Slashdot Mirror
Activist Starts a Campaign To Buy and Publish Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law (searchinternethistory.com)
On Tuesday, Congress sent proposed legislation to President Trump that wipes away landmark online privacy protections. In a party-line vote, House Republicans freed Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast of protections approved just last year that had sought to limit what companies could do with information such as customer browsing habits, app usage history, location data and Social Security numbers. Now call it a poetic justice, online privacy activist Adam McElhaney has launched an initiative called Search Internet History, with an objective of raising funds to buy browsing history of each politician and official who voted in favor of S.J.Res 34. On the site, he has also put up a poll asking people whose internet history they would like to see first.
Update: The campaign, which was seeking $10,000, has already raised over $55,000.
Update: The campaign, which was seeking $10,000, has already raised over $55,000.
Why should Google have all the fun?
https://www.gofundme.com/buycongressdata
"The lesson here is that it is insufficient to protect ourselves with laws; we need to protect ourselves with mathematics. Encryption is too important to be left solely to governments." -- Bruce Schneier
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Not directly related but something similar perhaps, 2012 in Canada:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/02/15/ministers_tawdry_divorce_details_published_to_protest_bill.html
First, just drafting a law doesn't make it law -- they would have to pass the law through the usual channels.
Second, the US Constitution prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 9: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.") and States from passing ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 10: "No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law [...]).
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
I block Google Analytics and most all other google pieces, without any problems. The only ones I generally have to let in is the occasional google api bits....but for the most part you can block most all Google bits and the sites will work just fine.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Especially considering health info and HIPAA. It's illegal to publish any medical information that can be linked back to an individual, even indirectly.
That depends. HIPPA regulates what certain entities must do to protect health information, but does not have a blanket prohibition on publishing it. Specifically from the HHS website:
The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information and applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and those health care providers that conduct certain health care transactions electronically. The Rule requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of personal health information, and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization. The Rule also gives patients rights over their health information, including rights to examine and obtain a copy of their health records, and to request corrections.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in AT&T v. FTC that the FTC has no authority over common carriers. This FCC rule that Republicans got rid of filled the gap from that court decision. After that court decision a bill was introduced to give the FTC that authority to reverse the court decision, but most Republicans voted against the bill and it failed.
So Republicans argument is:
FCC shouldn't regulate privacy because that is the FTC's job.
FTC shouldn't regulate common carriers because that is the FCC's job.
So who regulates common carrier's privacy? Now, it's no one.
In addition, congress only gave the FTC the authority to pass actual regulations if there "unfair or deceptive acts" and they can prove the regulation prevents harm. Some Republicans argue there is no harm from companies spying on you because you save money or get services for free. Some also argue that seeing ads tailored to you is in your benefit.
This bill wasn't about doing what was right though. It was all about money. ISPs and mobile providers stand to make a lot of money by invading our privacy. They had no problem paying off politicians to pass this bill:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3...
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
This was NOT a party line vote. The following Republicans voted NO and should be congratulated for standing with the People, not the ISP $$$.
If five more Republicans had switched to a NO vote, the resolution would NOT HAVE PASSED!
A thank you phone call to their offices today will be noted and WILL make a difference in future efforts to enact comprehensive privacy legislation.
Brooks, Mo AL 5th
McClintock, Tom CA 4th
Coffman, Mike CO 6th
Yoder, Kevin KS 3rd
Graves, Garret LA 6th
Amash, Justin MI 3rd
Zeldin, Lee NY 1st
Faso, John NY 19th
Stefanik, Elise NY 21st
Jones, Walter NC 3rd
Davidson, Warren OH 8th
Sanford, Mark SC 1st
Duncan, John TN 2nd
Herrera Beutler, Jaime WA 3rd
Reichert, David WA 8th
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202
FACTS MATTER
Umm... the "explicit user opt-in" was what was just KILLED by Congress.
From ArsTechnica:
The rules issued by the FCC last year would have required home Internet and mobile broadband providers to get consumers' opt-in consent before selling or sharing Web browsing history, app usage history, and other private information with advertisers and other companies. But lawmakers used their authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to pass a joint resolution ensuring that the rules "shall have no force or effect" and that the FCC cannot issue similar regulations in the future.
Republicans argue that the Federal Trade Commission should regulate ISPs' privacy practices instead of the FCC. But the resolution passed today eliminates the FCC's privacy rules without any immediate action to return jurisdiction to the FTC, which is prohibited from regulating common carriers such as ISPs and phone companies.
If Trump signs the resolution to eliminate privacy rules, ISPs won't have to seek customer approval before sharing their browsing histories and other private information with advertisers.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
That's exactly what they can sell.
During the debate Nancy Pelosi actually put up a sign with a few things this bill allows selling:
"Republicans want this information to be sold without your permission"
Financial information includes your name, address, SSN, and phone number. This will also be attached to your browsing history and other data. A lot of ISPs and mobile providers require SSN when you sign up, they claim so that they can run a credit check. Now, it's also so that they can sell it.
It also sounds like they can also sell the contents of voice calls and SMS too if they want.
Using encryption doesn't really protect you either.
1) It doesn't prevent metadata.
2) Some carriers plan on using spyware on your cell phones so that they even have access to encrypted data. This would also prevent VPNs from being of any use.
A Democrat (I forget who) before this was passed even read about Verizon's patent for a cable box with thermographic camera, microphone, and motion sensor. It includes a "cuddle detector" so that it can show ads for condoms when it detects people "cuddling" in front of the TV.
Microsoft applied for a patent for cable box and console technology that will detect how many people are in the room and allow copyright owners to block content if too many people are in the room. For example, if you buy a PPV fight and invite too many people over it will refuse to play.
Comcast applied for a patent for a cable box which detects who is in a room and personalizes ads based on the person or people in the room.
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
The API bits can be mostly replaced with local versions by installing Decentraleyes.
For the rest, Smart Referer lets you block tracking that doesn't include explicit tokens. And Request Policy axes crap that you don't need with a default-deny.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I applaud the Republicans who didn't vote for this
Well you are applauding for no one, every republican voted to approve it.
This is the rep that is pushing this; Marsha Blackburn.
And here is the Senator pushing this;
Anybody who is represented by these ppl should let them know that the internet is waiting to know all about them AND THEIR FAMILY, including kids and grandkids.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I applaud the Republicans who didn't vote for this
Well you are applauding for no one, every republican voted to approve it.
See above - there were 15 Republicans who voted "NO".
Do you have ESP?
Right subject, wrong article. Try this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02...
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.