Slashdot Mirror


US Congress Votes To Shred ISP Privacy Rules (theregister.co.uk)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: The U.S. House of Representatives has just approved a "congressional disapproval" vote of privacy rules, which gives your ISP the right to sell your internet history to the highest bidder. The measure passed by 232 votes to 184 along party lines, with one Democrat voting in favor and 14 not voting. This follows the same vote in the Senate last week. Just prior to the vote, a White House spokesman said the president supported the bill, meaning that the decision will soon become law. This approval means that whoever you pay to provide you with internet access -- Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, etc -- will be able to sell everything they know about your use of the internet to third parties without requiring your approval and without even informing you. That information can be used to build a very detailed picture of who you are: what your political and sexual leanings are; whether you have kids; when you are at home; whether you have any medical conditions; and so on -- a thousand different data points that, if they have sufficient value to companies willing to pay for them, will soon be traded without your knowledge. With over 100 million households online in the United States, that means Congress has just given Big Cable an annual payday of between $35 billion and $70 billion.

547 comments

  1. Republicans by PoopJuggler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there anything they won't rape for money?

    1. Re:Republicans by ventsyv · · Score: 3, Informative

      Net Neutrality is next.

    2. Re: Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. Anyone with more money.

      They do believe in a free market, and sell themselves out to the high bidder.

    3. Re: Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their president is an avowed pushy grabber. Of course there isn't. I mean that literally by the way.

    4. Re:Republicans by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      I hope the Democrats' campaign ads pound home this evil deed during the next round of representative elections. Rub it in!

    5. Re:Republicans by Lucas123 · · Score: 2

      "Is there anything they won't rape for money?"

      I'm assuming that question was rhetorical.

    6. Re:Republicans by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > Is there anything they won't rape for money?

      Females.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    7. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let's just keep switching between two parties like that. That's gotten us so far ahead of the game. [eye roll]

      When are you going to wake up and see the two party systems plays you out like a two bit hooker looking for a fix? Still, you bend over and ask from another 10 inches of love.

    8. Re:Republicans by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We need to face it. Capitalism, while good in theory, is working out particularly badly for people now because the corporations and the oligarchs running them have taken over the media and the government and are hell bent on squeezing workers to the breaking point. The mainstream media is wholly owned by giant corporations and they pump out fake news, corporate-friendly propaganda 24/7. Capitalism needs to be saved from itself The money addicted oligarchs need to be reigned in. People need to get a better deal. New Deal 2.0.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    9. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia's best interests?

    10. Re: Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean they raped by following the rule of law? The federal government doesn't have the Constitutional right to regulate that. About time someone starts following the law!

    11. Re:Republicans by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0, Troll

      Net Neutrality is next.

      What about "Headline Neutrality". As soon as I read that Congress voted to "shred" my rights, I knew I was only going to get one, very biased, side of the story. The truth is that this vote changes nothing. The FCC had already revoked most privacy protections, and this vote just prevents those rules from being reinstated.

    12. Re: Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Links or it didn't happen.

    13. Re: Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would actually guess that VPNs are next. How long before the FCC bans them for some bullshit security issue?

    14. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only rape if they say no.

      When you're a big star like Trump, they let you do anything. Just grab 'em by the pussy.

    15. Re:Republicans by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      Is there anything they won't rape for money?

      No, there's nothing they won't do in pursuit of a dollar or to curry favor with corporations.

      Why are Republicans so hateful? This is a blatant slap in the face to every person that uses the internet, and yet they were all salivating to get this passed. Their constituent are supposed to be the ones who hate the gubmint and all of its surveillance tools, but did any of them object to this? Not that I heard.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    16. Re: Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    17. Re:Republicans by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Until you invent a viable 3rd party, I'll select the least of two weevils ... I mean evils.

    18. Re:Republicans by pastafazou · · Score: 2

      Google is already doing this. My wife searches for a product online at home, and suddenly all the google ads I'm seeing at work are related to her searches.

    19. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but "libertarians".

      Also "both parties do it."

      "SJW."

      Just pointing out the usual slashdot bullshit response when the party that's clearly fighting to make things worse fights to make things worse and gets caught.

    20. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not *entirely* about money and profits for their "contributors".

      the GOVERNMENT (use your imagination) can now PURCHASE this data *without warrants* and *without probable cause* and USE it against its citizens.

    21. Re:Republicans by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Is there anything they won't rape for money?

      Vote Republican. They are the party of personal freedom, and the privacy of the individual.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    22. Re:Republicans by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      The truth is that this vote changes nothing. The FCC had already revoked most privacy protections, and this vote just prevents those rules from being reinstated.

      There are three assertions in those two sentences. The first and the third are directly contradictory.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:Republicans by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      The money addicted oligarchs need to be reigned in.

      I agree with you, but it ain't gonna happen.

      Short-sighted asymptotic greed has shoved America aside.

      The Golden Calf is here and God has left the fucking building.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    24. Re: Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom.

    25. Re:Republicans by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Wow, just sad to see on another site supposedly populated by smart people so many still buy into the DemS vS Reps shell game. Perhaps a few quotes from men more powerful then I will ever be will enlighten you...

      Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21 1864 "I see in the near future a crisis approaching; corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

      Mayer Amschel Rothschild "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    26. Re: Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ISP (Charter) technically bans them already with its TOS, last I checked. I ignore that, but still: the government doesn't always have to ban things already, they can simply decline to defend your rights and let companies do the rest.

    27. Re:Republicans by speedplane · · Score: 1

      We need to face it. Capitalism, while good in theory, is working out particularly badly ...

      I would say that this isn't true capitalism. True capitalism has competition. There's no or too little competition when only one or two players control a market (such as for internet services). True capitalists understand the risk of monopolies and oligopolies to capitalism and would work to break them up.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    28. Re:Republicans by speedplane · · Score: 1

      Google is already doing this. My wife searches for a product online at home, and suddenly all the google ads I'm seeing at work are related to her searches.

      Two major differences: (1) Google provides relatively easy opt-outs; (2) Google's services are free, there is an implicit understanding that it's ad supported, so we accept some intrusion. That isn't the case with internet providers.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    29. Re:Republicans by speedplane · · Score: 1

      Google is already doing this. My wife searches for a product online at home, and suddenly all the google ads I'm seeing at work are related to her searches.

      Two major differences: (1) Google provides relatively easy opt-outs; (2) Google's services are free, there is an implicit understanding that it's ad supported, so we accept some intrusion. That isn't the case with internet providers.

      Also, a third big reason: there are decent alternatives to Google search and mail who do respect privacy. In many places, there are only one or two internet operators.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    30. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you realize the FCC rejected it's own privacy protections the instant the guy at top was replaced by someone Trump selected - for the express purpose of rejecting said privacy protections and more.

      You're right. This vote in the house changed nothing. Everything was fucked over earlier this year.

      (And you best get use to this being the norm for the next few years at the least.)

    31. Re:Republicans by bogeskov · · Score: 1

      I think I know what I'm getting for my birthday ;-)

      --

    32. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was thinking the same... damn am I glad I'm not living in the US, u guys really are screwed if this plan finds continuation. Hopefully protesting can hold this off stuff gets really hairy if this gets a pass...

    33. Re:Republicans by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      The lies about capitalism starting with Reagan and his voodoo, trickle down economics have worn mighty thin over the last 30 years. There is no more competition, companies are merging like mad, and when a giant multinational corporation or bank fails the government bails them out with taxpayer's money. Where is the competition? When was the last time you heard of big companies being broken up, AT&T? The lies spread by oligarchs about the wonders of unregulated capitalism are complete nonsense. Let's break up all those too big to fail companies, and put a dash of competition back in capitalism. No more mergers, only break ups. Also, let's bring back Eisenhower era taxes on the wealthy.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    34. Re:Republicans by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe after a year or two of Trump's oligarch orgy, working people will grow weary of their grotesque overreach and bring out the pitchforks. It's happening in other countries, where the people have been a bit less sheepified. Maybe things in the "gig economy" will get bad enough that people will finally stand up to it. We'll see. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting though.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    35. Re:Republicans by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      There's not really any decent alternative to Google. Bing sucks. Don't try and pretend otherwise.

    36. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are out of the loop.

      "Net neutrality" IS a rape.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7WHoqsRuxU

    37. Re:Republicans by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Why are Republicans so hateful?

      Because the newsman told you they are? All they're doing here is undoing a power grab by the FCC. Regulations over selling of customer data belong to the FTC, not the FCC.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    38. Re: Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, it's just a little bit more than the tip. Since it's from the right side of the isle that makes it ok.

      So tired of equivalency being used as a pass.

    39. Re:Republicans by neonv · · Score: 0

      Companies have been selling your information for all of recorded history. Many companies make money from this. The only difference is now your ISP can join in. You won't notice a difference.

    40. Re:Republicans by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      If we do a rewind of the greed curve, we find that it is older than dirt.

      The greed has no roots in politics or religion. It just uses those as a carrier to lubricate the movement.

      I don't see any solution that doesn't involve civil war.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    41. Re:Republicans by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      Well, whenever millions of people have taken to the streets, things have changed. Women's vote, civil rights, end to the Vietnam war. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, killed the Trusts in the early part of the 20th century. So it does happen. All it might take is to investigate a few oligarchs like the Koch Bros. wherein I am sure prosecutors will find plenty of indictable offenses.

      If we had President Sanders now, instead of The Don, I think things would already be shifting away from oligarchy. Capitalism needs to be saved from itself. Without severe regulations and heavy taxation of the oligarchs you always get a feeding frenzy of greed, like a bunch of crack addicts unable to control themselves.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    42. Re:Republicans by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Change requires citizen buy-in.

      Women's vote, civil rights, end to the Vietnam war..

      ... were all done by way of citizen activism.

      Today, citizens want the jobs their parents had.

      Sander's proposal to reign in greed would not have prevailed over Trump's promises of bringing jobs back to America.

      Trump was elected on a single issue, - jobs - predominantly by undereducated rustbelt white women.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    43. Re:Republicans by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      There is no more competition, companies are merging like mad, and when a giant multinational corporation or bank fails the government bails them out with taxpayer's money.

      I partially blame "retirement plans" for this. We all have our retirement plans diversified over the economy, and when if an enormous corporation sinks, we all take a big hit. They have to bail out giant companies because the fallout from that economic crater would impact people who can't afford it. At least it's better than the pension system, where if a company went belly up all its former workers would lose all their retirement.

      "Too big to fail" should mean "too big to exist."

    44. Re:Republicans by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      But you can use Google anonymously. You can go to google.com, block any cookies and scripts, don't have any google signon, and you can still use their search just fine.

    45. Re:Republicans by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Is there anything they won't rape for money?

      A Republican would sell the rope that is used to hang his mother. And call it freedom string.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    46. Re:Republicans by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      You won't bring jobs back to America until you get rid of NAFTA and the other trade deals that encourage sending jobs overseas. That was another one of Trump's lies, that he would renegotiate NAFTA. Fat chance. So where are the jobs coming from? Maybe the huge proposed increase in our bloated offense budget? We can hire more poor kids in the US to go overseas and kill other poor people at the behest of US oligarchs? Read general Smedley Butler's book "war is a racket".

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Sanders would have beat the crap out of Trump and you know it. Sanders is currently the most popular politician in America, even according to FOX News poling:

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      whereas Hillary Clinton was one of the least popular candidates to ever run. Considering that Clinton, nonetheless, won the popular vote the obvious conclusion is that Sanders would have beaten Trump in a landslide.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    47. Re:Republicans by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Why are Republicans so hateful?

      Because the newsman told you they are?

      Oh, my dear child...no newsman needed to tell me that they're hateful, I've been watching them for almost 50 years. My determination that they're hateful comes from decades of experience, not what some talking head on the TV machine says.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    48. Re:Republicans by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Question for you:

      What action by the United States ended the Great Depression?

      Hint: World War II

      War is the most cost-effective and expeditious strategy to adjust a failing economy.

      In addition to weapon manufacture of planes, boats, guns, grenades, there are uniforms, protective clothing, technology like night vision goggles, radios, etc.

      Also, troops use fuel and transportation.

      Logistical support includes food, medical personnel and supplies, quarters, hangers, storage buildings ...

      War is an excellent investment.

      On the other side of that, we don't spend much on people who return with medical or economic needs, so there's that upside.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    49. Re:Republicans by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      War is an excellent investment if you are a psychopath, I'll agree with that. If you have no concern for your fellow human, than war is fantastic. I am sure despots throughout history will agree with you. Of course, the waste fraud and abuse are off the charts, along with the high body count of collateral damage. But no matter, the oligarchs will be richer. Nothing better than a business where your goods explode, if operating as per manufacturer's instructions, as you will need to replace them lest the bombing slow.

      Yes, war is very, very good for the oligarchs. By the way, how is it working out for you personally?

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    50. Re:Republicans by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It worked out well for me, personally.

      My daddy came out of WWII with a job in a refinery that was producing at 100% and supported 8 kids.

      Before that, he was a field worker in a goddam sawmill.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    51. Re:Republicans by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      So you are good with for-profit war then?

      What is wrong with sawmills? If you like war, you should love deforestation.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    52. Re:Republicans by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      All that does is prevent your computer from saving your browsing history. Every site you visit still logs your visits. Google still logs all of your searches.

    53. Re:Republicans by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      ... for-profit war ...

      You miss the point.

      There is no profit in war.

      If there was, America would not be in debt.

      A healthy economy needs black-hole spending.

      Look at the positive results of non-profit wars and infrastructure spending (FDR: "To those who say that our expenditures for Public Works and other means for recovery are a waste that we cannot afford, I answer that no country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources.”), and the space program.

      Black-hole (deficit) spending is good for the economy.

      --

      As for deforestation, it never happened.

      The lumber industry around here owns a finite (yet huge) number of acres of timber and is very careful about preserving its commodity by renewing its own forest.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    54. Re:Republicans by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      You live in an alternative universe. War is one of the most profitable businesses in America. Just because it causes the government to go into debt when we bomb countries that did not attack us doesn't mean that defense contractors don't make huge profits. But you knew that so I assume you are not trying to have a meaningful discussion.

      How about black hole spending on biomedical research to cure cancer, instead of killing people with bombs?

      Deforestation never happened http://www.livescience.com/276... and the earth is flat.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    55. Re:Republicans by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      How hateful are the Democrats?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    56. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How hateful are the Democrats?

      Not as much as Republicans. Blacks and latinos largely vote D, and both those demographics are full of loving Christians.

      Remember: even the Catholic Pope came out against Trump.

    57. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to suffer from the same delusions as the Tea Party and Trump folks, which look back on some magical past that never existed. Try looking at the biggest ways in which the lower classes are being failed:

      1) Poor transportation options that add hours to their work days. Public transportation is a government function.
      2) Poor schools, again a government function.
      3) Public policies like the war on drugs that disproportionately target the poor and tear up families, which perpetuates their disadvantage.
      4) Unfair treatment by the police and criminal justice system.
      5) Lack of access or choice to broadband internet. You might blame capitalism for this, but in most areas there is a government mandated monopoly in broadband access. Yes, this is negotiated by the ISPs, but in the end it is a public policy decision.
      6) Lack of nutritious food choices. This is where capitalism has failed the most, but again, public policy decisions in agricultural subsidies and personal consumption choices has made processed foods more competitive. Thankfully the public has started to realize this, and community gardens and farm-to-table are all on the rise.

    58. Re:Republicans by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      ... most profitable businesses in America. Just because it causes the government to go into debt ...

      OK, you're out.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    59. Re:Republicans by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      Right. You sure got me there with your non response.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    60. Re:Republicans by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      ... most profitable businesses in America. Just because it causes the government to go into debt ...

      You got yourself got you with YOUR response.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    61. Re:Republicans by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      OK, now I know you are kidding. Or are you saying that the government and corporations are two parts of the same entity? When one part goes into debt and the other gets a huge profit, that overall the conglomerate is in debt; ergo, the profiteering defense contractor that made a huge profit was actually in debt because the government borrowed money to pay them. I like your thinking, Impressively illogical.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    62. Re:Republicans by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I like your thinking ...

      No, you don't.

      ... are you saying ...

      I didn't say it. You did.

      ... most profitable businesses in America. Just because it causes the government to go into debt ...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    63. Re:Republicans by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      How hateful are the Democrats?

      Not hateful enough to sell the rights to your personal browsing history to your ISP.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    64. Re:Republicans by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Did they do that though? Or did they just move that regulating power back to the FTC where it belongs?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    65. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really your first thought bi-partisan politics? You are fucking retarded if you think this is a bi-partisan politcal problem. This is a corporate buying off of political entities problem. The fact you and many others do not see it is one of the reasons it exists.

    66. Re:Republicans by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Did they do that though? Or did they just move that regulating power back to the FTC where it belongs?

      Yes, they did it, regardless of with whom the ultimate authority rests. They enabled this abuse, if you want to split hairs, but either way they're the ones that made it happen.

      The Republicans should have put the people first, not the corporate ISPs that will undoubtedly abuse this new ability.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    67. Re:Republicans by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It's not a new ability though. ISPs have always had the ability, and hadn't been abusing it, so there's no real need to regulate them right now, and if they start, hit up the FTC to stop them.

      This is just political bullshit. If the Department of Defense said "nah, we're not going to bother with budgets or the appropriations committee anymore, we're just going to spend money how we like. First up, the Department of Defense Puppy Program where we take care of abandoned cuddly puppies and feed them and love them and pet them!" and congress were to say "no, fuck you, you cannot just spend whatever you want without the approval of Congress, don't care if it's for puppies or kitties or ponies or whatever" I'm pretty sure you wouldn't start screaming about how Congress hates puppies and wants puppies to die!!

      Nothing has changed. Your information isn't being sold. You're just hoping to score political points by scaring morons into believing it has. Sad, really.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    68. Re:Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just hoping to score political points by scaring morons into believing it has. Sad, really.

      How is that sad? Scoring political points by scaring morons is an effective strategy, especially in the US.

      The US and most countries in "the West" run on the concept of "government by the people, for the people". This means that as far as the system is concerned, the fearful moron is fungible to the most rational person. The moron can run for the same offices and positions as the rational guy, and his vote count just as much.

      This includes being part of the electoral college or whatever mechanics you think curbs the dangers of mob rule. The fearful morons are in there too, and can be scared just like the rest of them.

      With fearful morons being fungible to rational people, it's not surprising that it's a valid strategy to appeal to fearful morons.

      And don't kid yourself your side doesn't do it. Don't play the "my side is full of intellectuals and the other side is full of idiots" game.

    69. Re:Republicans by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      You're just hoping to score political points by scaring morons into believing it has. Sad, really.

      It worked like a charm to get a delusional, draft-dodging pathological liar elected to the highest office in the land, so frankly it seems like a pretty effective strategy to me.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  2. This is absolutely sickening... by gweilo8888 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and is the interests of nobody but a few of the obscenely wealthy. The Republican party no longer even pretends to give a shit about the poor and middle class, and yet we keep giving them power. It has to end.

    1. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      While I don't approve of this outcome at all, the browsing habits of the wealthy are up for sale just like the rest.

    2. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yet we keep giving them power.

      Not "we". It's the dummies. If we had an educated populace, it wouldn't be happening. The obscenely wealthy wouldn't have the votes.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this "them" you keep talking about? I am extremely wealthy, you insensitive clod!

      We don't really consider wealth obscene in America.

    4. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Moheeheeko · · Score: 4, Informative

      your Internet access might become cheaper.

      Pffthahahahaha, oh wait you were serious, let me laugh even harder. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    5. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      You are retarded.

      The rules would have afforded netizens with the opportunty to SUE if a company isn't disclosing what data they're copying. With these rules being tossed out, there is simply no legal recourse when an ISP (or yes, Google) steals your data.

      This is not giving more freedom to businesses, but it is contributing to a further regression of our privacy.

      Also, there's a big difference: You can use (or not use) whatever search engine you like but in MANY parts of the country there is only one real ISP available. Giving them carte blanche to copy your data without informing you is an ENORMOUS security hole/risk. These fuckers can't even keep their OWN data private; I certainly don't trust them with mine.

    6. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 2

      If you try to spin any harder, I fear your head will launch into orbit.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    7. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 0

      The Republican party no longer even pretends to give a shit about the poor and middle class

      Are you saying they're more honest? Both parties suck. But is it really any better to get fucked over by Democrats that tell you they care about about the poor and middle class? The only time either party really claims to care is during an election cycle when they want your votes and campaign contributions. Once in office, you better grab your ankles no matter which party it is.

    8. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      Think of it as an auction. The ISPs would be willing to accept a higher amount of money to keep certain people's private details private.

      But now anyone can buy the personal details about the rest of us. Things we might rather keep private.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    9. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by dysmal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What are you talking about? This will allow ISPs to fund Internet access for poorer people.

      You're not losing any privacy, but your Internet access might become cheaper.

      Those fuckers will use this as an excuse to jack up your rates again because now they need to offset the costs of having farm your data for them to sell. You see, this is going to cost them and therefore will cost the consumer. That's ISP math.

    10. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. We could vote for the not-for-the-obscenely-wealthy party instead...

    11. Re: This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that we ALREADY paid for that in the form of the Universal Access Fee assigned to ALL Internet accounts. And the Billions in 2000's subsidies for "broadband" that telcos never delivered. And the ever-increasing charges and fees for out monthly bills...

    12. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...kind of like the Democrat party.

    13. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by mvdwege · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    14. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by sgage · · Score: 1

      Surely there will be an opt-out option for weatthy folk for an extra $500 a month. Remember, this is not a mandate that ISP's must sell your data, just that they can.

    15. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      No they're not. Don't kid yourself. I see two scenarios, either you can buy their history, which will all amount to a long list of "vpn.net - xxxx/xx/xx". Or, and most probably, it will play out like private phone numbers on land lines, or DNS registrations where you can pay $$$ to not be listed.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    16. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An ignorant, distracted populace is a malleable populace. Think it not strange that the wealthiest nation on the planet has such an ineffectual educational system?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    17. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know why I know you're not worth listening to?

    18. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I'm conflicted between whether to think you're just trolling, or that you really believe that. Just in case... Let me dispel your idea with a single piece of very simple logic. Poor people have no money, ergo there's no reason a business would take an interest in them.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    19. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the result of the 'user pays' mentality that seems to have the US in its grip. Something that even a lot of fairly well educated people adhere to, because they're in a good position and they really don't care what happens to anyone else. This is extremely short-sighted behaviour

      Free (or at least affordable) health care and education are not communist plots, they're a necessity to ensure you have an educated and healthy population that is able to resist power grabs from the wealthy, such as the one happening (has already happened) in the US. Anywhere where neo-liberalists are preaching austerity and 'user pays', the same pattern can be seen.

      If you don't give a damn about someone else's fate, eventually you'll live in a society where people will no longer give a damn about your fate either.

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
    20. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      So, what's your point?

      Is it that we should have a more educated populace? Public schools in the United States have been failures, even though Since World War II, inflation-adjusted spending per student in American public schools has increased by 663 percent. Obviously, more money isn't going to help, and that's all I hear from people who make claims like "It's the dummies."

      Here's the real issue: we have people who don't have any interest in actually learning about the policies politicians support (of either party), and they have the reigns on power in a democracy. The likelihood that anyone will affect the outcome of an election is minuscule, so people vote for "civic duty" or the entertainment value of the event. No one is making a list of policies each politician is expected to support and calculating cost/benefit for each. Heck, most people know that politicians are bad at keeping their campaign promises, much less their "values."

      The problem is not education. The problem is a system that allows people who have no interest in making a calculated choice to make a choice that is foisted everyone. You can't even claim that outcomes would be much better if everyone who voted was required to have a Master's degree.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    21. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by tepples · · Score: 1

      in MANY parts of the country there is only one real ISP available.

      As sglewis, Zero__Kelvin, Bengie, FlyHelicopters, and others pointed out, there is more than one part of the country available.

    22. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we had an educated populace, it wouldn't be happening.

      You know all those representatives that drafted and voted for this travesty... they are highly educated.

      Education does not make a person moral neither does the lack of it make a person deplorable.

    23. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but your Internet access might become cheaper

      Haven't seen what's happened to cable bills in the last, oh, 10-15 years have you?

      captcha: baseless

    24. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving power to RepubliFats beats giving power to nibberized DemoRats, narco.MEX wettbakkkks and muzzi-wog camel-fuckers. You see butchering-out Trotsky progressives is as important now in USA as it was in 1920s Germany ---- yes I do prefer Hitler, Sherrif Joe & THEDONALD to Stalin, Holder and Maxine-the-bitch-Waters. See ya in the street palsy .......

    25. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      So you're completely okay with the fact that Google is allowed to do whatever they want with your data, because they're not an ISP (except in cities where they are), but it's the end of the world because Comcast is now allowed to? And how do you feel about Obama appointee, Ajit Pai, saying it was a good move by congress, because it will allow the FCC to align their privacy rules with the FTC and eliminate conflicts/confusion?

    26. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not "we". It's the dummies.

      Yeah, insult the people who didn't vote the way you wanted them to instead of trying to come to an understanding with them to reduce political horseshit so that people can make informed decisions without being drowned in bullshit at every turn. Yeah, lets keep insulting and thus alienating each other instead of trying to fix anything. Good idea.

      Seems you're part of that uneducated populace, thinking with your emotions instead of your brain. But as a dog, I guess you enjoy all the free shit?

    27. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we had an educated populace, the obscenely wealthy wouldn't even exist. It's a bad thing to let the rich have so much money because they do nothing but buy congresscritters to fuck over everybody else with it. Tax the bastards!

    28. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think it not strange that the wealthiest nation on the planet has^H^H^Hhad such an ineffectual educational system?

      ... fixed that for you. A least we have an educational system back in these good old days.

      Let's take a famous quote by a Republican out of context: "You can fool some of the people some of the time...."

      Republicans have learned this lesson well. And it's working. The new version finishes, "... and if you can fool enough people all of the time, we win."

    29. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? This will allow ISPs to fund Internet access for poorer people.

      You're not losing any privacy, but your Internet access might become cheaper.

      Those fuckers will use this as an excuse to jack up your rates again because now they need to offset the costs of having farm your data for them to sell. You see, this is going to cost them and therefore will cost the consumer. That's ISP math.

      Yep. Right along the lines of: "we are going to brutally ass rape the shit out of you, then turn you over and proceed to skullfuck you with our big fat monopoly thick shit coated cock, and then we'll do the same to your children and anyone else you care about. We will NOT be able to 'hear you now', since our aforementioned dick will be shoved all the way down your throat so you can't screem about how fucking outrageous this is. " Sincerely, your friendly neighborhood ISP lobby and Congress.

    30. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Not "we". It's the dummies. If we had an educated populace, it wouldn't be happening.

      But a greater percentage of educated whites* voted for Trump than Hillary. And something like 75% of STEM majors voted Trump. So I don't think a more educated populace will help.

      *I use whites because they vote less along racial lines than anyone else. Blacks vote democrat regardless of education.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    31. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you understand STEM doesn't mean that you're educated on governance. It doesn't mean you know jack squat about history. It doesn't mean you have the first clue as to how to educate other people. It doesn't mean you understand how the health care system works. It doesn't mean you know how to do the many, many things that we need our government to do, or even that you can tell someone who does know what to do from someone who just sees a way to further enrich themselves.

      It means you're good at math. Nothing more.

    32. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those fuckers will use this as an excuse to jack up your rates again because now they need to offset the costs of having farm your data for them to sell. You see, this is going to cost them and therefore will cost the consumer. That's ISP math.

      I'd go further than that. Every time you hear people bitch about how the reason we have privacy invading tracking from Facebook, Google, etc is because people were unwilling to actually pay for services, you can state the obvious: if <blank> had a paid service, they'd charge you for the privilege of viewing their non-optional ads. Just like cable TV*.

      * On a side note, it occurs to me that the main reason HBO, Cinemax, etc didn't have ads isn't because it wouldn't be profitable. No doubt, the whole uncensored aspect of it would be a goldmine of advertising revenue from porn companies. Instead, it's precisely that (1) it might cause moral outrage (the least likely reason, IMHO), (2) it'd teach men to cum in 30 seconds or less, and (3) it'd basically just cause people to drop Cinemax and buy porn directly since it's so much better than watching a 2 hour shit movie for 10 seconds of tit and ass when porn offers a 2 hour shit movie with 90 minutes of tit and ass.

      PS - Seriously, I'm sick of all the apologists for privacy invading advertisers. Advertising in general is bad enough without "personalization".

    33. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Right, and ISPs and municipalities get away with it because they know that no one in their right mind is going to sell their house and move because their ISP monopoly sucks.

    34. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, pretending to care is exactly what they do best. It's how they keep getting elected.

      The real problem that's not being addressed is how they keep the education system tuned so carefully to keep people smart enough to do "jobs", but dumb enough not to know when they're being lied to. And it's not only the politicians. Lump the advertisers in with them too. Hell, ultimately they're all owned by the same 1%.

      Gorge Orwell's Animal Farm...
      Fahrenheit 451...

      Ready, set, go.

    35. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget the part about being distracted.

      Now it makes sense. All that damn autoplay every fucking where. Even the goddamn bluetooth connection in my car automatically starts pandora when I get in - even though I "killed" the app when I got out last time. I had to un-pair my phone just to get control of my audio back.

    36. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But a greater percentage of educated whites* voted for Trump than Hillary.

      That would be relevant if ISP privacy is near the top of the list of reasons why educated whites voted for Trump. It isn't.

      Furthermore, nobody knows if Hillary wouldn't be just as bad if not worse on the issue of ISP privacy.

      Blacks vote democrat regardless of education.

      Well, blacks are more religious and Christian than the national average. It's not surprising that the religious are more prone to dogmatic unthinking.

    37. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the Democrats, who pretend to give a shit about the poor and middle class and do exactly the same thing.

    38. Re:This is absolutely sickening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the wealthy are more likely to start a shell company to own their internet connection and negotiate a nda with the isp for their shell company.

  3. So... Can they sell past history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or is there a date at which point than can begin collecting your soul (I mean data) and selling it?

    1. Re:So... Can they sell past history? by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      This is the question I am really interested in. Since the law mandated they had to store this information, are they going to go back and comb through what they have on file?

    2. Re:So... Can they sell past history? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Probably, yes. Better yet, the government snoopers don't need a warrant unless the warrants are in denominations of $100 each.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:So... Can they sell past history? by clonehappy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I see you've bought the outrage of the day bait. Two minutes hate, if you will.

      Anyway, the ISPs could always sell your data. There has never been an enforced law or regulation that stopped them, like any internet company, from selling the data you willingly give them or which passes across their networks.

      Some regulations were put into place last year (but never enforced, mind you) that would have prevented ISPs from selling certain data about you. Note that other internet companies, like Facebook, Google, etc. would NOT have been affected by these regulations, this was only a restriction on ISPs.

      Congress has essentially decided that the playing field should be level between the Facebooks and Googles and the ISPs. Essentially, keeping the internet functioning the way it has been since its inception and letting the ISPs choose whether or not and what data they will and won't monetize.

      Long story short, no rules were "shredded". This is partisan clickbait nonsense being pushed by the media and sites with a political agenda, like Slashdot. So to answer your question, the date at which point they can choose to sell your data is whenever you signed up for internet service, because nothing has ever stopped them from doing this before, and you fell for the bait like most uninformed people.

  4. Go dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turn your internet access line into an encrypted tunnel. Use TOR.

    1. Re: Go dark by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      NSA or CIA can beat that. How long do you think it will be before they partner with ISPS for "enhanced security" and pay them with that technology?

    2. Re: Go dark by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Hey dufus, those guys already have access. That is not who this story is about. This is about anybody with money being able to buy your private internet history.

    3. Re:Go dark by chipschap · · Score: 2

      You can do that but are you then safe from Microsoft or Apple taking whatever they want from your computer and phoning it home?

      No. And if you trust Microsoft to stop spying when you make use of the user-facing privacy options, you are indeed a trusting person.

      What the ISP knows about you is much less than what Microsoft knows about you.

    4. Re: Go dark by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Hey dickhead. Read my post. I'm saying they'll give the tech to private enterprise and allow them unfettered access to your Toril encrypted content.

    5. Re:Go dark by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      So they place cameras in the dressing rooms for "security" personnel to make sure you don't thieve. Now, for a little $$$ you too can subscribe to the peep show.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    6. Re: Go dark by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. You're just a cluestick who is trolling about three-letter agencies because your knee got tapped with the word "privacy."

  5. ...suck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much winning

    I'm tired of winning

    1. Re:...suck it by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      You're doing too much losing to be winning. You're losing because of all the whining. Some people might be offended when you tell them to suck it.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:...suck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some people might be offended when you tell them to suck it.

      Trump voters do tend to be snowflakes that way. They bitch and moan about political correctness, but heaven forbid someone insult them or their dear leader, lest their poor little feelings get hurt.

    3. Re:...suck it by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      They identify with how thin skinned their dear leader is. The thing I am frequently amused by is that the Trump side largely sticks to personal attacks and insults in response to questions or thoughts about actual policy ideas.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  6. Solution: keep them guessing with tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Browse with tor, or run a tor exit node, Either one will obfuscate your online patterns and make your data so noisy as to be useless.

    Potential downside: nightly visits from the FBI asking about your more interesting browsing habits....

  7. Ouch... by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Was there lube? I didn't feel any lube.

    This idea that all senators and reps are terrible - except mine has got to go. We are all continually being bent over. Vote all of them out.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Ouch... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Was there lube? I didn't feel any lube.

      This idea that all senators and reps are terrible - except mine has got to go. We are all continually being bent over. Vote all of them out.

      Ugh. Vote the Republicans out, dum dum! Can you not see that the Democrats voted against this abomination? This "one side is as bad as the other" bullshit is what got Trump elected in the first place.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:Ouch... by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Both sides have sold out. To slightly different bidders, but certainly not to you or I. While the dems may have -some- policies that I agree with more being that I am fairly liberal, that does not mean that the current crop are not bought and corrupt. No matter how they voted on this legislation.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    3. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Democrats voted against it because the Republicans voted for it. You think for one second they wouldn't sell us out if the tables were turned? Of course, you could be right, they might keep the information private - by which I mean restricted to the government. You're a fool if you think they'd block ISPs from gathering it.

      Neither party gives a damn about privacy, Republican or Democrat. They're both thoroughly corrupt and both thoroughly owned by big business.

    4. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, a few Democrats voted for this abomination.

    5. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, yes, since this was a regulation that the Democrats passed when they were in power just a few months ago that the Republicans are now repealing, it's pretty hard to claim this is a non-partisan issue. The Democrats didn't have to pass the rule in the first place (and don't claim it was a trap to make the Republicans look bad: the Democrats were overconfident of their victory and the rule was passed before the election).

    6. Re:Ouch... by TellarHK · · Score: 2

      No Democratic senators, and one Democratic representative who I can't find information on. Whoever that is needs to get smacked the hell down.

      But it's not "a few Democrats", it's one idiot.

    7. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did that Vote Democrat bullshit hit you as far as the expanded and extended Patriot Act, the militarization of the police and drones killing 12 year old kids without any recourse?

      What got you Trump is a certain Democrat who spent her load of cash on telling you how bad Trump was instead of how good she was suppose to be in swing states along, calling legal gun owners "terrorists" and supporting asinine gender identification meanderings. The other choice from that crowd was a bitch ass socialist who pays less taxes than I do.

    8. Re:Ouch... by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This "one side is as bad as the other" bullshit is what got Trump elected in the first place.

      I would like to take this moment to remind everyone that there is this thing called a primary election. During the primary election, you can vote for who you want to see in the general election. Traditionally, primary elections have low turnout, so your vote will have more influence.

      Even if you don't identify with a political party, vote in the primary. I even suggest voting in the primary of the party you identify with the least. Perhaps that would result in some moderate candidates in the general election.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    9. Re:Ouch... by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 4, Informative

      The drone thing again, eh? Obama's drone strikes killed 117 civilians over 8 years. Trump's drone strikes killed 200 civilians in one day this month. And if you're going to bring up killing kids, don't forget the 8 year-old American girl Trump killed.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    10. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When were the Democrats in power? This was a regulation pushed by an unelected bureaucrat, not something the Democratic Party ever cared about.

      You can bet that, if they were in actual power, they'd be all for letting ISPs sell information to whoever they want. Because they aren't, they voted against it. I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of people voting against the bill have no idea what was in it. They voted against it because the other party promoted it, as simple as that.

    11. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not willing to vote for someone who voted against this... ... then what precisely are you offering as an incentive for a politician to do what you think is right?

    12. Re:Ouch... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Oh FFS, do you seriously thing the Dems would have voted for this if they had a majority in the House? Gimme a break!

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    13. Re: Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of people who voted for this bill had no idea what was in it, after all, this was Congress, a more wretched hive of ignorance and morons you won't find on the planet.

      Well, once we launch Alabama into Space anyway.

    14. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your family to war with you and they get killed. I think I'd send them away and never see them again if I was to be a terrorist/warrior. War sucks and people die. That's all it is. Nothing more. Don't expect your enemy to protect your children. Terrorist have no problem killing anyone. That includes their family; by keeping them nearby. Children have always been the first casualty of wars everywhere.
            Think of all the children not just this one. But mostly think of your own. And yes Trump sucks in many ways. I'm not justifying what he did or didn't do.

      Sorrow....

    15. Re:Ouch... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I even suggest voting in the primary of the party you identify with the least.

      I thought that was how Trump got elected.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    16. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is my ballot secret in this Primary Election? You mean I have to register for a party?!?! NO! You have no right to know whom I voted for or the teeny-weeny pool of candidates from which I have been forced to chose to vote for among all primary candidates. The primaries are B.S. and violate the basic principles of democracy.

    17. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God fucking forbid you update your bias based on this new information. Nice to see everyone still ignores Bayes here.

    18. Re:Ouch... by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, this particular issue is partisan. However my point still stands. Dems will fuck you just as hard, with no lube on other issues that they have sold out on.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    19. Re:Ouch... by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Not on this issue, no. However dems are also sold out, just on other issues and other interests. It is not YOU that either party represents. Falling into these partisan traps is one way of keeping us divided.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    20. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump promised to kill the families of terrorists. Promise kept!

    21. Re:Ouch... by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Sometimes pressure on politicians works. Congress members received 50 times as many calls opposing TrumpCare as supporting it. And the bill failed. We could try the same thing here.

    22. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not always. I live in Maryland, and I'm a registered independent. MD only allows you to vote in the primary for the party you're registered for. MD has also gone democrat for president for just about every election ever (except Reagan), so you're right on that point, lots of people here register as democrat because they know that it's the democrat primary that really matters.

    23. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you people up-vote this obviously manipulative crap that is as if from mainstream media cookbook? This person gives a link to an article that is full of words like "is believed" and "allegations". All conjecture, 0 facts. Just to manipulate readers into viewing Trump in a bad light. I see this shit everywhere and am sick of it.

      Informative my ass.

    24. Re:Ouch... by coofercat · · Score: 1

      It's not so much "they're both as bad as each other" that's the issue, it's that "my side is glorious and good, the others are terrible". The truth of it is that neither side is virtuous, they may have slightly different aims and biases, but ultimately, neither are "good".

      As for "... got Trump elected in the first place" - I seriously doubt the alternative wasn't going to fsck people over. Maybe not via the ISPs, but via some other means, and so some mirror image of you would be posting "gaw! if only we'd got Trump - he wouldn't do anything this crazy!".

      US politics is doomed to a never ending ping-pong between two parties until it's generally understood that there can be (and are) more than two answers to every question.

    25. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is marked insightful? All of the people who use "insightful" to mean "I agree with this", remember that this is a law. The Democrats were not in power a few months ago in anything except the presidency. The Republicans have owned the house and senate for two years, and owned the house for 6.

    26. Re:Ouch... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I even suggest voting in the primary of the party you identify with the least.

      I thought that was how Trump got elected.

      I'm not advocating for sabotaging a party. I'm suggesting trying to make it more moderate. Liberals that voted for Trump in the primaries did the opposite.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    27. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what I do.

    28. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially take your state into account. For example, if you live in California, register with the Democratic Party regardless of your political affiliation or position. That's because the state votes so heavily democratic that you will never have your vote count towards any other party. At the least in the primary election, you can help choose the Democratic Party candidate that California ends up swinging towards at the national election. This is the only time you have any say if you live in a state that exhibits this behavior (California, New York, Washington, Arkansas, etc.)

    29. Re:Ouch... by Straumli+Perversion · · Score: 1

      Would you agree that killing civilians with drone strikes with no due process is a bad thing no matter which sitting President orders it?

    30. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an unaffiliated centrist (and neither libertarian nor authoritarian), and I voted in the GOP primary against Trump, just in case. Didn't fkn help. I didn't want Clinton or Sanders or Cruz or a great many of the other major party candidates, but I knew I didn't want Trump.

      Can we have more of those "jungle primaries" or some other IRV? I want Jon Huntsman to run for president again or maybe Tim Kaine.

    31. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      '"In U.S. drone operations, reports suggest all 'military aged males' and potentially even women and children are considered 'enemies killed in action' unless they can 'posthumously' and 'conclusively' prove their innocence," it added.'

      AKA guilty until proven innocent. With really little motivation to prove someone innocent. Just like Guantanamo.

    32. Re:Ouch... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      God fucking forbid you update your bias based on this new information. Nice to see everyone still ignores Bayes here.

      Both sides are total sellouts, they just sell out to groups that only occasionally overlap.

    33. Re:Ouch... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      When were the Democrats in power?

      A few months ago when the executive branch was held by the Democratic Party. This article is about the legislative branch undoing those executive actions.

      This was a regulation pushed by an unelected bureaucrat,

      He reports to the President. Unelected bureaucrat means nothing, he was appointed by the President and reported directly to President Obama. One of the big criticisms of Tom Wheeler that people against Net Neutrality said ofhim was that under presidential pressure, he changed his stance on net neutrality from somewhat anti-net-neutral (or neutral-agnostic) to pro-net-neutrality after Obama publicly called for ISPs to be classified as common carriers.

    34. Re:Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing, but do you have specific examples of issues the Dems sold out on?

    35. Re:Ouch... by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Moderates can't get elected because 1) The media can't live without throwing gasoline on every fire 2) Moderates don't have groups of angry grass roots supporters that send in money 3) The Clintonistas during the Bush years taught the DNC a new way to play the game, and the Republicans are now using those same tactics, and they require bold, bodacious statements that quickly spread on the interwebs.

      Just read the comments here, the majority of them are from people who are obviously very passionate and emotional but have no connection with the facts at all, which are that this piece of legislation means absolutely nothing.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    36. Re:Ouch... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      A bit fewer than half of the states have open primaries. Everywhere else, you can only vote within the party you registered. i.e. if you've registered Democrat you cannot vote in the Republican primaries.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    37. Re:Ouch... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      A bit fewer than half of the states have open primaries. Everywhere else, you can only vote within the party you registered. i.e. if you've registered Democrat you cannot vote in the Republican primaries.

      What I'm saying is, you don't have to register with the party you identify with. e.g. if you have progressive beliefs, you could register as a republican, and vice versa.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  8. Nice Panopticum they are building by gweihir · · Score: 1

    With the records ISPs will be building on people, any kind of profiling will become easy. Have had an impure thought? Your ISP will know!

    IMO, that must the the actual reason behind this anti-citizen action.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re: Nice Panopticum they are building by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If ever a Hitler gains power, it will make it easy to round up the Jews (or whoever the next lot of scapegoats are). Thr census will also become irrelevant. Simply gain access to this data.

    2. Re:Nice Panopticum they are building by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

      Have had an impure thought? Your ISP will know!

      True, but much more likely people will be flagged on suspicion of copyright violations. They could perhaps sell impure thoughts to extortionists, if they can find some who will pay, but ISP's can make more money selling out your efforts to download that unlicensed copy of that Disney movie. Some nice arrangement between the MPAA, the RIAA, and a consortium of ISP's willingly providing their data about you for the noble cause of fighting piracy (the evil-looking eagle says "Piracy is not a Victimless Crime").

      Search torrent sites much? There'll be a red flag for that.

      Could have left it well enough alone, they could have, but nope they just had to take bold action for the likes of Comcast and Verizon.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    3. Re:Nice Panopticum they are building by tepples · · Score: 1

      the evil-looking eagle says "Piracy is not a Victimless Crime"

      If someone downloads an infringing copy of the motion picture Song of the South, to what reasonable extent is The Walt Disney Company a victim? Disney isn't even publishing or exhibiting that motion picture.

    4. Re: Nice Panopticum they are building by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      If ever a Hitler gains power, it will make it easy to round up the Jews (or whoever the next lot of scapegoats are). Thr census will also become irrelevant. Simply gain access to this data.

      The next lot of scapegoats will likely be brown people of various origin and the poor.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    5. Re: Nice Panopticum they are building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ever a Hitler gains power, it will make it easy to round up the Jews (or whoever the next lot of scapegoats are). Thr census will also become irrelevant. Simply gain access to this data.

      The next lot of scapegoats will likely be brown people of various origin and the poor.

      Nope. The next group of scapegoats will be people associated with the leadership of the opposition political party. The people they'll go after will those Wall Street firms, bankers, corporate executives, wealthy dynasty descendants, and such others that don't toe the line the way they should. Those that salute the flag properly will be fine, but these rich people who supported Hillary, Obama, etc that don't seem to know which side their bread is buttered on will have to go, and their assets re-distributed to the people who matter.
      That won't be the reason they give us, but that's who gets rounded up.
      Holding unassailable political power is way more enticing than burning a bunch of brown people.

  9. Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nothing new here... ISPs used to be able to do this, until an Obama-era regulation blocked it in October, 2016. This just returns us to the prior status. See here

    1. Re:Nothing new here by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      ISPs with at least 100,000 customers will have 12 months after rules are published in the Federal Register to comply with the customer notice and choice requirements, while ISPs with fewer than 100,000 customers will be given an extra 12 months. ISPs will have 90 days to comply with new data security requirements and six months to comply with new data breach notification requirements.

      Oh look at that. It's questionable whether any had even implemented it yet.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Nothing new here by Headw1nd · · Score: 5, Informative
      No, this is incorrect. The key feature is that the ISPs used to be under FTC jurisdiction, who has rules in place covering user data. When the ISPs were declared common carriers, oversight of them was moved from the FTC to the FCC. Now the FTC has no jurisdiction over the ISPs, only the FCC does - and the FCC has essentially been banned from regulating them where user data is concerned.

      Common carrier rules could be abolished, and regulation of ISPs could be moved back to the FTC, but that would take time and have other negative consequences.

    3. Re:Nothing new here by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Isn't it a good thing to make ISPs common carriers?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing questionable about it.

      No ISP has even done the cost of compliance analysis, and none of them would even start that for another 6 months. 12 months before compliance is mandatory means 9 months before compliance is evaluated, one month of evaluation, and two months of partially implementing the new rules.

    5. Re:Nothing new here by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      And the head of the FCC, who incidentally happens to be an Obama appointee, said the move by congress was a good move, because it will allow the FCC to align their privacy rules with the FTC.

    6. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it a good thing to make ISPs common carriers?

      Not if they don't act like common carriers. They want all the protections of being a common carrier, particularly not being held responsible for the content they serve. But they've lobbied and won the right to inspect your data and sell whatever they want from it. The FCC is being refused the right to treat ISPs like common carriers, and ISPs don't want to be treated like common carriers. The solution is straightforward, though it isn't ideal for anyone.

    7. Re:Nothing new here by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      And the head of the FCC, who incidentally happens to be an Obama appointee

      The FCC is specifically disallowed from having more than three commissioners from the same political party, so the President is forced to appoint at least two out of the five commissioners from parties other than their own. As such, no matter what the reason, it's a bit misguided to trot out the fact that Obama appointed Pai, given that Obama was required to appoint two people he'd almost certainly disagree with, and Pai was one of them.

    8. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is incorrect. The key feature is that the ISPs used to be under FTC jurisdiction, who has rules in place covering user data. When the ISPs were declared common carriers, oversight of them was moved from the FTC to the FCC. Now the FTC has no jurisdiction over the ISPs, only the FCC does - and the FCC has essentially been banned from regulating them where user data is concerned.

      Common carrier rules could be abolished, and regulation of ISPs could be moved back to the FTC, but that would take time and have other negative consequences.

      Yes indeed, this is analogous to the de-regulation of the energy industry during George Dubya Bush's first term and we all know how well that worked out for the American people .. Cough! Cough! ENRON! Cough! Cough!

    9. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Common carrier rules could be abolished, and regulation of ISPs could be moved back to the FTC, but that would take time and have other negative consequences.

      And that might have been ok if Congress had decided to do that at the same time. Instead they just screwed everyone.

    10. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The key feature is that the ISPs used to be under FTC jurisdiction, who has rules in place covering user data."

      The FTC rules are essentially, "Did the ISP violate the agreement they made you sign to get service?" So, as long as the agreement says that the ISP may choose to do something, they can do whatever they want under FTC rules. FCC rules, on the other hand, were actual limitations on what ISPs could do with your data.

  10. Tor browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you dig it? I knew you could...

  11. So.. tired... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    of winning.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  12. For Sale To The NSA, FBI, DEA, and your local PD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your records are for sale to anybody, no warrants will be required for any government agency to purchase them.

    For all their empty talk of "freedom", the Republican party sure seems to love authoritarian rule.

  13. Now that our web traffic can make them money... by mdm-adph · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...how many more Mbps can I get? Hey, Comcast, are you listening? The quicker I surf, the more info you get, so how about ramping up those speeds.

    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    1. Re:Now that our web traffic can make them money... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Apparently you've never heard the phrase 'get you coming and going': You have to PAY for the speed, and next they'll find some reason why they need to increase your MONTHLY BILL. That way they get more from you up front, and more for all your personal data from their so-called 'partner companies' when they sell you out to them.

  14. Selective Outrage by Kunedog · · Score: 1

    The rule's only been around since October, so things have reverted to the same rule in effect for eight years under Obama. I agree this is a bad thing, but a lot of selectively outraged partisans are exposing themselves right now.

    1. Re: Selective Outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this bill effectively prevents the FCC from adjusting current rules in the future. So once the ISPs find loopholes the FCC can't make new rules.

      Never mind they're trying to take USP out of the FCC all together.. to go to the FTC. But the FTC has no authority to make rules for common carriers... because that's the FCC's job!

    2. Re:Selective Outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rule's only been around since October, so things have reverted to the same rule in effect for eight years under Obama.

      Right. Dastardly Obama prevented congress and everyone else from implementing better rules. Then at the last minute, he allowed better rules. Now that he is gone, the rules disappear. Dastardly Obama!

    3. Re:Selective Outrage by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      So we spend years begging for a bone. We finally get it only to have it prized from our jaws moments after tasting its meaty goodness. Outraged? Oh hell yes we're outraged.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  15. Re:Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only Republicans would rape the Internet. And they got a orangutan in office to rubber stamp it.

  16. There might be a... by imatter · · Score: 1

    You know if you purchased the internet history of the politicians and then showed it to them (or everyone), they might see this issue differently.

    1. Re:There might be a... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, get the hotels they stay at to divulge all of the "not so conservative websites" they visit while they are holed up at some conservative meeting....
      Oh the stories that will come out of room 1511's web browsing history.

    2. Re:There might be a... by DoktorMidnight · · Score: 1

      You know if you purchased the internet history of the politicians and then showed it to them (or everyone), they might see this issue differently.

      Sadly I believe there are Federal laws in place to prevent exactly that sort of action. Shocking I know....

    3. Re:There might be a... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell a kickstarter...

  17. Sweet. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Thank You, Sir. May I have Another?

  18. In Soviet America by dave562 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Teh internets watch you.

  19. Big win for the surveillance state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the government can now buy your information and isn't breaking any laws to do so.

  20. So just consider VPN service by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is now basically a requirement in America.

    You will be better off in the end. Protect yourself from your ISP and get the added bonus of protection from the RIAA/MPAA etc as well. Like a two for one deal.

    1. Re: So just consider VPN service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The VPN provider can sell it too.

    2. Re: So just consider VPN service by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

      Kind of breaks their whole business model though.

    3. Re: So just consider VPN service by tepples · · Score: 1

      Not if the VPN service's subscribers don't know the VPN service is selling their data.

    4. Re: So just consider VPN service by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      We know the ISP's will be selling. VPN's may or may not be selling. For the forseeable future I'll stick with the VPN.

    5. Re:So just consider VPN service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I think this is the route, they'll still be a target of NSL's and attempted infiltration by Intelligence agencies.

      Wonder if TOR, darknet's and shadow networks through 'public' hotpots is the best future for privacy online.

    6. Re: So just consider VPN service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they are dumb. The service you sign up for could be an expendable front for the real operation. There are lots of schemes that involve the victims' contacts disappearing before the victims clue in. We should never assume that someone's motives are simple.

    7. Re: So just consider VPN service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A European VPN can't. Just spend your American money in Europe. Getting us to do as much of that sort of thing as possible is pretty much the current government's agenda anyway, isn't it?

    8. Re: So just consider VPN service by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Not if the VPN service's subscribers don't know the VPN service is selling their data.

      The problem is that if you sell customer A's data to X, Y, and Z and others who want it, it's hard to keep that bottled up so that the information never gets back to customer A. The more people who know about a secret, the harder that secret is to keep. Sure, it can happen, but it's difficult.

  21. This is a good thing by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Now ISPs can be regulated just like cable or phone companies because they are no longer pass-through entities. Remember, ISPs keep saying they shouldn't be regulated like those others, but now, since they are controlling what you can and can't access (through deals they cut with Netflix and such), they are no different than cable companies.

    Now that they're collecting data, similar to what cable companies do when they know what you watch, ISPs can now be classified as common carriers.

    Even better, since these folks will now know where you go, they can be held responsible for not reporting child pornography and other criminal acts. Nor can they claim ignorance. After all, they're no longer a pass-through entity. They're watching you.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:This is a good thing by kwerle · · Score: 2

      What is this 'regulation' you speak of? (and how long is that gonna last...)

    2. Re:This is a good thing by tepples · · Score: 1

      The regulation is that which prohibits a competing ISP from laying its own last mile.

    3. Re:This is a good thing by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Except I think the bill also included language that prevented the FCC from having any further regulatory say in things.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  22. Is the bill retroactive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One question I've yet to see answered in any reports on H.J.Res. 86 is whether it would allow ISP's to dig back into past search histories and sell that information to advertisers or marketing firms. Or, would it only be data collected after passage of the bill?

  23. That's It, Take It In Nice and Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep watching and yelling about Russian connections, wiretaps, and ACA grand standing by both sides.

    Pay no attention to what's really happening.

    1. Re:That's It, Take It In Nice and Easy by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Russians infiltrating the White House is pretty darn serious. To call that a "distraction" is in, itself, a distraction.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re: That's It, Take It In Nice and Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet there is no proof. Funny that.

    3. Re: That's It, Take It In Nice and Easy by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Not only is there no proof, there's not a shred of evidence whatsoever.

      Further, even if Putin himself leaked Hillary's emails, so fucking what? Notice how they never disputed the veracity of any of it. They just cried about the fact that someone exposed an infinitesimal fraction of her malfeasance and impropriety to the world. To claim that Russia is influencing US policy now, after the election, is pointless. Other nations have always sought to influence our policy and we have always sought to influence theirs. What difference does it make if Russia has Trump's ear vs. China or Israel or whoever else?

      Yes, if Russia were to be a full puppet master for the US government that would be very bad (regardless of the actual outcome, because sovereignty is important). But there's no fucking evidence of that. At all! So either come forward with actual evidence of existing or future plots to make Trump/etc. betray the nation, or shut the fuck up. I'd welcome any such evidence as it would expose a real problem and get us on track to fixing it. But so far it's about as believable as North Korea hacking Sony over a Seth Rogen and James Franco movie.

    4. Re:That's It, Take It In Nice and Easy by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Russians infiltrating the White House is pretty darn serious.

      That's exaggeration, great exaggeration, and that's not what the charges are.
      The charges are that Russians have undue -influence-, a far cry from infiltration.
      For instance, Russians hacking email systems to release damaging secrets on Democrats is undue influence. Putin wanting a friendlier voice in the White House and benefiting that candidate is undue influence, but it didn't need (and would have been really stupid to try) collusion with Trump and his team.

    5. Re: That's It, Take It In Nice and Easy by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Further, even if Putin himself leaked Hillary's emails, so fucking what? Notice how they never disputed the veracity of any of it

      Both sides have dirty secrets. If you leak only one side's secrets, then you are giving the other side an unfair advantage. It doesn't matter whether it's true, that's the beauty of it, you've already created an imbalance.

  24. So what? Nothing really has changed... by bobbied · · Score: 2

    Who follows the rules now? How many of you actually have read the TOS for your ISP? It's privacy policy?

    Unless you know what's going on to start with and have taken extreme measures to avoid it, you are already being tracked every which way from Sunday. So your ISP now can packet sniff your traffic? Big woop...

    If you care to keep your ISP in the dark, best you arrange to have a VPN connection 100% of the time for all your traffic. But I would expect that you are constantly ditching your browser cookies, never log in to anything, don't use E-mail or any protocol that is unencrypted now...

    The ONLY compliant anybody has here is that your ISP keeping these records might make it easier for law enforcement to get this information. Even so, that will take a warrant, unless you ISP just gives up any information they have to law enforcement when they ask, even if they don't say please...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:So what? Nothing really has changed... by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      It is almost trivial to kill cookies (self-destructing cookies firefox plugin) and use an email provider that doesn't profile you. Yes many people do this now. Setting up a VPN just to keep your own ISP from selling your profile is ridiculous, but now apparently necessary.

    2. Re:So what? Nothing really has changed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see what stops the government from just using our tax dollars to buy this information from the ISP's. Why spend billions on a surveillance network when one already exists?

      I hope my ISP makes plenty of money selling my blob of unintelligible nonsense to one IP address.

    3. Re:So what? Nothing really has changed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a new thing... things just revert to the way they were several months ago... for the full 8 years of Obama's presidency. People love to forget that, but there it is. If it was a priority, it would have been done by either the Democrats or the Republicans years ago.

    4. Re:So what? Nothing really has changed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ONLY compliant anybody has here is that your ISP keeping these records might make it easier for law enforcement to get this information. Even so, that will take a warrant, unless you ISP just gives up any information they have to law enforcement when they ask, even if they don't say please...

      Wrong. No warrant is required for something that can be legally purchased. You will soon see a searchable database for law enforcement access based on contracts with the ISPs.

      The Republicans just handed over all of your information to be warrantless... and Joe Public does not understand, so won't object.

    5. Re:So what? Nothing really has changed... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You miss my point. ANYBODY can listen in now if you use insecure protocols...

      E-mail is *not* a secure protocol (smtp). Sure you can encrypt your E-mail, but who goes though all the pain to share keys and do that? So your E-mail service doesn't sniff stuff, but that doesn't mean somebody else isn't.

      DNS isn't secure... Sniffing port 53 on some network segment will get you a wealth of information about who's doing what on the network. Port 80 would give you the browsing content for any insecure browsing going on.

      None of these require any special access beyond a packet sniffer on a network segment carrying the traffic..

      Plus, how many people actually *do* the stuff you talk about? Almost nobody.. If you think you are not being tracked on the Internet, you are either not aware of the facts, or have fooled yourself.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:So what? Nothing really has changed... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Who follows the rules now? How many of you actually have read the TOS for your ISP? It's privacy policy?

      Who gives a shit? If every corporation in America has my data, big deal. It's the government I fear, and they can already demand a full log of all your packets from your ISP under NSL.

      There is only one ISP I can realistically use where I live, so it doesn't really matter what their TOS, AUP, PP or anything else says.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:So what? Nothing really has changed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are several other ways to track people without cookies. Some are based on caching and some are based on Flash. You can disable Flash easily enough, but caching is trickier.

  25. Re:Democrats by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

    Can you back that up with some examples?

  26. Re:For Sale To The NSA, FBI, DEA, and your local P by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Hey ISP I want all your customer records for anyone who accessed XX between 7:00 and 10:00 on Tuesday. And yes, I have warrants. I have warrants in denominations of $50 and $100.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  27. Re:Who will care? by pem · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How can facebook and other web sites see all my web traffic?

    Oh, that's right, they can't. Especially as I never use facebook, and don't allow their javascript to execute.

    How can my ISP see all my web traffic? Pretty easily, if it's not encrypted, which is one reason why google is pushing https everywhere, and there's a lot of astroturfing here and elsewhere about why this is a bad thing.

  28. They pretend to care in their media & election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hence they keep winning. Convince enough of the poor and middle class to trust only your media, only the words coming from the mouths of people in your party, and they will keep voting for them. They will just blame the currently powerless Democrats, shift blame to Hillary somehow, or blame Obama.

  29. Uh, the rules never went into effect by mveloso · · Score: 1, Troll

    Hey moron, ISPs have been able to sell your anonymized data since forever. How have you been hurt by this?

    Oh, and those rules never went into effect. Doh!

    1. Re: Uh, the rules never went into effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Netflix prizes offered for better movie suggestion algorithms proved how easily moden datasets can be de-anonymized. Combine with a Google or Facebook (ad database) information it's downright trivial.

    2. Re:Uh, the rules never went into effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides that sooo many people give up their personal info everywhere on the web, anyway.

  30. Re:Not everyone opposes this. by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Fuck you, AC troll. Fuck you. Please note, I'm saying "fuck you" as an individualist.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  31. Re:Democrats by DickBreath · · Score: 2

    We had a Republican president when the Patriot act was passed to take away all our rights. But to be fair, the Democrats certainly deserve a fair share of the blame. It's not just one party doing it.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  32. Opera Browser by darkain · · Score: 2

    As Slashdot's resident and probably only Opera Browser user, I'd just like to remind ya'll that the browser has built-in out of the box support for VPN access. There is no complicated or confusing setups. It just works. And remember, Opera Browser is also based on Chrome/Chromium nowadays, so the rendering engine and interface is essentially the same as Chrome otherwise. Additionally, Ad-block is also built in, instead of requiring ad-ons.

    Details: http://www.opera.com/computer/...

    1. Re:Opera Browser by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I wasn't aware their VPN is free. It's a great selling point. Just installed it, writing this from Opera. I used Opera as the primary browser back in the 00s. This may well replace my sandboxie-d Chrome I use for non-trusted browsing (i.e. outside of a handful of trusted sites like email and banking for which I use non-sandboxied Firefox + NoScript with scripting enabled on those sites).

    2. Re:Opera Browser by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      ... just a note that ad blocking and VPN need to be enabled in Settings first.

      http://www.theverge.com/2016/9...

      Thanks again for the tip!

    3. Re:Opera Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or does Opera mean Norway and China get access to all my data too?
      https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/18/opera-browser-sold-to-a-chinese-consortium-for-600-million/

      Everyone is making money on me but me, how do I get in on exploiting myself?

      This entire situation would fix itself if Congress demanded a 1% royalty back to the identity holder.

    4. Re:Opera Browser by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I just installed Opera and turned on the free VPN. It's easy and works great. No perceived slowdown with the VPN.
      (BTW, the Opera browser is much faster than Chrome or Firefox. Both of those tended to bring my old MacBook to a crawl but with Opera it's like a new machine.)

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:Opera Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent. And as an added bonus my first location was reported as the White House. :)

    6. Re:Opera Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Assuming you can trust Opera, which I wouldn't.

    7. Re:Opera Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A proprietary VPN from a Chinese company? Sign me up! I can't wait to entrust them with all of my data, because as we all know, just using a VPN means it's private! I mean, it was "private" right there in the acronym!

    8. Re:Opera Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But instead of your ISP getting all your data, it'll be the Chinese government getting it.

    9. Re:Opera Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too good to be true [or trustful].

    10. Re:Opera Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love Opera myself -- do you know if Vivaldi will also have VPN?

    11. Re:Opera Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, Opera, the browser that's owned by the Chinese. Isn't Opera the browser that proxies all your traffic through a service to compress images to speed up mobile downloads? How does that work...?

    12. Re:Opera Browser by kackle · · Score: 1

      Me too! Though I'm still rocking version 12(!) which doesn't do VPN... I've been using Opera so long, originally I paid to remove its built-in ads.

      Does anyone else remember being able to walk into a Best Buy and see Netscape Navigator in a box on the shelf for ~$40?

    13. Re:Opera Browser by darkain · · Score: 1

      I wish I still had it. There was a special edition retail version of Internet Explorer 4.0 PLUS, and I used to have it laying around somewhere. Same feeling, I'm sure!

    14. Re:Opera Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera is free, right? How does that work exactly? People working in their spare time, using donating office space, equipment and utilities out of the goodness of their hearts?

      Don't be a fool. TANSTAAFL

    15. Re:Opera Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope Opera user from when it was paid software and I would crack it to use it because I'm an asshole.

  33. Re: Who will care? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

    What you cant see is how clueless you are to compare the two.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  34. Shred ISP Privacy Rules... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From what I understand the privacy rules set forth by the FCC under president Obama haven't gone into effect yet. So I'm not sure what's changed from what we have today. Granted, it's a crap thing to do, but ISP's have had the ability to do this for as long as they've existed as far as I know.

    Hasn't Google and Facebook been monetizing their users in a similar way? And would have been able to continue to do so even if the privacy rules were left in place? If my ISP is going to make money off of me, I should at least get a discount on my monthly bill though. That's the biggest difference I can see. I actually pay my ISP, where I use Google for free.

    1. Re:Shred ISP Privacy Rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they accidentally paid you a bunch of money, they'd demand it back.

      If you accidentally use their service for years before this policy was discovered and pay them a bunch of money, they demand full payment for next months bill as if nothing ever happened.

      Greedy fuckers.

    2. Re:Shred ISP Privacy Rules... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      You don't have to use Google or Facebook. You have to use your ISP. They are not the same.

    3. Re:Shred ISP Privacy Rules... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I made that point in my last sentence. I don't use Facebook.

    4. Re:Shred ISP Privacy Rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly... look at all these people getting worked up over nothing. The sheep have no clue. Especially the ones asking if they can have more speed for being spied on. Meanwhile working for a small ISP myself I'm glad this regulation is being removed... and no I don't care what you do with your service just pay your bill and enjoy it.

    5. Re:Shred ISP Privacy Rules... by dhawton · · Score: 1

      It's the Constitutional thing to do. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to dictate contractual terms in this realm. That is for the American people during contractual negotiations (ie, sign up process), and/or the States under the 10th Amendment.

    6. Re:Shred ISP Privacy Rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. ISPs have always been able to collect and sell your data. The bill that passed last year would have gone into effect later this year, but now it won't and that sucks.

    7. Re:Shred ISP Privacy Rules... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      The federal government has no Constitutional authority to dictate contractual terms in this realm.

      SCOTUS says anything and everything you can possibly conceive of, can be viewed as Interstate Commerce and regulated by the federal government.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    8. Re:Shred ISP Privacy Rules... by dhawton · · Score: 1

      Except for ... "Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so 'could undercut' its regulation of interstate commerce".

  35. Re:A more objective source of info about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here is a link to an assessment written by my ISP (sonic.net, which does not support this legislation):

    http://mashable.com/2017/03/27/internet-service-provider-privacy-bill-bad-for-consumers

  36. The Sky IS Falling!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In reality, Republicans have repealed rules that don't yet exist. The so-called privacy rules were scheduled to go into effect at the end of this year. So, nothing is actually changing. ISPs will be able to continue doing what they are doing right now.

  37. This Old Transparent House by paiute · · Score: 1

    Next up: The Patriotic and Antiterrorist Transparency Act, which mandates that all houses be built with glass instead of siding and drywall.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:This Old Transparent House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best will be when we all have to fly naked.

  38. Re:I help you avoid 2 forms of tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody cares about your obsolete script.

  39. Re:Who will care? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, Facebook already sees your other Webtraffic, because it has the ad networks bugged to track you. Google does. All of them do.

    You aren't anonymous unless you're on Tor and using Incognito Mode all the time. The internet works by sharing who you are with everyone interested. Or did you think that the price on Amazon is what everyone sees?

    If you don't want the government tracking you, go offgrid. Though I hear that is illegal in some places.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  40. The Brietbart take, whee. by TellarHK · · Score: 3

    From the headline of an article that came up in a Google Search, which I will not link to nor did I click:

    "House Votes Tuesday to Restore Consistent Online Privacy Regulation"

    Fuck tolerance, those people just need to be driven off the goddamn internet. It's too good for them to ruin.

    1. Re:The Brietbart take, whee. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Fuck tolerance, those people just need to be driven off the goddamn internet. It's too good for them to ruin.

      September arrived long ago, mate. It's too late for that. Best you can do now is ad blocking. And maybe hosts.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re: The Brietbart take, whee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deal with it.

      MAGA! :D

    3. Re:The Brietbart take, whee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, the FTC is the one that is supposed to protect privacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission#Bureau_of_Consumer_Protection

      I would like to see a better law than there was before where only ISP's were restricted and no one else. :(

    4. Re:The Brietbart take, whee. by pastafazou · · Score: 0

      Maybe you need this explained to you. The FTC and the FCC have different rules regarding privacy. The head of the FCC has said that he will now align the FCC rules with the FTC rules, so there is consistency across departments. Also, Google is allowed to do whatever it wants with your browsing history, but your ISP is not. Why is it okay for Google, but not your ISP?

    5. Re:The Brietbart take, whee. by TellarHK · · Score: 1

      Because I can stay away from Google, but if I want to be online I have no choice but to go with whatever ISP monopoly exists in my area.

    6. Re:The Brietbart take, whee. by pastafazou · · Score: 0

      Oh okay, you can stay away from Google. So Bing, Duck Duck Go, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, eBay, Instagram, Oracle, Reddit, and Slashdot can also do whatever they want with your browsing history as well. Can you even use the internet and stay away from all of the content providers that are able to do what they want with your browsing history?

    7. Re:The Brietbart take, whee. by TellarHK · · Score: 1

      Sure, because Slashdot doesn't see my porn history. Neither does Bing, as long as the porn doesn't use Bing's ads. Different parts of the net will track different things, this is a fact of life and you can mitigate your exposure and risk by running tools to block as much as you can and finding acceptable alternatives to those sites you want to avoid.

      But the ISP can track *EVERYTHING*, which puts them on an absolutely higher level. If you think the two kinds of information gathering are exactly the same risk, you're a moron.

    8. Re:The Brietbart take, whee. by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      This. All of the brainwashed sheeple buying into the MSM's narrative (Trump bad, Republicans bad, capitalism bad) don't realize that this is getting rid of a duplicate regulation that represents FCC overreach. It is the FTC that is supposed to, and does, regulate this activity. So, if we want more privacy, we need to press the FTC. HEY SHEEPLE: Big government sucks.

  41. Democrats by mattmarlowe · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yes, Republicans will allow individuals to sign contracts that allow ISP's to rape their privacy - believing that people should pretty much be able to do what they want as long as they are willing to pay the consequences.

    Democrats on the hand, want everyone except for the rich to be able to avoid all negative consequences -- afterall they can always find someone other than themselves to blame, and democrats are sure happy to rape anyone except the poor or illegals for anything that makes them feel good. They even get a thrill out of making nuns pay for medical insurance that covers abortions.

    They both suck, but I know which one is worse.

  42. See the debate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?426100-102/us-house-meets-legislative-business&live&vod&start=2927

    Mike Doyle kills it at 2:02:00 in

  43. The U.S. government is weak and corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strong, capable, logical leaders no longer want to be involved with helping operate the U.S. government. Only weak, unsuitable candidates choose to run for office. A book about one example: Trump revealed: an American journey of ambition, ego, money, and power

  44. Untrue (you do) & /.ers disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    take a look at the APK hosts file engine by SuperKendall

    APK is kinda right. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    I like your host file system by Karmashock

    I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    * Recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> See subject & an UNIDENTIFIABLE truly cowardly worm like you WISHES he was me, lol... apk

    1. Re:Untrue (you do) & /.ers disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I wish I was an unemployable narcissist who hasn't written a functional line of code since 1998?

    2. Re:Untrue (you do) & /.ers disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're illiterate and obviously jealous of apk since that's not what I read here https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10421185&cid=54130609/

    3. Re:Untrue (you do) & /.ers disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a skilled, well-paying job. I am free of crippling emotional disorders. I am secure enough about my intelligence that I don't feel the need to cheerlead myself with sockpuppet postings. What do you have, Alex, that I could possibly be jealous of?

  45. Simple responses to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1- VPNs/ Tor
    2- Flood my internet connection with ungodly amounts of fake traffic, I already have the hardware in place for it.

  46. This same tired nonstory keeps coming up by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    I know its asking a lot for Slashdot to react to anything but the headlines but this story keeps surfacing and has repeatedly been shown to have been spun to be misleading. Congress simply reversed midnight regs that were never in effect, the issue being one Federal Agency was engaged in a power grab over another and regulations should be passed after careful consideration and through the proper channels. Not on the sly on the eve of a new Presidency. This has absolutely nothing to do with Republicans cackling in a dark room over shredding privacy rights.

  47. Re:Democrats by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bush put in Patriot, Obama campaigned on repealing it, and made it actually worse. Spying on Americans is now okay, because even though we've caught them red handed a number of different times, nobody is trying to stop them because "TERRORISTS!!!!!" .

    If you vote for either of the two major parties, I hope you like your tyranny, for there is almost no functional difference on the major issues.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  48. Re:Who will care? by MagicM · · Score: 2

    Even when the web traffic is encrypted (i.e. "https") your ISP can still see your DNS traffic. As soon as PornHub changes their site layout to use "midgets.pornhub.com", your ISP can sell your specific interests to the highest bidder.

  49. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would think that the Republicans would love a chance to be different then

  50. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Thanks for your interest in joining the Gay Wigger Admirers of Donald (GayWAD)! GayWADs worldwide are happy that you'd like to become part of our

    constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8=====D~)

    Unlike other fraternities you might have heard about, GayWAD accepts members of all races, creeds, and colors, as long as you're a white Christian male. As our founders stated in the Annals of GayWAD, Chapter 8: "You don't have to be capable of critical thinking, as long as you like it Greek." They were, of course, referring to the Russian penis in your anus style of sexual relations. Don't despair, as attaining full fabulous lifetime status in GayWAD is easy. The only prerequisites for membership in Gay Wigger Admirers of Donald are that you meet all of the following conditions:

    1. 1. Unwavering cult-like worship of Donald Trump, who does no wrong and speaks only truth

    To submit your official Gay Wigger Admirers of Donald membership application, simply do nothing. Congratulations, you're now a GayWAD! Your membership kit* is on its way**.

    If you require a specific membership number for purposes such as framing, docking, or prestigious inclusion upon your VKontakte profile and coal-mining uniform, please take down this number: 69.

    Optionally, you may complete the following survey by replying to this post, indicating affirmative responses with an X in each appropriate box:

    GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)

    [ ] I am secretly gay, but hate gay people because Donald does
    [ ] I am a wigger, but hate non-white people because Donald does
    [ ] I have used BREITBART.COM to find a sex partner

    After completion of this optional survey, your Slashdot post ID shall serve as your unique Gay Wigger Admirers of Donald membership ID.

    *Sorry, GayWAD membership kit no longer includes Ivanka Trump brand panties.

    **Arrival not guaranteed due to cuts in Postal Service budget.

  51. how does this compare with other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    serious question here:

    how does this compare with other countries?

  52. exemptions? by WillgasM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did they write in any exemptions for themselves? I'm sure if we just release every congress-critter's search history, they'll have a change of heart.

    1. Re:exemptions? by dysmal · · Score: 1

      Are you referring to the same jokers who have AOL + Yahoo addresses? Because, c'mon now... The US congress has a GREAT track record of comprehension of the internet!

      http://www.theverge.com/2014/9...
      http://www.upworthy.com/the-go...
      http://gizmodo.com/this-congre...
      https://thinkprogress.org/new-...

    2. Re:exemptions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny the way they call it "data theft" when we read their email but not when they read ours...

    3. Re:exemptions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need to crowd fund a mass purchase of politician's info and post it on the net.

  53. Random URL fetch script anyone? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    How about a script that fetches a random URL once per second?

    Putting junk into the data makes it hard to get anything useful out of it. That plus some use of VPNs.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Random URL fetch script anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      likely that is worse.

      You'll just get ads for pregnancy and porn and malware. whatever non-targeted ads monetize best.

      You should visit sites for very specific niches so your ads are always known and irrelevant.

  54. Re:Who will care? by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

    I currently run a openvpn server, and think I will now spin one up on digitalocean for 10$ a month, for my family anyways, this stuff just makes me sick and tired.

  55. Market Forces Have it Covered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your ISP could already do this, they have been able to do so for years. The bill slapped down was one that required subscriber consent to sell the data, despite no ISP actually selling subscriber data commercially. The ISPs that refuse to do so and stipulate this position in their contracts are the ones you want right? Even if it's sold at a slight premium?

  56. I'm a minor ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who purchased this device with cash and didn't sign any TOS & am using open Wifi that does not have TOS 'agreement screens' like your neighbors house or corner coffee shop. Can they now legally collect info on me, a minor, and sell it to the public? What if I'm coverend by a court case where publishing my personal or identifying info is prohibited by law because I'm a minor?

  57. VPN anyone by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    Guess it's time to get off the couch and find a good VPN. Don't forget to help your friends and neighbors.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    1. Re:VPN anyone by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Opera browser.
      Fast and free VPN. One click setup.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  58. Southpark already did it: trolltrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this not trolltrace? because they don't make the data public? only a matter of time friends..

  59. Re:Who will care? by pem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, Facebook already sees your other Webtraffic, because it has the ad networks bugged to track you. Google does. All of them do.

    You can throw up speedbumps to what they can see, and limit the sharing quite a bit. But you can't do that with your ISP, and in a lot of places you have very little choice.

    Or did you think that the price on Amazon is what everyone sees?

    Yeah, actually, I do. Because they tried price discrimination once, and it blew up on them badly. Because people share information as well. Now, if you have evidence they are managing to do this more subtly now, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

    If you don't want the government tracking you, go offgrid. Though I hear that is illegal in some places.

    I see this all-or-nothing bullshit all the time. Is this some sort of trollish astroturf campaign? It certainly doesn't mirror real life.

  60. Out of Curiosity... by DoktorMidnight · · Score: 1

    One of the main comments I keep seeing in the discussion related to this issue (aside from arguments over which political party to blame) is that the obvious solution to this problem is to use a VPN (and why haven't you been using one in the first place). But is there any reason why a VPN provider would be obligated to enforce a privacy regulation that an ISP is not? Or, said another way: What is to stop your VPN provider from selling your data to a third-party like an ISP? If this is some basic facet of VPNs then I apologize for asking a basic question, but the only experience I've had with VPNs are university and corporate based, so this kind of question never really came up.

    1. Re:Out of Curiosity... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The easiest way to do it is set up your own VPN on AWS. OpenSwan comes highly recommended, but it's not hard to do tunneling through SSH, either. It'll cost ~$5 a month if you leave it up all the time.

      To answer your question, you absolutely should not trust a VPN provider.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Out of Curiosity... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Which VPNs are most trustworty, if any? Are they easy to turn off if I want to play an online game or something? How bad do they slow everything down?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Out of Curiosity... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm asking for my Windows machine.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Out of Curiosity... by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Out of Curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use your ISP's DNS resolvers either, use a resolver on your VPN or buy a cheap digital ocean vm or aws, and setup a private resolver for yourself. I'll be using my private openvpn as my default gateway from now on. Wonder how long it'll be before ISP's start trying to block VPN traffic.

    6. Re:Out of Curiosity... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Have one of your Linux machines be its gateway.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:Out of Curiosity... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Have one of your Linux machines be its gateway.

      And then run something like OpenSwan on the Linux machine? I think I can figure that out. Thanks.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  61. Re:Who will care? by pem · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The metadata is absolutely valuable. I wasn't making a comment about how you were safe if you were using https, but rather about how a lot of people come out of the woodwork telling you how terrible it would be if everybody used https.

    The cynic in me says they work for the NSA or ISPs when they do that. (Sure, https can't be cached, requires more CPU, etc. but the technical problems seem more and more like the 640K of RAM issue.)

  62. Let's suppose information is available for sale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let's suppose that information collected this way is available for sale by the time of the 2020 presidential elections.

    Are we really supposed to believe that the Democratic Party won't buy it and use it, to try to better understand the electorate they need to win over?

    I can't believe that any political party seeking power wouldn't try to acquire and use information collected this way, even if this party previously claimed to be against such data collection.

  63. Universal VPN access voucher! by advancecoder · · Score: 1

    Why don't we have the US government pay for a monthly VPN capability to provide "universal" anonymity?

  64. Re:Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only Republicans would rape the Internet. And they got a orangutan in office to rubber stamp it.

    Yes the Republicans have been pushing for this since SOPA, and it was protested about and struck down so they tried renaming it CISPA and that got struck down and now they are pulling this crap. It is not so much about the president but the fact we have Republicans in the house and senate who think they have a blank check to do whatever they want.. I expect they are going to try to make abortion illegal and pull all planned parenthood funding, I imagine they are going to pull all support for climate change research and put as much money into coal and oil drilling and digging and I know for a fact they are going to try to get us embroiled in more wars so that if there is a Democratic resurgence they will be dealing with the fall out from that war so hard that they will not be able to accomplish anything in the 4 or 8 years they have, thereby leaving an open for another republican to get in on the idea that the Democrat guy got nothing done. Same old Republican crap , different day! I have said it before, This is what you get when you vote Republicans into office. Get used to it kids! I learned this a long long time ago.

  65. RTFPig before you comment blindly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I'd reject this too. Maybe some people should read the F'ing pig before they go off. I mean it's only 73 pages (of small print) that covers everything a good terrorist would want to CYA with.

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services

    1. Re:RTFPig before you comment blindly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link to PDF: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.pdf

  66. Re:EXACTLY by pem · · Score: 1
    What's this, an actual supercilious asshole on slashdot instead of someone knowledgeable?

    Oh, wait -- that's normal.

    Wanker.

  67. Re:Who will care? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    How can my ISP see all my web traffic? Pretty easily, if it's not encrypted, which is one reason why google [sic] is pushing https everywhere...

    Got to hide your massive search history for Japanese Tentacle Porn...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  68. Re:Who will care? by forgottenusername · · Score: 2

    "Doesn't affect me directly, screw everyone else!"

    Love the attitude.

  69. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's be honest, the biggest reason google/alphabet pushed/s for https is that it's a threat to their business model as the soul collector of our data.

  70. Re:Democrats by pem · · Score: 1

    If the ISPs want access to telephone poles and right-of-way, and all the other junk that goes with common-carrier status, then they should act like common carriers.

  71. Re:Who will care? by Calydor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How does Facebook and Google see that I binge-play Elder Scrolls Online an entire night? How does my ISP see it?

    Do you see the difference? Facebook and Google may see MOST of what you do IN WEB BROWSERS, your ISP will see everything, without question, that passes through your modem.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  72. Re:Democrats by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We had a Republican president when the Patriot act was passed to take away all our rights. But to be fair, the Democrats certainly deserve a fair share of the blame. It's not just one party doing it.

    However, keep in mind that in reality, President Obama never met an invasive secret domestic spying program he didn't like. As well, he was exceptionally vicious in pursuing heavy criminal penalties for whistle blowers. I find it difficult to believe he was seriously interested in repealing the Patriot Act, except for "public relations" with his constituency of Democrats like me.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  73. Re:Who will care? by pem · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You have appeared to completely miss my point. I was responding to the facile reasoning behind "facebook already does this, so who cares if your ISP does it as well."

    Whether Facebook, with 2.8 billion users, should be somehow regulated is a different question than whether the ISP should be able to listen in on my internet traffic.

    They don't (didn't?) let the phone company listen in; why is the ISP different?

  74. How Trump justify spying on millions of Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're gonna make a lot of money, right?

  75. Re:Democrats by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I assume you're referring to all the anti-terrorism Snowden shit, that started under W. but continued under Obama (and six years of GOP-controlled Congress). And damn-well ain't gonna let up any under Trump.

    But let's put it in context. The GOP, after years of screaming and gnashing of teeth, when the chips were finally down could NOT get enough of their own shit together to repeal Obamacare, that thing they say they hate more than anything in the whole world. But, just a few days later, these same guys managed to put their differences aside to crush a tiny consumer-protection rule for Internet users.

    ... and the punch line? They didn't even need to! The GOP-installed FCC chairman can and said he would do away with the rule all by himself. But no. All the GOP, from Congress to the White House, must, must take a courageous stand against opt-out Internet Privacy in the name of those good shareholders of the nation's ISP's. That's right, it turns out the GOP really can live with Obamacare, but a world where ISP's can't sell your data? Heavens-to-Betsy!

    That's who we're dealing with here, people. Still insist that Dems are the worst? Ancient history, get over it. Out of the frying pan, into the fire, and shit it's only been 12 weeks!

    but on the other hand, doesn't Ivanka's clothing line just look spanky!

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  76. Re:Who will care? by pem · · Score: 1
    That, and or the other end -- some ISPs and hot-spots were replacing ads, right?

    Google's not perfect, and they have financial reasons to do this, but I agree with them on this issue.

  77. Re:Democrats by sgage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right. If you don't like it, just sign a contract with another ISP. Oh wait! There is no other ISP!.

    Yes, people should be left to do what they want, so long as we know exactly what they're doing at all times. Watch which websites you visti - it's going into your file.

    You are a fool if you think the Republicans are some freedom-loving outfit. The Democrats certainly have their issues as well, but this is really beyond the pale...

  78. Note to self by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    If you -ever- plan on running for office, I suggest you avoid the internet completely.

    The next candidate to replace Trump is going to have their search and web history under the spotlight for everyone to see. Go ahead and tell me it won't be weaponized to " dissuade " certain folks from running for office.

    Those skeletons in the closet ? hhahahahaha

    Not anymore :D

    1. Re:Note to self by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      You hold the court of public opinion in too high regard. Skeletons didn't dissuade Trump from running for office. All you need is money.

  79. Re:Who will care? by dpilot · · Score: 1

    The problem with that is that while OpenVPN works and is relatively straightforward to set up, it's not the best performer in town. I have an OpenVPN endpoint too, and use it in situations that make sense for me.

    I don't believe your default route is one of them. Whatever VPN I end up using, I'm probably going to take known sites and send them straight out. I'm not concerned about anyone knowing that I visit Slashdot, Ars Technica, Google, Amazon, Newegg, etc. What I'm concerned about are the other sites - the places I go based on a (https-based, of course) Google search.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  80. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Off the top of my head, the Democrats certainly tried to pull this off with TPP, particularly with the innumerable parts of it that had little to do with trade. Obama tried to ram it through and if Hillary were in the White House she'd probably be finishing it up right about now.

  81. Re:Who will care? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Troll

    You're okay with powerful government already busted several times for spying on Americans, but should BigTelCo do it, you're OUTRAGED!!!! Or are you outraged that big government that is spying on you wants to use the proxies to spy on you even more? Oh wait, you don't care about Big Government spying on you, because RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTIONS and TRUMP IS EVIL got your goat?

    We've already lost the war, this is just a mop up battle for the remaining bits of resistance out there.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  82. Re:Who will care? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Encryption.

    And for clarity, just about everyone already knows you play elderscrolls all night long, because that is all you seem to talk about. ;) ;)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  83. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At what point is my employer allowed to tell me what I am and am not allowed to do with my body when I'm not actually at work?

    Trick question: It's none of their fucking business. My boss has no claim to my BODY and I resent the implication that they should be allowed to dictate my personal life when they aren't paying me for it. You want me to be your bitch 24/7? Then pay me 24/7.

  84. Re: Not everyone opposes this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you too, m80. What's that you Democrats said when we didn't like Obama? "If you don't like it, you're free to leave?"

    MAGA

  85. Re:Internet Rape by uncqual · · Score: 1

    The good news is that a careless CPA may email a copy of Trump's tax returns to a colleague and an ISP along the way will suck them out of the stream and sell them to the National Enquirer without fear of legal repercussions.

    (Not really because, if nothing else, there are strict Federal laws that protect tax returns specifically -- but it's fun to think about how this could backfire.)

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  86. This actually was less restrictive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From https://www.congress.gov/congr...:

    Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise in support of my resolution of
    disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of the FCC's broadband
    privacy restrictions. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's
    Privacy Subcommittee, I have spent more than a year closely examining
    this issue.
        In February of 2015 the FCC, under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler, took
    the unprecedented step of reclassifying broadband providers as ``common
    carriers'' under title II of the Communications Act. In other words, on
    a 3-to-2 party-line vote, the FCC decided that internet service
    providers should be treated like telephone companies for regulatory
    purposes. The decision encroached on the Federal Trade Commission's
    jurisdiction to regulate ISP privacy policies, stripping these
    companies of their traditional privacy regulator.

    [...]

    These regulations have altered the basic nature of privacy protection
    in the United States. For decades, the FTC policed privacy based on
    consumer expectations for their data, not bureaucratic preferences.
    These consumer expectations were just common sense: Sensitive data
    deserves more protection than nonsensitive data.
        Unfortunately, the FCC rules dispensed with this commonsense
    regulatory approach. Under the new rules, what matters isn't what the
    data is but, rather, who uses it.

    [...]

    So the new "rules" the FCC put forward made the privacy worse than it already was! This is a *good* thing.

  87. Re:Who will care? by pem · · Score: 1
    Yes, absolutely, I said I was OK with that. But remind me where? I don't remember.

    People like you frothing at the mouth and putting words in other peoples' mouths are unlikely to convince anybody of anything, same as those who you notice are frothing at the mouth on the other side.

  88. Re: Internet Rape by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you think your side of the political coin is any cleaner, you're still part of the system. Trump's not perfect, but at least he rejected both parties. You need to learn to appreciate that, and stop getting herded around like sheep.

  89. Don't jump to the wrong conclusions by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1

    Let's not overreact, it's not a big deal, I mean how much information could this actually reveal? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...

  90. Re:Who will care? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets start with Government, unless you're a "frothing at the mouth" Libertarian like me (and from your Post history here, you're not "frothing), you're misunderstanding the use of Hyperbole. Which seems to be all the rage. Hence the over the top REAL LIFE examples or late.

    Seems like every day I hear another liberal talking about how RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTIONS and another Conservative talking about how TERRORISTS KILLED EVERYONE.

    What nobody seems to be talking about is how Americans are being spied upon by the dark shadow government and being outed when politically expedient. We all should be terrified by that knowledge.

    And once you realize the Government is spying on you, ATT/Verizon spying makes even more sense. Who do you think BigTelCo is spying for?

    Again we've already lost the war, this is just mop up stuff to tie any loose ends that might have slipped through. Nothing to see here ... move along.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  91. Re: Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, our government makes pacifists pay for war. So what the fuck is your point? Oh wait, you don't have one worthy of consideration by anyone with a pulse and a half-working brain.

  92. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We kill people based on metadata."

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/ex-nsa-chief-we-kill-people-based-on-metadata/

  93. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RepubliFat rapists and sociopaths hate Obamacare. kinda like they blojob wettbakkks and wank preteens. OTOH ,,, most Trump yeoman voters prefer a SINGLE PAY system like Canada or Finland, just like they prefer shooting dead border-jumpers and their vote-herding poodles.

  94. Common Carriers WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If ISPs are common carriers, then they have no right to restrict traffic based on endpoint (Netflix). AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. want the best of both worlds. They want to be common carriers only when is suits their purposes.

  95. Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally! Something for the coal miners! And is little folk!

    Go Donald!

  96. Re:For Sale To The NSA, FBI, DEA, and your local P by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    Why do you think they call them red states?

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  97. And Microsoft is the bad guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And all you fucktards think Microsoft collecting data is the worst thing on the planet. HA.. Republicans are, now the ISP's can see you out to the FSB and do it legally while giving der Gropenfurer a kick back.

    You dicks voted for him - now just STFU you got what you wanted.

  98. Re:Who will care? by mspohr · · Score: 1

    You can also use a VPN which will encrypt all of your traffic through your ISP so all they see is gibberish.
    I use Opera which has a free built-in VPN... just one click to turn it on.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  99. Re:Who will care? by mspohr · · Score: 1

    A VPN will shut out your ISP. Everything is encrypted on the way to the VPN so your ISP gets nothing.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  100. Re:Who will care? by mspohr · · Score: 1

    A VPN encrypts everything so your ISP gets nothing.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  101. Re:Who will care? by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Opera has a built in free VPN. I turned it on and haven't noticed any difference in speed.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  102. Re: Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found the fucking idiot.

  103. PISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Private ISP, for all your privacy needs.

    Governments and Malvertisers getting you down? or your data?
    Looking for an ISP that actively destroys your tracking packets?

    Then look no further than Priva, your Privacy ISP!

  104. Leaked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All it will take is some data getting hacked and subsequently released. The resulting muders and divorces will lead to law suits that will hopefully shut this down.

  105. Re: Internet Rape by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump's not perfect, but at least he rejected both parties.

    You don't actually believe that, right?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  106. Re:Internet Rape by AaronW · · Score: 2

    That's an insult to orangutans. They are gentle peaceful and intelligent creatures.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  107. Re:Internet Rape by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1

    And besides, I think "shit-gibbon" is the preferred nomenclature these days.

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  108. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can throw up speedbumps to what they can see, and limit the sharing quite a bit. But you can't do that with your ISP

    For $5 a month you can make your router tunnel out through a VPN. That's a pretty significant "speedbump".

  109. Re:Who will care? by AaronW · · Score: 1

    Encryption hides the content. They can still see every IP address you connect to unless you use a VPN.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  110. Re:Democrats by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Democrats on the hand, want everyone except for the rich to be able to avoid all negative consequences

    This is fsking ridiculous, and only a Trump-supporter type person would put forth such a warped, bullshit comment.

    Democrats do not, in any way shape or form, want to keep people from negative consequences.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  111. Re:Who will care? by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
    Somewhat, though it is an apples and oranges comparison. See, I'm a bit crazy. I hold to heart this quote:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    And the idea that it is "government of the people, by the people, for the people." That government sometimes has to know certain things, is part of being a government. A private corporation however? That's not even in the same book, much less the same page. I'm a citizen, not a product.

  112. Re:Who will care? by wkk2 · · Score: 1

    Https only helps a little. Let's say you need to see a medical specialist. The first thing you need to do is go to the doctor's web site and fill out a new patient form. It's easy for a ISP to see where you connected and that you pushed a block of data (filled out a form). Therefore you must have what ever problem the specialist treats. So much for HIPAA and other privacy protections.

  113. Re:Who will care? by Puls4r · · Score: 1

    That is incorrect. Every month you get a phone bill that shows every person you called. That is no different than ISP's knowing who you connected to - as long as you are using https / encryption.

    The difference is that when you're not on an encrypted connection, they can see every word your type. So in reality with need the FCC to mandate https everywhere, and then web browsing is really no different than calling someone on the phone.

  114. This changes what? by ChimeraCube · · Score: 1

    I believe this *has* already been happening whether is been strictly *legal* or not. Though it is bothersome that it would be codified in law.

  115. Re:Who will care? by Augusto · · Score: 1

    Even if you're using https, your ISP can tell a lot by seeing the websites/hostnames you are visiting and times/etc. I think you're completely missing the point ...

    --

    - sigs are for wimps.
  116. Re:Spying on millions of Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your privacy is sold out, and all the money goes to the 1%. This is Trump's America.

  117. Government t can now know all about you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do people understand that this also gives the government the ability to know all about you? They just have to buy the data from the ISPs?

  118. Re:Who will care? by skids · · Score: 1

    And what privacy rules do VPN providers play by? Are they legally binding? Would they get caught if they didn't follow them?

  119. Re:EXACTLY by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    What's this, an actual supercilious asshole on slashdot

    Wherever you go - there you are.

    I'll allow you the last response because you assholes always have to have the last word, never mind the supercilious ones.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  120. Re:I help you avoid 2 forms of tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 1990's called they want their ad block back.

  121. How about posting the votes? by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

    It pisses me off that they almost never publish the number of the bill or how our representatives voted. The House Bill was #230. The Senate bill voted on last week was #34. Here are the votes:

    House Bill 230
    Democrats Not Voting: David Scott (GA), Bobby Rush (IL), David Price (NC), Louise Slaughter (NY)
    Democrats Voting Yea: None
    Democrats Voting Nay: All Others
    Republicans Not Voting: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Thomas Rooney (FL), Michael “Mike” Simpson (ID), Robert Pittenger (NC), Tom Marino (PA)
    Republicans Voting Nay: None
    Republicans Voting Yea: All Others

    Senate Bill S.J. Res. 34
    Democrats Not Voting: None
    Democrats Voting Yea: None
    Democrats Voting Nay: All others
    Republicans Not Voting: Isakson (GA), Paul (KY)
    Republicans Voting Nay: All others
    Independents Not Voting: None
    Independents Voting Yea: None
    Independents Voting Nay: King (ME), Sanders (VT)

    --
    I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    1. Re:How about posting the votes? by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      Valid point! The sad truth is 6 of 10 people (granted a guess on my part) on the street can't even tell you who their Representative or Senators are.

      Nor did they even know/care that a congressional vote took place.

    2. Re:How about posting the votes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the link to the actual vote on
      "H.RES. 230 - Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 34) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services"".

      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml

      House Bill 230 is something else entirely...

    3. Re:How about posting the votes? by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

      House Bill 230 is something else entirely...

      Good catch. I didn't realize that resolutions and bills had different numbers.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
  122. Re: Internet Rape by Tesen · · Score: 0

    Trump's not perfect, but at least he rejected both parties.

    You don't actually believe that, right?

    I am afraid they do...

  123. Blank check? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Yeah, they kinda do. They own the House, Senate & Presidency. They mostly own the Supreme Court and will after Gourch gets appointed (Dems don't have the votes to stop it and the Repubs can change the filibuster rules with their votes).

    Face it, we handed them a blank check when we elected Trump. They don't always have the balls to cash it (their first round of billionaire tax cuts in the guise of Health Care failed) but they've got it. In two years time we've got a chance to revoke that check in the mid-terms. But I'm guessing the Dems will make us feel bad (nobody likes paying taxes) and you'll let it roll...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Blank check? by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Face it the entire US election system was pretty fucked up. In action, you could not tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats, sure they made different noises and ran different PR campaigns to scam the electors but there was no real difference in their profession, as corporate whores and every is for sale.

      This of course can be challenged in the court, as it breaks the constitution, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.", just to be clear for idiots, no where in that paragraph is that regulatory constraint limited to action by government. No fucking line in there about by the government, it is across the board. So the law infringes as passed by government as it denies the right of a person to be secure in the papers, papers being communications, that is the law and it is not limited to government ie government can not pass that law to allow some individuals to attack the security of other citizens and their communications.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re: Blank check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The legal minds and legislatures that wrote, interpret and enforce these laws in the beginning couldn't even set the time on thier vcr. I'm sure we will see wisdom and understanding enough to see the unconstitutional nature of this.

    3. Re:Blank check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in the house though.

      One thing overlooked is the composition of the senate seats up for election in 2018 -- mostly democrat seats are up for election by a very lopsided ratio.

      This means the senate will almost certainly remain republican majority, republican non-supermajority until 2020. Republicans are unlikely to pick up the larger number of seats needed for a supermajority. Democrats are unlikely to pick up enough of the availiable republican seats to get a majority (51-49 due to vice president).

    4. Re:Blank check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're watching right now and you still can't tell the difference between the parties then you're pretty stupid.

    5. Re:Blank check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'In action, you could not tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats" Well, Rs just did this to us. That looks different to me.

    6. Re: Blank check? by fortfive · · Score: 1

      You are a making assumptions about the definition of "unreasonable" and "search".

      Whike i disagree, a reasonable mind could conclude that where you go on the internet has the same legal status of which stores you visit at the mall.

    7. Re:Blank check? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      This of course can be challenged in the court, as it breaks the constitution...

      Well, do you think who will own the SCOTUS soon? If that happens, do you think the process can stop this???

    8. Re:Blank check? by dhawton · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, the Constitution in itself is a document that establishes the federal government and states and is the only document that grants the federal government certain authorities. None of the authorities listed pertain to the federal government's right to restrict a contractual relationship which involves one party selling information about another. Additionally, the Constitution itself doesn't restrict actions of the private sector, hence the authority of companies and individuals to restrict a person's 2nd amendment rights within their own property. Some states restrict that ability to restrict, but the ability exists.

    9. Re:Blank check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no privacy on the internet. There never was, there never will be. Any expectation of such is simply deluding yourself.

    10. Re:Blank check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure this article shows us what the differences are...

    11. Re:Blank check? by PostPhil · · Score: 1

      The danger is in people believing the Constitution automatically fixes this. It is a disservice, because it demotivates people from taking action, when action and political efficacy are the only things that can fix this.

      Originally, the 4th Amendment only restricts the *federal government*. It does not *automatically* affect anything else. In fact, constitutional amendments (including the Bill of Rights) don't automatically apply even to *state* governments. They must be *incorporated*. Most have, including the 4th, but most people don't realize some amendments such as the 5th Amendment have not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But even when rights are incorporated by state governments, the federal and state *governments* have nothing to do with *private companies*. Unless laws are passed that explicitly restrict behavior of private companies, they can collect and sell all the information about you that they want. That's the loophole of the rich and powerful: if government can't do it, companies can. Regular citizens didn't win guaranteed rights due to the Constitution, they simply reduced the total number of ways rights can be taken away. We must still fight for them. Always.

      And I'm saying this as a (mostly) conservative. "Republican" and "Democrat" has nothing to do with republics or democracies anymore. If we want to fix our problems, we need to stop the petty party bickering and actually discuss the issues.

    12. Re:Blank check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats only if you get arrested and you sign an agreement with your ISP. Don't like it pick an ISP that respects your privacy.

    13. Re:Blank check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not searching your home. They're logging stuff you do *outside* your home (on ISPs servers, using ISP property, in other words, by any definition, they're not doing anything `unconstitutional').

      Don't like it? Use encryption. But they're still free to do traffic analysis.

      This is just a legal version of what they're already doing... (you really think ISPs don't track everything you do now???). Only now they can legally sell all this for additional revenue.

      Perhaps this will open up the market for ``free'' ISPs that will take in 100% of their money from selling your data... (so it might actually be a win for consumers).

    14. Re: Blank check? by antdah · · Score: 1

      And from a European perspective the solution is pretty simple; get the ordinary people to go and vote.
      But americans seems to think that since "my vote doesn't matter" or "all candidates sucks equally hard" or "if you go and vote you can catch gay!" voting is useless.
      No surprise you constantly get buttfucked by the ruling elite, you don't make an effort to throw them out.

      Vote in real people while you still can. If there are no good candidates available, candidate yourself, or convince a friend you like and trust to candidate.

    15. Re:Blank check? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Apparently you can create imaginary words. They were not idiots, if they wanted to limit citizens rights to government actions only, they would have written it in ie citizens rights are limited to actions by government only, rich citizens are fully entitled to fuck over poor citizens in any way imaginable. Now if it ain't in there, then you can't just fucking make it up. No restriction on the application of the bill of rights what so fucking ever. They can not right laws that allow rich citizens to fuck over poor citizens where protection for all citizens has been clearly and categorically stated. Claiming to be fucking psychic and reading the minds of the deceased it utter fucking bullshit, when it is in writing, it is in writing and no fanciful made up dictionaries either. Right there in fucking writing, a person letters (communications) are to be secure from every fucking one, without a proper search warrant. So they just wrote an illegal law and corporations infringing those rights are committing constitutional crimes.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Blank check? by stub667 · · Score: 1

      To break the constitution, it needs to be your data. It isn't your data. It is someone else's data about you. The only thing protecting you is your right to privacy, which you don't seem to have any more. Well, I imagine 'public figures' will be exempt 'in the interest of national security' despite the fact that their browsing history will be more valuable than the bulk data on the masses.

    17. Re:Blank check? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You really missed it didn't you, secure in your letters, oh and look and whole raft of laws https://about.usps.com/manuals... to secure your mail as per the constitution, which by logical and reasonable extension should apply to digital information transmission and dip stick it is you data, whether you are sending it or receiving it. Just a letters are yours whether you are sending them or receiving them. Basically the corrupt arse holes have just written a law equivalent to saying the postal service is allowed to open all mail and scan it's contents in order to profit by that information whether by extortion or to sell to others. Because yeah, the ISP can now legally extort money from you ie we have secrets about you, want them to stay secret pay extra for privacy. Make no mistake this is seriously sick and disturbing stuff, the stuff of slavery or them owning your privacy and by inference owning you, digital slavery. Republicans have proven exactly how evil they truly are.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:Blank check? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Originally is was blanket across the board and then slavery and they had to introduce fanciful definition, just made up shit they voted for because they new they could not rewrite the constitution to allow, the rich can fuck over the poor. So a corrupt hight court simply created bullshit interpretation of existing law. No where anywhere is the constitution limited to the federal government except in bullshit laws applied by corrupt judges. Want a limit write it fucking in, don't just fucking lie and make it up. This is exactly why the US is so corrupt, gross fanciful interpretation of the law to favour the rich against the poor. You know the poor will not accept bullshit law changes, so bullshit interpretations are used instead. You people are pathetic. Why bother writing laws at all, seeing as you can make up what ever fanciful interpretation you want, buy off corrupt judges and they agree to it. Only in the US is doublespeak actually built into it's constitution.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re:Blank check? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Idiot, the constitution is the basis of all other laws and the form of government. If the constitution does not allow a law to be written, it can not be written. The constitution categorically states that a citizen is to be secure in their letters, from all comers. Contract law you idiot, can not overall criminal law, you can not write a criminal condition of contract and criminal law can not over write the constitution, you can not write a law that contravenes the constitution (well, not legally), contract law is far down from the constitution as to be nothing in comparison, you are a buffoon, a fool, a moron, to think companies over rule the constitution, dumb is not a proper description for you ignorance.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  124. MONOPOLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I blame all the FreeMarket Trump Nuts on Slashdot. See this isn't a freemarket because there is no competition in the ISP marketplace. If I really had min >10 competing ISPs, I bet you I could find one that would respect my privacy. Yay Free Market. But this isn't a free market. It is a monopoly that needs to be destroyed.

  125. Repeal in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will only last until some "family values" repub gets caught searching for child porn. We can buy their browser history now.

  126. Re:Democrats by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You said,

    It's not just one party doing it.

    The summary said,

    The measure passed by 232 votes to 184 along party lines

    Yes, it's one party doing it. First they changed the rules via the FCC, and now they've made it permanent. It's the very definition of "one party doing it".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  127. Re:Democrats by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ironically, the "House Freedom Caucus" supported this bill.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  128. DOG eat dog by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    Soylent Green is...your online history!

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  129. Re:Who will care? by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

    You can choose to use or not use Facebook.

    You can't choose to be online without your ISP, and in the U.S., we don't have competition.

  130. veto option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it were really that bad the president would veto. This is probably a good thing.

  131. Re:Who will care? by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Good questions... Do you know?

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  132. Re:Who will care? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Fuck you very much.

    I went to that site and it doesn't work.

    We have a goddam history here.

    You are doing good porn and refuse to share.

    You bitch.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  133. Re: Internet Rape by zieroh · · Score: 1

    If you think your side of the political coin is any cleaner, you're still part of the system.

    This is what people say when the candidate they voted for turns out to be a fuckwit after all.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  134. No need for warrant ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ...
    Judge: Evidence?
    Prosecutor: Browsing history
    Judge: Warrant?
    Prosecutor: Credit card

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  135. Re:Who will care? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... Japanese Tentacle Porn ...

    So no link, you selfish bastard (or bitch, as may apply).

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  136. Re:For Sale To The NSA, FBI, DEA, and your local P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup. Easily circumvents probably a slew of laws by doing it this way.

    Is this the point, where EVERYONE jumps on the TOR bandwagon to saturate the pool? Is even TOR even useful anymore?

    Even if you find a VPN provider who is contractually obligated to not sell your browsing history, they're still a target by agencies and NSL's, and clandestine groups to infiltrate.

    It's a crap-shoot all around.

  137. Re:Democrats by Nikkos · · Score: 1

    GOP-installed? Yea, they elevated him to the Chair, but don't forget that that Ajit Pai was put on the commission by Obama. He's a grandstanding tool (and former lawyer for Verizon through his old firm).

  138. Prove it... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See my subject unidentifiable truly cowardly worm. At least I can literally show something for myself others like & use https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10421185&cid=54130609/ - you don't.

    * Hotair blowhard wind? I've heard it blow thru slashdot before from blowhard unidentifiable anonymous windbags like "your kind" before, result's always the same (zero from your type).

    APK

    P.S.=> Don't you have anything BETTER to do? Me, I am taking it easy seeing an amazing fanfilm I am impressed with in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w/ amazed w/ it's authentic approach... apk

  139. Re: Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing the swamp is drained and big money is out of government. Yeah feeling like everything is great again.

    The digital harvest is just about complete. I swear I really am thinking of just unplugging from the digital world. The only way to stop this is by not participating.

  140. ISPs do this already by Wyzard · · Score: 1

    Everyone seems to be reacting as if ISPs are suddenly going to start selling all your personal info in a major blow to Internet privacy, but these FCC rules just went into effect at the beginning of January, and were enacted because ISPs were doing it already. So we're really just back to the status quo.

  141. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ISPs still see your metadata - sites you visit, URLs/pages requested, how long you're there, OS types, browser types etc etc. https doesnt hide anything in that respect. All of that data can be digested and packaged up into something worth selling to whom ever wants to buy it.

    ok, so you tunnel it all over a VPN, if the end end point is in the US, well then they get see all your browsing metadata. If the end point is somewhere else then the geoblocking will screw up a ton of stuff if you like to stream TV etc, not to mention everything else will be slow because its then traversing international pipes twice short of using a VPN to Canada as close as possible to where you are, and adding exceptions for things that otherwise are geoblocked in Canada..

    No simple way out of it.

  142. Re: Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He did not reject both parties. Both parties along with MSM rejected him. What he did do was cause all the mega donors to lose all the money they invested in their preferred candidate. Trump has also exposed a very dangerous concept. You can disapprove and hate a candidate or the person who is actually elected but do need to respect the office of the President and also respect the system. But it is clear that both the citizens and the politicians from all sides have abandoned this concept. When Clinton lost the losers started attacking the Electoral College as something that needs to be eliminated but if they had won the election they would be falling all over themselves support the Electoral College and ridicule anyone suggesting the Electoral College be changed or eliminated. That type of duplicity and situation policy making will do more harm to the US even if Trump held office for the next 20 years. As it sits now their is nobody in Washington doing their proper job which is to manage US public policy. All these honor less jackass's are doing is holding political motivated investigations and hearings.

    I am just happy that none of the hot topic governmental decisions or actions do not effect me. I am a 35 year old white male, heterosexual, college educated, widower, with a high paying job that comes with generous health care and investment benefits. My lot in life would be exactly the same if Clinton had won the election. About the only thing that worries me is how the major news outlets are publishing along party lines instead of just providing factual information. They can have opinion pieces but they don't belong on the front page. Ever news outlet in the US has morphed into the National Enquire. Loud and bold Headlines are never supported in the actual article but these bold headlines do attract a lot of clicks.

  143. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess, you are a Sanders or Stein supporter who's biggest concern is legal weed. Fuck right off.

  144. Re:Democrats by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

    don't forget that that Ajit Pai was put on the commission by Obama.

    Yes, but details, son! Commissions like the FCC are required to have members from both parties. while the chair position may be chosen by the President. Obama installed Pai because he had to. Wikipedia: "He was initially nominated for a Republican Party position on the commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012, and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a five-year term."

    He's a grandstanding tool (and former lawyer for Verizon through his old firm).

    Sadly, this is quite true. Fox running the henhouse, and it's dinner-time.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  145. Suggestions for VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many pathetic commenters. You deserve what's happening.

    Instead of complaining, let's do something. What are the best and cheapest VPNs out there? Do something useful instead of complaining.

  146. You can, who does? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You can throw up speedbumps to what they can see, and limit the sharing quite a bit.

    Do you?

    I know how to do that - but I do not.

    Do you think even 1% of non technical people do anything like that?

    For 99.9% of ISP users it doesn't matter if technically they COULD POSSIBLY limit tracking of someone like Facebook or Google to be more limited than your ISP - in practice there is no difference.

    Because they tried price discrimination once, and it blew up on them badly.

    Ha Ha they offer dynamic pricing all the time, even now. Some "blow up".

    I see this all-or-nothing bullshit all the time.

    Now THAT is some grade A dripping wet irony.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  147. Re:For Sale To The NSA, FBI, DEA, and your local P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even better, they'll get a bulk discount.

  148. Is there anything Democrats won't distort? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The rules Obama put into place to take effect AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE (not during his 8 years in power) were a joke, a typical partisan political hand grenade.

    Those rules did NOTHING about Democrat-aligned multinational megabusinesses like Apple and Google. They did NOTHING to protect the privacy of internet users and were really just a hassle for internet related businesses that were not as in-bed with the Democrats.

    Just how much of your personal info was your ISP selling to any and all bidders during Obama's years in the White House when Obama's new rules did not apply to them? Now just how much of your info were Apple, Google, Facebook, etc getting rich selling to the highest bidders during those same years and even now and how much more were they going to do had these rules (which did not apply to them) stayed in effect?

    Obamabots have got to be the most gullible, unthinking, talkinbgpoint spouting idiots in the entire political spectrum (sigh)

     

  149. Even easier by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    A VPN will shut out your ISP.

    The funny thing about that point is that it is even easier to block what your ISP can see (via VPN) than it is someone like Facebook or Google, which will happily discern who you are whatever IP you come through or from.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  150. How can they not know? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    How does Facebook and Google see that I binge-play Elder Scrolls Online an entire night?

    Because they see your "signal" go dark for the night and you talk about it on some service later that Google can see (i.e. they know now). Or maybe the company that runs Elder Scrolls just told them since there is nothing stoping THEM from selling your info.

    Meanwhile if you had played over a VPN your ISP would know nothing. They are literally the only service it's actually possible to keep in the dark, yet you want to make a fuss about what they can see.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: How can they not know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure why you think a VPN provider is safe. Using a VPN only shifts the problem to another company (with an ISP no less). They can just as easily sell your traffic info or be subject to the same ISP monitoring.

    2. Re: How can they not know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a domestic VPN. Only foreign countries can be trusted now.

  151. Re:Internet Rape by icensnow · · Score: 4, Funny

    I happened to be at the National Zoo in DC this weekend. Please be nicer to orangutans and don't compare them to the current Oval Office occupant. They are intelligent, interesting, and they seem to have a sense of humor.

  152. No you cannot by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You can choose to use or not use Facebook.

    Wrong.

    You can choose not to use the Facebook UI or to register with them. But you have no easy way for them not to know who you are as an entity, and what you do. You know how there is a Facebook "Like" button on every page? Yeah.

    That is doubly true of Google... or anyone that runs a large ad network.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  153. I Choose Three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have used BREITBART.COM to find a sex partner

    Yeah I choose that one, at least I would have someone who would put out unlike you impotent sexless Trump Haters.

  154. Lots of yakking! Little substance! by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    Anyone standing on their ideological platforms on either side are idiots.

    Democrats, Republicans heck they both are just opposite sides of the same rotten to the core coin.

    If you are online today, everything you do is being monitored, read, used for marketing and backed up so it will come back on you years from now.

    The only things you have which are secure are the thoughts in your mind. And that is only true until you start talking or typing.

    Government will always be invasive, that is what government is all about. And it does not matter who is in charge.

  155. trolltrace going live! by bonedonut · · Score: 1

    looks like south park wasn't too far off.

  156. How detailed will the logging be? by clovis · · Score: 1

    How detailed will the ISP's logging of web history be?
    Suppose an ISP gathers and stores everyone's web history, and that anyone with money will be able to purchase the web history from the ISP's, and then would be able to correlate the posting time of a comment with a search of the ISP's web logs to personally identify who made that post.
    A boon for lawyers and corporations that wants to know the actual identity of who made a negative post on Yelp.
    And how about your 4 million millionaires in the USA, who could probably afford the cost of the ISP logs for their state or locality, some of whom may wish to dox their competitors.

    This is really going to be fun when we get to purchase the web history of the families of all our congressmen.

  157. Exposes Our Defence Contractors by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Allowing the selling off browser history in a country that private contractors supply arms for the military a dangerous and reckless action that has terrible consequences that threaten America's security.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  158. Re:Democrats by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

    So in summary, the FCC goes back to not regulating this, just like they didn't regulate this until oh... all of 6 months ago?

    The rules Congress just disapproved were passed in October 2016. The Internet survived just fine for decades without the FCC's rules. Pretty sure the sky isn't going to fall as a result of these regulations only lasting a few months.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  159. Re: Internet Rape by newbie_fantod · · Score: 0

    They also believe that 9/11 was an inside job, the lunar landings were a hoax, the holocaust never happened (nor the cold war either), and that the earth is actually flat.

  160. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OpenVPN can perform very well. It can definitely handle the amount of traffic a family at home produces. I've setup openvpn for storage replication from datacenter to datacenter and was able to hit ~900Mbps sustained on 1Gbps NIC.

  161. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you use your ISP's DNS resolvers they'll still see your DNS lookups. Use resolvers on your VPN network if you can.

  162. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think it's ironic. I think it very telling of their definition of freedom. Just like the argument of BSD vs GPL.

  163. DD-WRT + openvpn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess it's time to get dd-wrt and openvpn running at home again.. we shouldn't have to protect ourselves from an ISP that we pay every damn month!

  164. Re: Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I go 100 platitudes, but a relevant one ain't one.

  165. Actual vote was 215 to 205 with 15 repubs against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vote counts in the OP are significantly in error according to official tallies

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml

    This shows 15 republicans voted against the measure.

    Final vote was 215 to 205.

  166. Re: Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a pretty transparent astroturf technique. Overwhelm your readers, wearing down any actionable mentality into apathy. Works pretty good whenever I see it. It comes up in about every topic like this one.

    Buy a good VPN everyone.

  167. Re: Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI. Opera was sold and is now owned by Golden Brick Capital Private Equity Fund I Limited Partnership, a consortium of Chinese investors.

    Wanna bet Opera's vpn doesn't ever phone home? I wouldn't.

  168. Re: Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He rejected both parties because he's worse than either one. And you're the dumbass that got fooled.

  169. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good point. We need to allow speech detection to allow the phone companies to market products you might be interested in.

  170. Re:Who will care? by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

    Your ISP can still see the destination, HTTPS or no. So if you're hitting up their DNS for pornhub's IP, https isn't helping a whole lot. And if the URL you visit is https://amazon.com/golfclubs - they still already know enough about you to sell something to advertisers, without seeing the details of the site.

  171. I haven't had an ISP since 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    18 years of either using college workstations and the first few WiFi hotspots on a college campus, to using library WiFi, public WiFi, and NeighborFi. Someone else can add up the money I have saved in cable bills over that time.

    I have a feeling that the conservatives who killed off the local ISPs, community fiber-optic ISPs, anonymous mesh networks, and public "one-time-fee" community internet will not be going against the rich and powerful cable companies anytime soon.

    I'm just surprised more nerds don't reject the powerful cable companies and find other ways to get on-line.

  172. Re:Who will care? by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

    You want evidence of price discrimination, change your location to Australia. Boom - everything just doubled in price. Steam, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft - they all do it. It's even got a name (australiatax). It's even cheaper to fly to the USA to buy from these companies and then fly back, than to buy it here (https://www.neowin.net/news/its-cheaper-to-fly-to-the-usa-than-buy-adobe-cs6-in-australia). Amazon is most certainly one of the guilty parties here.

  173. Re:Internet Rape by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
    Don't insult the orangutans that way. They are noble creatures, and you should not denigrate them with a comparison to the syphilitic(*) asshat who occupies the White House.

    * Note: Trump admitted on Howard Stern's show that he was exposed to STDs in the 80s.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  174. Re:Who will care? by speedplane · · Score: 1

    You're okay with powerful government already busted several times for spying on Americans, but should BigTelCo do it, you're OUTRAGED!!!!

    Why cant we be "OUTRAGED" at both?

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  175. Re:Democrats by speedplane · · Score: 1

    Let me guess, you are a Sanders or Stein supporter who's biggest concern is legal weed. Fuck right off.

    I don't think Sanders gives a crap about weed. He cares about our system being owned by those already in power. Trump's campaign had a similar message, too bad he's a charlatan.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  176. Re:Internet Rape by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

    ...sell them to the National Enquirer without fear of legal repercussions.

    I assume you mean that the National Enquirer would buy them to simply burn the documents. They are robust Donald Trump supporters and currently feature a story on the front page proclaiming "Trump finally caught the WH leaker!"

    The best media outlet to sell them to would be Penthouse or Hustler.

    I wouldn't expect any legal repercussions for the packet-sniffer as we just saw Rachel Maddow handling Trump's tax returns from 2005 and she is not in jail.

  177. Look forward to this being leaked. by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

    I look forward to hearing about some ISP sticking all this data in an internet facing, insecure MongoDB and it all being leaked. Then we'll all be able to search people's entire online lives on pastebin. And you know this shit is going to happen, too.

  178. Re:Who will care? by worf_mo · · Score: 1

    Even easier, PornHub doesn't use SSL, traffic is not encrypted, and your ISP is most likely already selling your midget milf interest to the highest bidder.
    At least that's what I was told by a friend.

  179. Re: Internet Rape by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Trump's not perfect, but at least he rejected both parties. You need to learn to appreciate that, and stop getting herded around like sheep.

    You don't think you are being treated like sheep by the bully? Trump behaves like he was the Emperor of China - and with as much competence as they generally had just before they were overthrown - but as we can all see, he is only a mandarin (*wink* *wink*, did you see what I did there?)

  180. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Opera which has a free built-in VPN...

    ... provided by some nice Chinese people.

  181. Re: Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you fly to the USA and buy stuff and bring it back you have to bear in mind import duties and the lack of consumer protection. It probably doesn't actually end up cheaper, or not by much.

  182. Re: Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Soul collector? I'm pretty sure that breaches the invocation not to be evil.

  183. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't need to? By doing this, a future Democratic controlled FCC can't re-instate even a vaguely similar rule without another bill to repeal this one being passed by Congress, which unlike this is vulnerable to filibusters in the Senate. That's why they did this. They're ensuring that any regulations Obama was foolish enough to enact in his final months of office can never be reinstated unless the Senate goes 60-40 Democrats again in our lifetimes.

  184. Those of you who are smart will get a VPN by Maritz · · Score: 1

    The rest, enjoy how creepy your world becomes.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  185. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The assumption has been that the FCC can regulate particularly bad data sharing policies with no regulation for most of the time.
    It's only fairly recently that various court decisions limiting the FCCs power in practice have arisen, raising the issue.
    So, effectively, combined with a new government that is certain not to push for enforcement against even very bad sharing, any sharing is now essentially unregulated, whereas before it was assumed that the FCC had regulatory power.

  186. Re: Internet Rape by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am just happy that none of the hot topic governmental decisions or actions do not effect me.

    Of course they do. Trump is sure to expand visa programs after claiming that he would diminish them, for example. He's stepped up programs that cause people to hate us, which creates more terrorists. Under his watch, congress is selling out our data. I don't know how you imagine these things don't affect you, but get ready. You'll soon see that they do.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  187. Re:For Sale To The NSA, FBI, DEA, and your local P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your records are for sale to anybody, no warrants will be required for any government agency to purchase them.

    For all their empty talk of "freedom", the Republican party sure seems to love authoritarian rule.

    Oh totally, I also love how Republicans always say they are for smaller government, but if you do any sort of math you realize that this means more power in the hands of fewer people. How exactly is that better for the American people? How is it even better for the economy? I have never met a Republican who was able to counter that argument, in fact I have had a few who changed sides after they thought about it for a couple of weeks and realized that they were being screwed violently and without any lube by the people they voted for.

  188. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, no, what we tell you is that https does not do nearly as much to protect your privacy as you might expect. Traffic analysis on the metadata alone is enough to even isolate which objects you are receiving/sending depending on exactly what site you are connecting to, and likewise may leak what site you are connecting to.

    Also, the ISP can actively MITM *every* connection, allowing for automated, orchestrated attacks against any PKI we might attempt to deploy to work around the fact that it is trivial to bypass the https CA system against joe-random user (by simply replacing x509 certificates in-transit). DNSSEC (NSEC3) might help, but it is not nearly widespread enough to. And now, it is even more unlikely that it will ever be.

  189. So, things go back to where they were in 2015 by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    OK, the reason they can do this the way they are is because the regulation in question is NEW. That means it has only been in effect for a short period of time. In other words, this law only returns things to the state they were in less than TWO YEARS ago.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  190. Challenge accepted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to run constant scripted searches for nuclear goat porn. I can't wait to see a marketing meeting with on particular area on the graph labeled "alpha blocking condoms" or "geiger vibrator" or "tips for cleaning irradiated poo off your floor". ...."Dear Abby, why does my goat glow at night?".......

  191. Is this an issue with TLS ? by funkman · · Score: 1

    Apart from IP addresses (and DNS lookups) ... what can they sniff and sell? If we HTTPS all the things ... they wont really have access to as much as we think they do.

    1. Re:Is this an issue with TLS ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a bit harder with TLS/SSL, although as you indicated things are available via DNS and the actual IP addresses.

      Other candidates that they can intercept and analyze, for anything unencrypted: HTTP headers that allow you to determine the various browsers in your household (e.g. you use Firefox, and your wife uses Chrome, they can start building a nice profile behind a single IP), email (hey, we see you have emailed the Cialis customer service inbox), and cookies payload.

      The best thing to a) use some alternate DNS servers, and to complete it alll b) tunnel out to another country (funnily enough, I actually use a tunnel into US to deal with restrictions in my own country).

  192. Re:Internet Rape by houghi · · Score: 1

    we have Republicans in the house and senate who think they have a blank check to do whatever they want.

    What do you mean they THINK they have that blanck check? To me it looks as if they have it.

    This is what you get in a system where the winner takes all.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  193. Re:Who will care? by houghi · · Score: 1

    No. I have nothing to hide, as I am not ashamed of watching Japanese Tentacle Porn (bookmarked, no need to search for it). That does not mean everybody should be able to see what I do.

    It is none of anybodies business what sites I go to, be it porn or Slashdot.

    If you are not able to do what you want without being watched, you are not free.
    Land of the brave, home of the free? Ha!
    For the people, by the people? Haha!

    All these values look nice on a wall, but if you are unable to defend them and if there are no consequences if you violate them, they mean nothing.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  194. An attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My personal information including surfing and/or browsing habbits is MY intellectual property, and my ISP was served notice of such.

    What if somebody else uses your WIFI and browse for something you have no interest in, yet your ISP sells that information, so all of a sudden you start getting phone calls of people trying to sell you fishing gear, which is a problem if you don't fish.

    1. Re:An attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the big deal is that you PAY your ISP. They are making money off you already. Monetizing customer information is always a bad idea. Unfortunately for many folks, it's not like there is usually a vast amount of choice for broadband service, especially outside the larger US cities.

      A while back my ISP started putting ads into pages, I then switched. My new ISP then started blocking SMTP (for massmailing worms, for a legit reason but not how I wanted to send my e-mail). I switched a third time for a smaller shop who so far have not done much wrong. Luckily for me, I have the choice available, and I can pay extra. Many folks cannot do either.

  195. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This.

    DNS leaks on both ends unless you are using something like DNSCryprt, which is free, BTW. If you are using DNSCrypt along with something like OpenDNS or Google DNS and a VPN like OpenVPN, you have eliminated most of your worries. Also use HTTPS everywhere, uBlock Origin, Decentraleyes, and Privacy Badger. These steps should insulate you pretty well.

    At the very least, use Opera browser with VPN enabled and DNSCrypt along with OpenDNS or Google DNS.

  196. Re:Democrats by houghi · · Score: 1

    The thing is that if everybody voted for the third party, THEY would become the people with ALL the power and it won't end well.

    The problem is 'winner takes all'. If you would have say 5 parties in government, you would need to add some water in the wine to get it passed and people would have an option to vote what is closes to what they want. e.g. Gay marriage with guns and stronger laws for companies, but no abortion; while taxing the rich more.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  197. Liberals dont get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You liberals don't get it. You think the health care reform was about making money for the rich? Obamacare has resulted in health care benefits to some people, but the rates have doubled or even trippled for others. The rich and powerful aren't part of that, they are self insured. Only the poor and middle class have to use Obamacare, so it's already ripping us off.

    1. Re:Liberals dont get it. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Obamacare has resulted in health care benefits to some people, but the rates have doubled or even trippled for others.

      For the insurance companies, the best thing about Obamacare is that it gave them a convenient foil. It allowed them to raise premiums like they were going to without the ACA, and just like they had before the ACA was passed, but now they can blame "Obamacare" as if they weren't going to raise prices and gouge customers if the law was never passed.

  198. Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, what this did is remove the FCC from doing what the FTC has been doing. It eliminates duplicity: where the FTC had been doing the job, Wheeler (of Obama's FCC) voted to insert itself into the game and to do the same thing, so now, with this bill, instead of two alphabet agencies doing the job that one used to do successfully, one will continue doing the job it has been doing all along. Your privacy rules are still safe because the FTC never stopped defending them.

  199. Umm, private enterprise? by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    No one is forcing you to do business with said ISP. Unfortunately, in some parts of the country these guys have monopolies due to localized monopoly laws but that is a separate issue.

  200. Re:Democrats by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    When I said "it's not just one party doing it", I was replying to the Democrats taking away all our rights. The Republicans also obviously have a big part in taking away our rights.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  201. The Vote Numbers were different than listed by sasparillascott · · Score: 3, Informative

    The vote numbers the author listed are incorrect. It was 215 to 200. No democrats voted for it (like in the Senate) and a number of Republicans voted against it (just 7 more an it would have been killed). If the Senate vote had come after the House vote, it would have been killed for sure. Still want to know why it wasn't filibustered in the Senate. Here's the roll call for these numbers:

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

  202. This doesn't change anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oddly, the FCC rule that this removes was never in effect until December. So, before then these ISP's were already selling our data.

  203. Re: Internet Rape by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    Not really.

    I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job. I do believe many Muslims in America cheered on that day, and many of them were living in New York and New Jersey.

    I trust that we did land men on the Moon, returned them to Earth, and could do it again.

    The Earth is not, in fact, flat.

    The Nazi Holocaust, one of several attempted genocides in human history, did happen. I've met both survivors and liberators.

    I believe that Trump ran as a Republican, but was rejected by the GOP leadership and most Republican elected representatives, which is obvious upon inspection of the record. He has no friends in either party leadership. And the GOP leadership is dedicated to avoiding defeat, rendering them virtually (in the literal sense of that word) unable to govern.

    I believe that my Internet provider has been selling data on how I use their service despite and ind defiance of existing laws. And repealing any regulation or law to prevent it will change little or nothing. Even accountability cannot be legislated in the current environment. Pretending your Internet use is in any way secret is fantasy, and you should act as if everything it known and used to your disadvantage. Want proof?

    - Search for 'Shipping Containers'
    - Watch the ads you see change to focus on shipping containers. Everywhere. For a long time.
    - Search for something you want to buy.
    - Then buy it.
    - Watch the ads focus on the item you no longer need to purchase.
    - When you do look to purchase something, especially a commodity item, watch for pricing to change as much as +/- 150% across different sites. Remember who wanted to overcharge you.
    - Learn to ignore online ads, or, if you wish to punish them, take a moment and click through in a new window or tab. Leave it there and go on about your business. Let them build a false profile, and false empty clicks.

    We have been inundated by advertising all my life. TV and radio commercials focused on the assumed audience. Print ads less so, so more and more outrageous. Streaming your TV doesn't solve it, it focuses their attention - they no longer have to shotgun the ads at a wide audience based on brute force metrics, they can literally hit you between the eyes because you streamed 'xxx'. As if the apps, services, all that weren't gathering up information about you to sell everywhere, even back to your ISP, so they know how much to overcharge you.

    Really, you think you're going to win any of this? NO, we should be looking to profit from the use of our information. Even discounts based on preferential marketing aren't enough. When we can make them pay us for our eyeballs, we have a chance to at least derive some minimal value.

    Whatever you think, Trump is either the cure or the symptom. He is not the disease, and he is not part of the problem. He may not be the solution, but he is not what came before. That alone is not a negative. Get over it. The U.S. government is out of control, and it will be a painful process to either rein it in or succumb to it. Which path will we choose?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  204. Can I buy all of Congresses ISP data? by EnOne · · Score: 1

    Since it is now for sale. What is the cost of getting all of the ISP information for every Congressman and Senator? An curious citizenry want's to know.

    --
    Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
  205. Re: Internet Rape by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately I did not experience that. I voted for one of the other ones but and even if everyone who voted 3rd party in my stat had voted for one of the major party ones it still wouldn't have flipped the outcome of my state.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  206. Re:Democrats by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    Democrats do not, in any way shape or form, want to keep people from negative consequences.

    If that were true, there wouldn't be any "social safety net". The problem is, people tend to get tangled up in the nets. Social Security keeps people from the some of the negative consequence of not saving for retirement. WIC and Medicaid keep people from some of the negative consequences of having children out of wedlock. People in either one of these circumstances are better off than if the safety nets didn't exist, but they are worse off than if they had exercised personal responsibility in the first place. Scared and dependent is exactly where the Democrats want people to be so they have a locked in constituency.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  207. Re:Who will care? by infosinger · · Score: 1

    Of course Opera is owned by the Chinese. I feel much better now.

  208. VPN help? by poached · · Score: 1

    I already surf with a VPN most of the time. Will this protect my privacy, since the VPN will only see me connected to the VPN so there isn't much to disclose there. Now, I'm now worried that my VPN will sell my history.

  209. Re: Who will care? by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Source code is available.
    VPN is a separate Canadian company.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  210. What's the real story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first thought is that nobody in their right mind would vote for this unless it was a part of something else that made a lot of sense. There's probably a lot mor eto the story that you aren't hearing because of a biased source.

  211. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bull effin S@@~!! Hillary wouldn't be repealing what Obama did on climate, or most things for that matter. If we didn't have an obstructive govt in the freedom caucus / republicans, we'd be making great progress I believe. Also, you have no way to disprove this, we'll never know, and to say that Democrats are equal in tyranny to the Republicans is just because your opinion is give up.

  212. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the club, but...
    Its been like this for 10 or more years, remember echelon? And it was probably going on well before that.

    I have come to realize that once such data collection becomes trivial and cheap, it will be collected by both govt and corps. Information is valuable to both.

    Your privacy is gone, it was sold to the highest bidder long ago. Your time would be better spent worrying that the govt is so openly spreading propaganda and misinformation. Many people do not like to think for themselves (because its hard) so they get there opinions from others rather than forming their own conclusions.

  213. Re:Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent 'dick'

  214. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just so you know, the traditional dress for nuns was a necessity, it was designed to hide pregnancy. It seems that being a priest was a pretty good gig long ago. Much better than being a peasant, got to play with gold object, and were well respected in the fiefdom. With power and desire and all that...

  215. Time to poison the well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sic semper tyrannis.

  216. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democrats do not, in any way shape or form, want to keep people from negative consequences.

    Many SJWs (who are basically all democrats) think that an inequality of outcome is always a result of inequality of opportunity.

  217. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would you stop saying this crap??

    the republicans want to lower taxes on the rich and de-regulate everything until there's no gobbmint left. this benefits one small group: the rich.

    the democrats want to levy taxes on the rich (as a tradeoff for them receiving the priviledge to get rich from the citizenry), in order to pay for infrastructure and social programs and science and art and things that benefit society as a whole in the long run. oh, and they want regulation to keep the corporations accountable and prevent them from poisoning everybody and raping the environment which we all need to live.

    so yes, there's a big fucking difference. just because some left-leaning rich democrats have lobbied congress for things that benefit them, doesn't mean the two parties are equal.

  218. Not the creator of this site, but .... by Miser · · Score: 1

    https://searchinternethistory.com

    Looks like someone is going to start buying congress critters history for all the world to see! I for one, approve of this site.

    It would be really nice if these assholes^Ynice representatives of ours would actually represent the people.

    -Miser

  219. Re: Internet Rape by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    VPN, or browse through a cloud computer running x2go.

  220. Re:Democrats by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Ironically, the "House Freedom Caucus" supported this bill.

    It's not ironic at all, it's totally in the interests of freedom to not have the government say what ISPs can and cannot do with their data.

  221. VPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will your data be mined if you VPN to an out-of-country provider?

  222. Re:For Sale To The NSA, FBI, DEA, and your local P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  223. Re: Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually there is a difference. Google is using their data internally and only for product placement. Annoying, yes. Nefarious, no. That kind of data could be used for all sorts of things completely unrelated to trying to get me to buy a company's goods and services. RESIST

  224. gofundme by tyggna · · Score: 1

    Let's start a crowd source campaign to raise money to buy all the internet history of the people who voted for this and publish it to wikileaks. If it sells for $10k per, then we're looking at a goal of just short of $3 million.

    1. Re:gofundme by tyggna · · Score: 1
  225. I help you avoid 2 forms of tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Avoid ads & DNS requestlogs tracking you via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have built into the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

  226. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not the ISPs' data, though. It's their customers' data.

  227. I want to buy the exclusivility of my data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your data individually has almost no value, like arround some dollars max a year. You have the right to buy it.
    One side, there shall be a precendent case of suing your ISP to buy your own data with exclusive right.
    Another side, when it comes to business law, when you produce something called a "product" (in this case your data), you have your word to say on it whatever the congress vote.

    (sorry for the typos, my english is not top top)

  228. Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $35-70 billion?

    Is the average household's Internet info really worth $350?

  229. Daily Reminder by axewolf · · Score: 0

    Partisan politics is a trap and if you fall into it you are a complete fool, and no, your money and status do not exempt you from this

  230. Re:Who will care? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Hmm, no, what we tell you is that https does not do nearly as much to protect your privacy as you might expect. Traffic analysis on the metadata alone is enough to even isolate which objects you are receiving/sending depending on exactly what site you are connecting to, and likewise may leak what site you are connecting to.

    Also, the ISP can actively MITM *every* connection, allowing for automated, orchestrated attacks against any PKI we might attempt to deploy to work around the fact that it is trivial to bypass the https CA system against joe-random user (by simply replacing x509 certificates in-transit). DNSSEC (NSEC3) might help, but it is not nearly widespread enough to. And now, it is even more unlikely that it will ever be.

    Also, so many websites fuck up their own certificates and web servers so often that it's far, far more likely that when you see your web browser screaming at you that something is wrong with the certs that you'll just ignore it.

  231. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say Habeus Corpus was kind of important, lost in NDAA 2012. We're now as advanced a society as we were in the 1100s.

  232. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama did everything he could to continue taking rights away from the people! He renewed the f&%&ing Patriot Act!
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/243850-obama-signs-nsa-bill-renewing-patriot-act-powers

  233. Re: Internet Rape by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Whatever you think, Trump is either the cure or the symptom. He is not the disease, and he is not part of the problem.

    What? Of course he is. He is not the whole disease, but he is part of the disease. Think of THE PROBLEM (greed) like HIV. It attacks the immune system and makes you susceptible to other illnesses (Clinton, Trump, etc.)

    Trump is a hypocrite. What more do you really need to know?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  234. Re: Internet Rape by werepants · · Score: 1

    I believe that my Internet provider has been selling data on how I use their service despite and ind defiance of existing laws. And repealing any regulation or law to prevent it will change little or nothing. Even accountability cannot be legislated in the current environment.

    I don't understand all the excuses being made for Trump and the Republicans. They sell out the interests and rights of the individual to unethical companies, and you just say "it doesn't really change anything". That's like saying that murder is happening anyway, so might as well legalize it. People are going to murder each other either way, right? To strike a little closer to home - should we just go ahead and open the borders and let any immigrant in? After all, immigrants are already coming over illegally, and to borrow your terminology "any regulation or law to prevent it will change little or nothing."

    Admit it, this is the Republicans giving carte blanche to ISPs to totally sell out their customer's privacy. Stop rationalizing it.

    Whatever you think, Trump is either the cure or the symptom. He is not the disease, and he is not part of the problem. He may not be the solution, but he is not what came before. That alone is not a negative.

    Trump is a self-centered demagogue and he's incompetent to boot, and it's shocking that anybody with the sense to put a coherent sentence together doesn't see right through it. Trump is the symptom, the disease, and a huge part of the problem, even if there are forces that have helped to get him to where he is. Just because Trump is different, does not mean that he is in any way better. Cancer is different than the cold or the flu, but that doesn't make it a remedy to either disease.

  235. Re:For Sale To The NSA, FBI, DEA, and your local P by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    For all their empty talk of "freedom", the Republican party sure seems to love authoritarian rule.

    Randians (especially) and Libertarians have this fantasy of a free market, that an enlightened populace will choose the best value. This doesn't happen in practice, but it's why they detest a government telling them how to sell and how to do things, but they're totally fine with "huge conglomerate X" dictating terms that the little guy can't fight against. For them, if you're doing business with "huge conglomerate X," it's because you like them and you want to. They believe that absolute government hands-off means that the companies will reflect the actual will of the people because otherwise people would take their business elsewhere.

  236. Re:Who will care? by Talderas · · Score: 1

    HIPAA has only ever governed health providers, insurance companies, and health clearing houses or some other phrase I can't remember. It doesn't govern lawyers, the company you work for, your ISP, your dog, or the guy that snoops through your trash. That's why situations like this http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/... are not HIPAA violations.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  237. Re:Who will care? by dbeachy1 · · Score: 1

    Exactly, which is why I use an always-on VPN that has its own no-logging DNS servers and whose VPN client implements DNS leak protection.

  238. Re: Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, oh. Be afraid. Be very afraid!

  239. The History of America's National Motto by sehlat · · Score: 1

    America’s first national motto(1782): E pluribus unum (Out of many, one.)

    America’s second national motto(1956): In God we trust.

    America’s third national motto(2017): The best government money can buy.

  240. Re: Internet Rape by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Oh, oh. Be afraid. Be very afraid!

    I'd be happy with aware. Barring that, awake would do.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  241. Re:Who will care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And are telcos allowed to *sell* that list of calls to the highest bidder? Are they allowed to sell the location those calls came from?

    The reality is, the sites you visit on the internet say *far* more about you than a list of phone numbers. They also know when & where you were, any time your cellphone sends or receives a packet. And if you bought your cellphone from your ISP, they likely know more than you dreamed possible (look up CarrierIQ). They know more about you than Google could ever hope - and now that's all up for sale. Good luck avoiding that.

  242. Re:Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No functional difference?

    I didn't vote for either. But:

    Which party is dismantling the FCC, the EPA, NOAA, NASA, Education, Health...?

  243. Re:Internet Rape by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    Yes the Republicans have been pushing for this since SOPA,

    What? SOPA was mostly democrats.

  244. Re:Who will care? by Puls4r · · Score: 1

    I know this is pointless because you posted as an AC and aren't coming back, but YES. There are currently no laws that prevent telephone companies from selling your list of calls to someone else. Amazing huh? Took 10 seconds on google.

  245. Re:Democrats by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    You can't tell the truth like this on Slashdot! You need to sign up for feigned righteous indignation training immediately, along with a prescription for pills that keep you in a continuous state of angst and despair. Please stop consuming news from a variety of sources, and start getting all your information from reliable purveyors of truth such as the Huffington Post, or WND.

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  246. Called my elected officials on their votes (all Ye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I called my congressman and two senators, who all voted yes, to ask why they did so. The staffer for the congressman said that the resolutions supposedly provides for aggregation. I've read nothing in the resolution, or the 3 or 4 articles about the resolution, that says there was any aggregation of records. Did I miss something? Why do this at all if there is aggregation? Isn't the point of this to sell stuff directly to people? How would that work if there is aggregation?

    captcha:pacifies

  247. Re:Democrats by cryptizard · · Score: 1

    negative consequences of having children out of wedlock

    I think you are confused. Being married has nothing to do with how capable you are of raising children.

  248. Voting record in an xml file only last names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the voting record always published in such an obfuscated way?
      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml
    Last names mostly all names are merged with the vote.
    AbrahamYea
    AdamsNay
    AderholtYea
    AguilarNay
    AllenYea
    AmashNay
    AmodeiYea
    ArringtonYea

  249. Re:For Sale To The NSA, FBI, DEA, and your local P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Warrants from benjamin franklin won't likely hold enough weight you need salmon p chase, maybe ten of them will get into the game.

  250. Re:Who will care? by LienRag · · Score: 1

    NoScript+RequestPolicy+Disconnect makes one quite difficult to track...
    And what are these "ads" you're talking about? Does it have something to do with adblock?

  251. Re:Who will care? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Your privacy is gone because your neighbor doesn't care about his. In selling his privacy for a discount on bread and circuses he also sold yours, without your consent. Not just him, his other neighbors, and the guys up the street, and the nice lady around the corner ... they all did it too.

    Privacy was an illusion anyway (but that is a different story altogether)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  252. Kids are the most vulnerable by Waqoota · · Score: 1

    Well, it is quite foreseeable what our future generations will go through with republicans poised to conquer the whole world with their shitty agenda. https://www.purevpn.com/blog/m...

  253. Re: Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Clinton lost the losers started attacking the Electoral College as something that needs to be eliminated but if they had won the election they would be falling all over themselves support the Electoral College and ridicule anyone suggesting the Electoral College be changed or eliminated.

    Actually, the only loser here was Trump who was desperate enough to claim a landslide, then furthered it by manufactured claims about illegal votes.

    Opposition to the Electoral College, and to the Malapportionment in the House existed before this election, before Bush in 2000, and if you want to see a corrupt bargain, try 1824 or 1876.

    Now? You have people telling you that they told you so, and will next year, and the year after.

    When will you listen?

    That type of duplicity and situation policy making will do more harm to the US even if Trump held office for the next 20 years.

    The only person with a documented record of duplicity on the electoral college is Donald J. Trump.

    That said, I would not be surprised if he tried to abrogate the 22nd Amendment as well. Fortunately, dud to his age and incompetence, it is likely to be a nonissue.

  254. Re: Internet Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? SOPA was mostly democrats.

    Not really the issue that is coming through here. Support and opposition was mostly bipartisan, but as a matter of principle, it came from different directions.

    One of the factors from the right in opposition was "Screw Hollywood" a sentiment that doesn't quite hit Madison Avenue. Nor does it quite develop a true sense of privacy among a lot of the right. Rand Paul is still an outlier, after all.

  255. Re: Internet Rape by coteriescavenger · · Score: 0

    Do you believe the bs that you spew, or are you aware that you're an indoctrinated puppet?

  256. Re: Internet Rape by coteriescavenger · · Score: 0

    How did you guys get so brainwashed? None of this makes any sense from an analytical perspective. Have you considered that maybe "the enemy" isn't really your enemy, and maybe they're telling the truth about the media manipulating the masses, and maybe the media has more control over your own opinions than you'd like to admit?