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."

30 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. He is an idiot... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the USA, if you wish to actually be a part of modern society, yes you really do have to use the Internet.

    Just like not having a phone number became a liability many years ago, not being online cuts you off from modern life.

    This guy is living in the past...

    1. Re:He is an idiot... by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This guy is living in the past...

      Truly. He's 73 years old and has been in public office since 1979. In other words, he got where he needed to be in life before computers were even common in the home. Of course he doesn't think the internet is important -- he's never had to look for a job in the 21st Century and most of his friends likely don't use the Internet beyond email and Facebook.

    2. Re:He is an idiot... by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the USA, if you wish to actually be a part of modern society, yes you really do have to use the Internet.

      Just like not having a phone number became a liability many years ago, not being online cuts you off from modern life.

      This guy is living in the past...

      No, he's not, he's living in the new reality that US voters created in the last general election. The corporate prostitutes in the Republican party are now in control of the house, the senate and the presidency and they will use that situation liberally to shaft the American people for the next eight years because there seems to be no chance the Democrats will ever grow a spine. The Dems may be corrupt to but they would have opposed this, or at least been easier to turn against it if they had a majority which they don't. The Rep's friends in the advertising business want to buy and sell the most intimate details of your online life? No problem, they'll pass a law. The American people don't like that? Let me paraphrase Antonin Scalia: 'Get over it! ...bitches...' If anybody wants to chew me out for saying this feel free but in the end I'm only repeating what Wisconsin congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr is saying on behalf of more or less the entire Republican party in a slightly more colloquial way. You get what you vote for...

    3. Re:He is an idiot... by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Eight years? LOL

      They aren't going to maintain their majority for 4. They'll be LUCKY if they don't lose the house in 2018 and Trump is a one term president. They've got two years at best to fuck everything up they can.

    4. Re:He is an idiot... by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hate to break it to you but the Fed government is far to harder to corrupt than your local government. Your state and local government is corrupt almost without exception because relatively small amounts of money in coordination with non-existent oversight and ethics can buy just about every local politician and even law enforcement. To the point that your local government was bought and sold long before you were even born.

      There is one power I'd like to see drastically expanded and that's the power of Federal law enforcement to monitor and prosecute corrupt local politicians and police agencies (I'd also like to see a similar nonpartisan office at the federal level going after federal corruption). Our founders thought local government would be more accountable and it is in some regard, but it's far easier to corrupt and it is corrupt in almost every state in the union, usually to the benefit of Property developers or other locals with money.

      It's precisely because of that local corruption that the Fed's have had to step into many things they shouldn't be involved in.

    5. Re:He is an idiot... by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eight years? LOL

      They aren't going to maintain their majority for 4. They'll be LUCKY if they don't lose the house in 2018 and Trump is a one term president. They've got two years at best to fuck everything up they can.

      Really? You are underestimating the complete and utter cowardice, apathy, incompetence and spinelessness of the Democrats. Plus, I forgot to add that the Reps. are also in control of the supreme court (none of the conservative judges are likely to die or retire for a generation). This gives the Reps. carte blanche on gerrymandering and voter discrimination on a hitherto unprecedented scale since with the appointment of that soulless corporate rent-boy Gorsuch the supreme court is now a mindless rubber-stamping office that twill validate everything the Reps. want it to without a single critical thought. If the Dems. fuck up in the 2018 (and the Democrat's set of corporate prostitutes looks looks hellbent on taking the party there) this, combined with the Reps. control of the house, the senate, the presidency and the supreme court might just give them control of enough states to call a constitutional convention which would allow them to modify the constitution at will so expect some really interesting constitutional amendments. Every single one of America's founding fathers is rolling in his grave.

    6. Re:He is an idiot... by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ....and why the Federal government was meant to be extremely weak domestically, and States and local governments were intended to do nearly all domestic governing.

      No. Anyone who still believes this stupid crap needs to go back to 9th grade and take US History again. The Constitution was written because the confederacy of states was exactly what you describe... weak federal, strong state.... and it took less than 10 years for pretty much everyone to see it was a complete fucking disaster. The Constitution was written specifically to empower a strong federal government.

      What we see in the US today is largely the result of too much domestic power in the hands of the central government.

      What we see currently in the US is the federal government being infiltrated by conservatives who are actively trying to destroy the country from within. It's been happening on steroids since 1994. These "states rights" faux populists only care about being in power, and punishing enough of those "other people" to keep their uneducated base backing them.

      During the Revolutionary War, the conservatives backed mother England, during the Civil War they tried to rip the United States apart through secession, now they're intentionally destroying the ability of the government to do anything. Conservatives like you have been the enemy of this country since before it was founded.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    7. Re:He is an idiot... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why the hell was this guy the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology anyway?"

      Jobs like that aren't given to skilled applicants with applicable knowledge, they are rewards for long service to the party.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:He is an idiot... by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He never road dinosaurs, because they didn't exist in his universe. They are basically the original "fake news" to him.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:He is an idiot... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When your bridge needs painting, doesn't being able to order on Amazon beat having to hitch a ride into the big city and find a paint store?

      Ha! As if we did bridge maintenance in this country! Now pull the other one!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Sadly, he's kind of right already by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want to keep unprincipled actors in the datamining sphere from getting (too much) information about you, you *can* avoid patronizing internet services that are run by them. That means you don't get to enjoy 95% of the internet, because every-fucking-thing is run/owned/exploited/controlled by Google, Facebook, Akamai, Cloudflare...

    I'm unusually careful with what I do on the internet compared to most people I know, and every year I feel more and more socially handicapped. As in:

    "Oh, you don't do Facebook? I'll send you the invite by email then".

    "What do you mean you didn't find it? It's the first line in Google search... What the fuck is Duckduckgo?".

    "You should have used Waze instead of that offline satnav: it shows traffic jams and speed cameras live! What do you mean it's evil?"

    Etc etc etc...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Sadly, he's kind of right already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Comparing to google/facebook/etc is not accurate.
      Those companes don't charge you a dime, you trade your privacy for their services.
      And consequently you are not their actual customer.

      ISPs charge for their services, you are their customer. That's a significant difference. Now, if only there were competition between ISPs the free market would (probably) fix the problem. Or at least your privacy would be fairly valued and some ISPs would provide service at no charge in exchange for spying rights - much like there are VPN services that are advertiser funded and thus 'free' to the end user.

    2. Re:Sadly, he's kind of right already by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point here is, how to avoid unprincipled ISPs. It's trivial to go to duckduckgo instead of google, and a click will install a browser extension that blocks all site connections to facebook, but in a lot of the US it's not so easy to choose a different broadband provider or mobile telco.

      Between multi-year contracts, locked-down or incompatible phones, lack of competition between duopolies, legal prohibitions on municipal broadband, strong pushback from customer service etc etc, it can be a significant undertaking to switch - assuming you have any reasonable alternatives at all in your area.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  3. Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. is a moron. by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's see him win his next reelection without using the Internet. Is that possible? Of course not. As long as old white men like him keep getting elected into office, things will never get better.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  4. I dare him not to use the internet for a month ! by morbingoodkid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can you not use the internet let's see to not use the internet would require:

    1. Drawing money for a month before the experiment start as most banks use internet technology to contact their branches. (Yes might be secured but still TCP/IP)

    2. You cannot buy from certain stores because they use internet technology to update store details and order new stock.

    3. You cannot even send a letter or receive a letter because I can promise you the systems that sort your mail are connected to the internet in some way. (Uses network technology)

    4. In some buildings you will not be able to use elevators so walk up the stairs as they monitor the lifts via internet connections.

    5. You cannot watch TV because the TV stations use internet connections to build their news and even news papers become problematic.

    6. You cannot use a phone because even landline phones these day at some stage pass through internet connected devices.

    7. Oops cannot use electricity from electricity grid, even the solar panel controler is that you use at your home might be connected to the internet.

    So yes it is absolutely possible to not use the internet. But you will have to live somewhere in a forest somewhere.

  5. Time for his info to be posted publicly by future+assassin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if you don't want your personal info as a public servant to be available to anyone 24/7 don't be a public servant.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  6. Re:Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. is a mor by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nah, there's are legions of Republicans and a few Democrats that will still get voted in because their constituents are just as backward as they are. Texas is a prime example. Science? They've heard of it but figure is it a colossal dodge by liberals to prevent them from having dominion over the earth and giving it a good fucking.

  7. The Congressman is dangerously uninformed. by dweller_below · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I hope somebody convinces the congressman that the internet is essential to the US economy before he causes too much damage.

    Our society requires rapid, successful transportation and communication. We have almost completely transitioned to a Just In Time (JIT) economy. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Thanks to JIT optimization, there are no large stores of immediately useful resources and goods in the US. All elements of our society depend on tight, reliable links between supply and demand. The stores only have a few days supplies. The stores rely on timely orders and deliveries to maintain stock and reduce overhead. The suppliers of stores only have a few days of supplies. They rely on receiving accurate and timely orders to know where to deliver. Those suppliers then must place timely and accurate orders to keep the next link in the chain moving. This continues all the way to the harvesting and transportation of raw materials. Every step is optimized to reduce overhead and unnecessary stock. Any supplier that fails to optimize is replaced by a more efficient supplier that has optimized. Every step is dependent on quick, accurate communication and transport. When this breaks down, people die.

    For example, most of the deaths during the Hurricane Katrina debacle were not caused by the initial flooding. They were caused by the breakdown in transportation and communication.

    ALL aspects of the US transportation and communication grids are dependent on the continued functionality of the internet. The phone systems are now interlinked with the internet. The management of the highways and the supermarkets all depend on the internet. The internet supports all orders and deliveries in the US. Without the internet, there is no food in the stores or gas in the gas stations. If the internet goes, the electrical grid quickly follows.

    If the internet suffers an extended outage, there would be massive numbers of deaths. During the first few days, there would be thousands of deaths. During the first few weeks there would be millions of deaths. During the first few months, there would be billions of deaths.

    On the other hand, the internet is built and maintained by hordes of capable people. We can overcome almost any obstacle. Once the dying starts, we will come up with answers. They will not be pretty, but they should be functional. Hopefully, one of the first acts will be the elimination of anybody who claims that the internet is unnecessary.

  8. Re:Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. is a mor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Things didn't get better when a young black man was elected president. What's your point then?

    I suggest you take your racist and ageist notions and shove them up your ass. It's more effective than what you're proposing.

  9. Re:At some point you've got to ask yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Hillary Clinton

  10. Now you're insulting idiots. by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly. How many GOVERNMENT sites are the single point of access for those services?

    Hell, my job itself REQUIRES internet connectivity.
    If I can't support my place of business' IP phone and am unable to remote into the systems of our company or our clients I DO NOT HAVE A JOB and have to try to go work at McDonalds...

    This guy is living in the fucking 60's. In a home for the developmentally disabled. On life support. In a vegetative state.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  11. Re:Exactly right by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What makes you think Google, Facebook etc are so keen to sell your data while AT&T etc would never consider it, despite them knowing everything from your home address and daily movements to your TV watching habits and full browsing history?

    Just like Google & Facebook, the major ISPs don't sell your data but do use it to run targeted ad networks of their own, taking full advantage of their far more extensive knowledge of you - and they're much harder to avoid. Examples of abuse abound, like Verizon being fined for their zombie supercookies, or AT&T charging an extra $29/month if you don't care to be targeted.

    You can easily avoid Google or Facebook, but how do you avoid your only local broadband provider, or the telco you bought your phone from? It seems the GOP's answer is to avoid the internet completely.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  12. Re: Old people should be shot by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well then. When the next election comes vote for someone else.

  13. On behalf of Republicans everywhere by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On behalf of Republicans everywhere, I'd like to apologize for the fact that our party includes some idiots like this congressman. We're working on replacing these fools.

    As someone else mentioned, this guy has been in elected office since the 1960s (longer even than Hill & Billy), and he doesn't seem to have a clue about what's going on in the real world in the 21st century.

    1. Re:On behalf of Republicans everywhere by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Coming from someone who usually votes Democrat, I wish you luck. I really want there to be a second party that has a chance to sway my vote. There is plenty wrong with the Democrat party that I'd love to see fixed, but right now voting for a Republican candidate is a non-starter. If the GOP would ditch the anti-science and pro-Christianity views, it could turn into a party that I might actually support. That would ensure actual competition in the political parties in the races (as in "here are two different but viable plans for improving our future") and might also result in cooperation between the two parties after elections.

      Here's hoping the crazy wing of the GOP gets spun off into oblivion before the "sane Republicans" go extinct.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  14. Red herring by loonycyborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It doesn't matter whether you have to use internet or not. It's like arguing against equipping cars with safety belts because you don't have to use cars.

  15. Re:Authoritarian leaders make *more* rules by whoever57 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As the AC already pointed out Authoritarianism does not necessarily mean more rules.

    But, I'll acknowledge that it was perhaps the wrong term to use in this context. Would it make you happy if I replaced "authoritarian" with "even more in thrall to the rich and powerful at the expense of 99.99% of the population"?

    "Limited government" is really just code for "a government that cannot protect its ordinary citizens".

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  16. Re:Harder now. Have to pick candidates, not partie by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    though Trump has little in common with traditional Republicans. Grabbing them by the pussy isn't a Christian ideal.

    If you think that the average republican or republican voter gives one tenth of one fuck for christian ideals, then you are a grade-A dumbfuck who cannot possibly be educated because you willfully ignore all evidence. BOMBS NOT BREAD is the republican motto. WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB? Don't take in those refugees, but BOMB THEIR COUNTRY... creating more refugees. There is nothing christian about republicans or their supporters. NOTHING.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. because Democrats are a shit show by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They backstab every part of their base - workers, unions, minorities - except for the donor class. At least Republicans will stab you in front. It's not that Republicans have increased in popularity - its that Obama and the Clintons have driven the party so far into the ground that they've lost at every level around the country. They are completely and utterly incapable of saying what they stand for besides "we're not Republicans."

    And no, the other side isn't as bad.

    You're right. The Democrats are worse. NAFTA. TPP. Gramm-Leach-Bliley. 1996 Telecom Act which means 6 companies control almost all print and broadcast media. Putting SS and Medicare cuts into federal budget proposals. Printing trillions to bail out fraudulent banks while letting those banks illegally foreclose on millions of homes. Starting a war and explicitly not asking Congress for permission first (Libya). Starting regime change to "protect Arab Spring protestors" in Libya and Syria while at the same time selling weapons to Bahrain, who were violently putting down their Arab Spring protests. Repealing the cornerstone of all civil rights, habeas corpus, with an NDAA that allows the military to detain you without warrant or trial, on American soil.

    Trump is an ugly face on an ugly system, but he's going to have to work long and hard just to catch up to the Clinton and Obama freakshows, who were pretty faces on an ugly system. But Stepford Democrats DGAF because they are willfully blind partisan tribalists.

  18. Re:Better not think, fire ad hominem by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > If you are against "rules"

    I didn't say I'm against rules. I haven't said anything about what I'm for or against. I just keep asking you what you think, and you keep not answering, preferring to attack. "I'm not sure" yet is a perfectly valid answer - perhaps the wisest answer, so if you're still open-minded, if you haven't decided, you can sure say that. No need to try to attack me for asking.

    For example, you just said.
    > laws concerning what products I can grow in my garden and eat or smoke

    That suggests you think legalizing marijuana is a probably a good idea. It sounds like you'd strongly agree with this statement:
    __
    Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.
    --

    That's the top item on the Libertarian platform.

    Yet, your sig is that Libertarians are "tards". In one sentence you advocate the same the position that is the very top of the Libertarian platform, then you immediately call them "tards".

    Have you not yet made up your mind, or are we having a bit of a communication problem? I keep asking the same question, you keep not answering. I'm not sure where to go from here if you just want to attack, attack, attack (without knowing what you're attacking), and don't want to have any discussion.