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.
Is there anything they won't rape for money?
...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.
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.
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.
...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
Only Republicans would rape the Internet. And they got a orangutan in office to rubber stamp it.
Teh internets watch you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.'"
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
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
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.
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...