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.
Please make sure to purchase , but not publicize their children's information also. .... How this is legal is beyond me....
Every politician, all the time, with the results updated in real time. This is the only way the rest of us will ever see our privacy respected.
https://www.gofundme.com/buycongressdata
God damn politicians need a taste of their own medicine.
Is about to find out just how limiting the ability to get information is even if they pay for it. Even in industries where there's no data protection laws why would an ISP sell this?
A baker sells a variety of bread to suit tastes, they don't sell you a specific bread made from your own recipe, and they don't sell you their recipes or equipment either.
Back when the UK passed the Snoopers Charter (the one that lets everyone and their dog access your full internet history), those clever politicians made just one important exemption - they themselves wouldn't be subject to the law.
http://www.independent.co.uk/l...
I'd be surprised if the US hasn't done the same thing, but then the UK *is* a world leader in surveillance of their own citizens.
Just because a company CAN sell something does not mean they will.
I think it will be pretty interesting to see what they can actually end up buying.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just because a company CAN sell something does not mean they will.
I think it will be pretty interesting to see what they can actually end up buying.
One thing that got lost in all the wailing and moaning is that protecting privacy is the purview of the FTC, not the FCC.
The law got axed because it was a standout overreach of a specific government agency, only affected a certain segment, and was done badly.
What *should* have happened is the FTC should pass a low saying that *every* corporation has to protect customer privacy.
Everyone got so distracted with "muh rites!" and completely lost track of whether it was a good law or not.
"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.
My prediction - the telecoms companies won't be willing to sell the data, because it's worth more to them to keep it, and not have the Obama era law reinstated.
That's what they say, but it's misguided..you can block data from Google or Facebook. You can't from your ISP.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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
This is a cute idea, but I don't think much will come of it. ISPs won't be selling individual browsing histories- despite whatever changes to the laws happen, the liability would be staggering and most buyers would be looking for data in a bulk, automated way that scales. As an advertiser, one individual's complete browsing history is completely useless to me; there's no market for that data that ISN'T to publicly shame people or otherwise spy on people. While I suppose private investigators and law enforcement might be a niche market for this sort of thing, I just don't it happening in a significant way.
What you'd actually be buying are audience segments against IP addresses and possibly device IDs, which could then in turn be matched up to other data sets. Ie, if I'm Coscto, I might be trying to identify "Devices that have recently shopped at Walmart.com". Once I have that, I might be able to match some percentage (maybe 10-40%) of those devices to some other kind of data set (for example, to add demographic data). That's just two data points- not nearly enough to identify anyone- and I've already likely narrowed my starting set of devices down to 10-20% of what the ISP provided me.
It IS possible to ultimately drill down into this kind of data far enough that you can be pretty sure you've found the history for an individual person- in theory anyway. But the amount of time/effort/luck involved to get there makes this impractical to do at scale (i.e., for all the Congress-critters) or to keep up to date manually as cookies expire/are deleted, IP addresses change, people upgrade their phones every 1-2 years... it takes full time teams of people to do this at a very basic level.
Plus there's the whole "That wasn't me, damn neighbors stealing my wifi" defense for anything nefarious.
Source: I work in programmatic audience targeting for a Fortune 100. (I promise we're not evil, we just want to sell you stuff you might actually want)
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.........
You can easily protect data with encryption. It's harder to protect meta data. For example: with proper encryption we may never know what Devin Nunes was actually watching on pornhub. To actually hide that Devin Nunes was on pornhub requires something like TOR or a VPN.
the browsing history for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan first. Let's see if they're actually working or fucking off. I think they're fucking off.
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...
I choose whether or not I give Google certain information. Google may be able to deduce personal details about my life. But my ISP should not be able to. I should be able to safely hide behind a screen name without my ISP guessing things about my life.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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.
You can't from your ISP.
VPN. Conversely, that'd also protect you reasonably from Google.
But then the VPN admins have access to all your browsing..
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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'm still waiting on someone to tell my why I should care about someone purchasing my browsing history.
Yes, you're so very open with everyone that you post as Anonymous Coward instead of even a pseudonym. Your super openness doesn't merely not track back to your real name, it doesn't even track back to a fake name.
AC claiming privacy doesn't matter. Sheesh.
Yup, VPNs limit the ability of the ISP to know where you are going... instead you instead give implicit permission to the VPN provider to know where you go.
How does that improve things any?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
would you want your boss to know you're into interracial midget porn?
That's the problem, you choose your disclosure.. in your example, you tell your wife what you're downloading. you tell your friends you like this game or that.
Google/$big_data tells anyone who can pay, whatever they want you lose control over the disclosure of your personal data.
Would you want your insurance company knowing how often you buy beer/red meat? I understand that for *now* there's some safeguards in place to prevent misuse of that kind of data, but those won't last long.
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.
...if everyone were to post as AC, then it would be the content of their posts that would be rated and nothing else.
Which is why I don't typically post AC. When a /. user sees my sig, they know that whatever preceded it must have been pure gold and any deviation from its goldiness must have been a misunderstanding.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
WTF do you think people are going to do with your browsing history??
The potential for predatory marketing practices and discrimination is huge. Your search for "funerals" and then "airfares", and presto! airline tickets just got more expensive for you, and you alone. You visit an Alcoholics Anonymous site and then GEICO and presto! car insurance rates just went up for you, and you alone. You visit the DNC website and then presto! your favorite news site can tailor the news it delivers to you to maximize manipulation. The possibilities are horrifying and endless.