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."
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...
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
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
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.
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*
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.
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.
at 73 he probably equates the internet thing with the telegraph.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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!!!
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.
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"?
Yeah fuck white people! Lets put some burning crosses on their lawns.
No no no. You got it wrong. It is the rich we are supposed to hate; and you burn a lower case t on their lawn as a sign that it is time to leave.
And if that fails, dress up as the thing rich folk are most scared of, ghosts.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Well then. When the next election comes vote for someone else.
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.
> 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).
Probably doesn't matter if they "don't have to vote for him" because his district is probably gerrymandered like so many of them are. Voters can't pick their so-called Representatives when the district boundaries have already picked the "right" voters.
Only solution I've been able to come up with would be "guest voting" for your representative. If you feel like your vote is pointless in your own district (as for example after it's been gerrymandered 150 miles like mine), then you can pick one of the neighboring districts and vote for a representative in that district. The more they gerrymander the districts, the more they are liable to get screwed up by guest voters. Another interesting wrinkle is that third-party voters could concentrate on one district and get some Congressional so-called representation. Of course, it would never happen. Pretty certain it would require a Constitutional amendment, and even if they got the amendment, the bastards would just come up with some new cheating game.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
> 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.