Slashdot Mirror
GOP Congressman Defending Privacy Vote: 'Nobody's Got To Use The Internet' (washingtonpost.com)
Wisconsin congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. defended his decision to help repeal broadband privacy rules by telling a constituent, "Nobody's got to use the Internet." An anonymous reader quotes the 73-year-old congressman:
"And the thing is that if you start regulating the Internet like a utility, if we did that right at the beginning, we would have no Internet... Internet companies have invested an awful lot of money in having almost universal service now. The fact is is that, you know, I don't think it's my job to tell you that you cannot get advertising for your information being sold. My job, I think, is to tell you that you have the opportunity to do it, and then you take it upon yourself to make that choice... That's what the law has been, and I think we ought to have more choices rather than fewer choices with the government controlling our everyday lives."
"The congressman then moved on to the next question," reports The Washington Post, but criticism of his remarks appeared on social media. One activist complained that the congressman's position was don't use the internet if you don't want your information sold to advertisers -- drawing a clarification from the congressman's office.
"Actually he said that nobody has to use the Internet. They have a choice. Big difference."
"The congressman then moved on to the next question," reports The Washington Post, but criticism of his remarks appeared on social media. One activist complained that the congressman's position was don't use the internet if you don't want your information sold to advertisers -- drawing a clarification from the congressman's office.
"Actually he said that nobody has to use the Internet. They have a choice. Big difference."
The ISP having your browsing data is the LEAST of your worries, since they have not sold anything before these rules, and the rules they struck down were not even in place.
The real people who sell your data to advertisers would be doing so without anything to do with your ISP - Google/Facebook/Amazon etc. If you want to do something without THEM knowing, well good luck I say - or do not do it on the internet (or with a credit card).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He's 73 years old and has been in public office since 1979.
Correction: He's been in Congress since '79, but he was in the Wisconsin State Assembly before then, since 1969. So personal (as in micro-) computers were barely even a thing when he got on the gravy train. Why the hell was this guy the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology anyway?
Internet companies have invested an awful lot of money in having almost universal service now.
Yes, those billions of taxpayer dollars given to them during the Clinton administration, and the billions more in tax breaks and what amounts to effective monopolies, is a lot of money being spent by the end users. It's so much money, ISPs have to be reminded they can't spend taxpayer money on booze and trips to Disney World.
As we saw recently, the taxpayers keep being told they have to hand over their money to these private companies for. . . well, no one's really sure since neither service or accessibility has been increased in many places.
No, it's about party, because almost all votes are along party lines, 99% of our congress does not vote based on their knowledge and opinion, they vote how their party leader tells them to vote. They could all understand and think it's a bad idea, but if the party leader is for it...
Take this vote specifically, The final vote was 215-205, with nine members not voting. The Democrats voted against the resolution as a block. On the Republican side, 15 members split from their party and opposed the bill.
Do you really believe that all democrats are informed and understand technology beyond the pager, and all but 15 republicans are dinosaurs? Or perhaps, is it more likely, that the politicians are not voting on their own, but rather as a single party, which makes everything not about facts or specific issues but about party?
And the thing is that if you start regulating the Internet like a utility, if we did that right at the beginning, we would have no Internet
This claim is patently false. The distinguished congressman should strive to get his facts from more sources than just the lobbyists that are paid to persuade him to a certain perspective.
I was involved with internet comunications early on, and by the early 80's the internet was successfully moving into widespread commercial use. The "internet" was a collection of cooperating private and public funded networks that provided a single function: moving packets from one IP address to another. In the 80's, and both before and after for a good while, this collection of networks that together provided the "internet" took no action outside what one would expect of a "utility" service. There was no need to consider regulation like a utility because these companies were self regulating.
No, the problem is now that these companies want to extract additional revenue from the data they carry by LOOKING AT IT and then either making weighted decisions based on that information, or outright SELLING IT. When this starts happening, reasonable people start to cry foul, and THEN you have the issue of regulation come up as one method to solve the problem.
I'm not sure how rational people can justify this mindset. We pay our ISP to move packets from our IP address to others, and vice versa. This is no different conceptually than placing calls on the telephone network, or sending letters via the postal service. Phone companies and the postal service cannot, without a warrant, allow access to the communications and letters they transport. It is also illegal for third parties to intercept and 'read' these communications. So why then do we think it is in the best interests of our population to NOT have similar protections when we pay our ISPs to move packets of our information around?
Hate to break it to you, but you need internet to get a job at McDonalds, though using the computers at the library might be good enough if they're not too locked down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You are in denial. The "idiots" are the Republican party now, including the "useful idiots" like yourself.
You may think that you can replace people like this congressman, but the Mercers' and Koch Brothers' money will ensure that he gets replaced by someone even more authoritarian.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
> Mercers' and Koch Brothers' money will ensure that he gets replaced by someone even more authoritarian.
So you think he'll be replaced by someone who WOULD support a law prohibiting trading services for privacy?
"Authoritarian" means *more* rules, not fewer. This Congressman argued for fewer rules. In this particular case, the argument he made was a stupid one, but anyway it's the opposite of authoritarian. An authoritarian leader is one who seeks to impose more rules and laws. This guy argues that the internet flourished due to relatively few laws, so we shouldn't make laws unless they absolutely necessary. Precisely the opposite of authoritarianism. (And he supported his anarchist / limited government position by making a stupid argument).
You are underestimating the complete and utter cowardice, apathy, incompetence and spinelessness of the Democrats.
As a newly elected member of my local Democratic Central Committee, I can attest to this. We took over from a bunch of geriatrics who seemed to be in it for the social gatherings and photo-ops with elected leaders, so maybe we can move the ball forward a bit. Or maybe not. It's tough sledding when the leaders at the top are basically Rockefeller Republicans.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.