      And all this is assuming that they are in fact doing this -- you say "They don't even claim that..." implying that they must be doing this. Yeah, and Glenn Beck has never denied raping and murdering a young girl in 1990.

      Now, if you mean to imply that Chrome sends a log to Google every time I visit an HTTPS website, then you're going to have to back that up. It shouldn't be too hard, anyway, if you want to prove your point -- set up a VM, use Wireshark to monitor all traffic into and out of it, ensure everything's up-to-date, and go browse around the Internet. Let me know how many times it phones home, and what it sends.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  31. Research in motion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where is the outrage at RIM? Doesn't RIM do the same thing through BIS activated blackberries and whomever is running a BES server?

  32. Research in Motion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what RIM has been done with their BlackBerrys all along. Any web (and eMail) traffic is router through their servers. Even the web traffic of company's that own enterprise BB-Servers handled like this to avoid exposure of the companys internal network to the www.

  33. Read and watch before jumping to conclusions by mcavic · · Score: 1

    http://amazonsilk.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/introducing-amazon-silk/

    Then if you don't like it, don't buy a Kindle.

  34. 20 Years Too Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing new here. Why the outrage? Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL, ...

    1. Re:20 Years Too Late by Renegrade · · Score: 1

      Eh, back in the day, those guys WERE the end-destination anyways. You didn't connect to Compuserve to get to the Internet; you connected to Compuserve to get to their own resources.

      Their logging wouldn't be any different than say, Slashdot's. When you're accessing Compuserve's content, they probably have a right to know.

      They added Internet gateways as an afterthought, anyways. Real net connections didn't involve those over-sized BBSes. They involved borrowing a professor's account at York Uni .. er oops ahem nevermind.

  35. Congress is out of touch? Yep. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Amazon's doing here is not new or novel (although I bet they try to patent it....but I digress). RIM and Palm were doing that for years for their devices.

    That being said, Amazon's always looking for ways to monetize. While RIM and Palm were proxying traffic for technical reasons, Amazon's likely doing it to make up for lack of bandwidth in the device, to capture the customer information like everyone fears, or both.

  36. Then pass privacy laws by laffer1 · · Score: 1

    It's about time Congress passed some privacy laws that detail what companies can and cannot do with people's data. Instead of privacy policies that companies don't honor, why not set some basics. It would avoid the Amazon issue, the recent OnStar fiasco, put some limits on Google and other Ad companies, etc. Most of the reactions on this article are about how stupid this is. Instead, consider that we usually complain about privacy and Congress has finally noticed albeit a very weak example.

    Some of the technical details are wrong with his statement, but consider that we're dealing with someone who isn't technically savvy I'd say it's a pretty good start.

    --
    MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
  37. This is the guy who apologized to BP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, this is a big company abusing the little peons. Isn't this the thing you cheer on every day, Joe? Shouldn't you be grovelling at Amazon's feet Joe, begging their forbearance for our impertinence? Did you pork an Amazon intern once and have it not end well, Joe? God knows your credibility is damn near fucking zero Joe.

  38. Do as I say, not as I do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of those stories where I wished never come up on my screen especially when important elections come around over important issues. It's almost as if they are screening at the their lungs 'Don't Vote For Me!' Instead they like to passively torture us by misrepresenting a specific saying it conspires against your privacy by taking what everyone else gives out for free but not to this representative's army of pollsters.

  39. If only... by matunos · · Score: 1

    If only members of Congress showed as much concern about the illegal wiretapping and data snooping done by the FBI and NSA.

  40. Darwin would be so proud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOW! Congresspersons who actually have sufficent braincells to USE a browser. Who would have imagined evolution had progressed so far!!

  41. Oh for the love of... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

    Hey Congress!

    Stop dicking around and balance the budget already!

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  42. OK by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Why don't they get concerned about Siri at the same time? It's not only listening to what you say, but developing a voice print library that, when subjected to analysis, can produce a model probably sufficient to defeat voice analysis security systems.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First end the Patriot Act congressman if you are serious about citizens privacy.