Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Billboards Target Lawmakers Who Voted To Let ISPs Sell User Information (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the fight-for-the-future dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: When Congress voted in March to block FCC privacy rules and let internet service providers sell users' personal data, it was a coup for the telecom industry. Now, the nonprofit, pro-privacy group Fight for the Future is publicizing just how much the industry paid in an attempt to sway those votes. The group unveiled four billboards, targeting Reps. Marsha Blackburn and John Rutherford, as well as Sens. Jeff Flake and Dean Heller. All four billboards, which were paid for through donations, were placed in the lawmakers' districts. "Congress voting to gut Internet privacy was one of the most blatant displays of corruption in recent history," Fight for the Future co-founder Tiffiniy Cheng said in a statement on the project. The billboards accuse the lawmakers of betraying their constituents, and encourage passersby to call their offices.

91 comments

  1. Good by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For all the good it will do. Nobody cares, nothing will come out of it. Except new harsher laws that will further restrict what we can do. When is everyone going to realize that the match is over and we lost?

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe it's hopeless, no one will begrudge you your right to shut up and sit it out on the sidelines. If you believe that civic duty will only lead to retaliation with harsher laws, I'm sure most will be glad to see you exercise that right.

    3. Re:Good by Altrag · · Score: 1

      As soon as we see elections being cancelled and those in power never having to relinquish it.

      Until then, we take things 4 years at a time (well 2 years at a time if you include midterms.) Anything the current politician can do, the next one can potentially undo. Well unless you're Trump. He's had no luck undoing Obama's progress yet.. but then he's only one quarter into 4 years so there's still lots of time to prop up our corporate oppressors.

    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, on to selling the internet activities of all of our goverment officials and post them on billboards...

    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that'll happen. However, if there were such a thing as a rouge IT worker who would have the balls to take it upon themselves to secretly keep up with certain officials, and sell that data to the highest bidder, or even just post it via billboard to the general public, there'd really be no way anyone would know where/how that info got out, now would they?

    6. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lost.

    7. Re:Good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      When you know you lost, keep playing and make sure that the other one loses too.

      It's the only way to discourage them from playing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are they not in jail?

    9. Re:Good by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      ...he's only one quarter into 4 years...

      It's been an entire year already?

    10. Re:Good by geeper · · Score: 1

      I think he meant one calendar quarter, as in 3 months. That's how I took it anyway.

      --
      Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
    11. Re:Good by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      When is everyone going to realize that the match is over and we lost?

      That isn't a thing that a person realizes; it's a thing that a person decides.

      The enemy wins by persuading you into believing that you've lost.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  2. Flaw in this tactic by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The flaw in this tactic is that it requires the person discussed on the billboard to be able to feel shame at the things they do in their official capacity.

    Since politics has turned into a spectator sport where people choose what team to support like they were a football franchise, shame and an ability to look down upon the choices made has evaporated.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd have to say that there are more than one flaw in this tactic.
      For one, it relies on the general public valuing their online privacy in the first place, which so-called 'social media' has been indoctrinating them against for a long time now, especially Milennials.
      Next, it relies on the general public even understanding the issue from a technical perspective; at best they probably think clearing their browser history is enough to protect them from nosy ISPs.
      Finally, it also relies on how they prioritize one issue over another. Does the general public really take the Internet all that seriously, compared to other issues that their elected representatives have a hand in? They may think so-and-so does a great job, for instance, keeping education funded in their state, or keeping crime under control, so they don't really care about this 'internet' thing so much.

      Still, it's better that they do something rather than just sit back and do nothing. There's always a chance that people will prove me wrong, and I'd be fine with that in this case. Otherwise, the way things are going, the Internet is going to become unusable. As-is, since this whole issue came up, I've started using Tor for everything, which is not all that great to start with, and am considering migrating away from Comcasts' email and using Proton Mail for everything instead, so that Comcast gets basically nothing from me. However it's not beyond the realm of possibility at this point that jackass corporations like Comcast might change their terms of service some time in the future to make it against their rules to use Tor.

    2. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Politics has been a spectator sport ever since voting was instituted.

      "The Masses" are idiots, incapable of governing themselves, and equally incapable of wisely choosing their governors.

      In America, at least, voters have basically no power at the federal level. The shots are called by a cartel of rich industries, mostly Bankers; who legislate from the shadows using their money. Voting is just a big dog-and-pony show that provides the illusion of choice.

      All is not lost; Americans who are truly devoted to a cause can also vote with their money, by supporting a lobby. Most hate this; they are only politically interested when their participation is free.

      Lastly, Americans can commonly vote for or against proposed bills directly, at the local level, which is probably the most political power they will ever have.

    3. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flaw in this tactic is that it requires the person discussed on the billboard to be able to feel shame at the things they do in their official capacity.

      Not true. Fear of not being re-elected is just as good.

    4. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how many awful things were done by ClintonDubyaObamaTrump, and none of them feel a damn bit of shame.

      Those who voted for them should, but they make all kinds of excuses to justify their support.

      This billboard idea is lame though - nobody cares and everyone will forget about it soon enough.

    5. Re:Flaw in this tactic by mrclevesque · · Score: 0

      But the tactic is also showing in simple terms the extent of the republican shill mindset and the depth of the republican swamp.

    6. Re:Flaw in this tactic by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The flaw in this tactic is that it requires the person discussed on the billboard to be able to feel shame at the things they do in their official capacity.

      "None of your business" Darrell Issa when asked how he was going to vote on the healthcare bill. These people are tone deaf and have absolutely no self awareness.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Flaw in this tactic by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The flaw in this tactic is that it requires the person discussed on the billboard to be able to feel shame at the things they do in their official capacity.

      I don't think that was the goal.

      I think the goal is to sway the mind of voters. That doesn't necessarily mean changing a die hard republican into a die hard democrat, but it can be as simple as convincing a tepid republican voter to become more apathetic and just staying home, or convincing a tepid democrat voter to actually go and vote for something they already believe in rather than being lazy.

    8. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For one, it relies on the general public valuing their online privacy in the first place, which so-called 'social media' has been indoctrinating them against for a long time now, especially Milennials.

      It isn't so much being indoctrinated against as it is getting brushed under the rug so nonchalantly that only the turbonerds complain about it. Make it personal, and make it real-world. Take out a TV ad with some creepy looking guy in a hoodie skulking around an open window with a kid on a PC and a tense voice over about how your cable company wants to sell your children's internet history. Every video they watch, every website they read, every group they are a part of is all for sale. Maybe do another one that has people in suits with clipboards following a family through the grocery store, the mall, on vacation, at the movies, and sitting in the corner with a flashlight when the parents get some private time. Sensationalize it and maybe some of it will stick.

      I have a set of friends who are deeply in the "who cares" mindset. I'm not sure if I want to bring it up, but they had the same mentality about the Hillary email thing too (and no I'm not in the "lock her up" crowd, but you couldn't even discuss with these folks why it might have raised concerns about more than just the text contents of an email). I don't think there's some sinister conspiracy to keep the public in the dark about things, but I do think a lot of these issues are the kind of things that will take generations to settle into the social mind and I'm not sure we'll get the influential muscle we need to keep money from winning before that happens.

    9. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Well that's why they specifically use the term "your browsing history" rather than something more vague like "your data." People care if their porn habits are being spied on in a way that they don't care about any other information that may be shared against their will.

      Though as you noted, a lot of people will probably think they're safe if they just clear their browsing history. Not sure that there's anything can be done about that. You can't force people to stop being ignorant.

      That said, saying things like "the internet is going to become unusable" is a bit fatalistic. For 99.9% of people, having their information gobbled up and shoved into a database somewhere will result in approximately zero noticeable effect. Sure the ads they see might be a bit better targeted but that's not something you'd really notice unless you did a whole lot of comparison testing and put together some sort of statistics about the type of ads you see vs what other people see. In terms of strict usability, things like net neutrality are far more critical than yet-another-privacy-invasion-database.

    10. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and with the way districts are drawn, that is improbable.

    11. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They don't need to feel shame, since, unlike with corporate management, we technically have the ability to replace them if they perform poorly.

      Sadly, what you could replace them with isn't any better. It's not like you really have a choice. Democracy turned into having a box of vases, all of them broken beyond repair, but you can freely choose the one you like best.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, we'll vote the other guy in, that's gonna teach them!"

      The mantra we keep repeating at a frequency of 4 years.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you stop voting, then the wrong lizard might get in!

    14. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter to the mouse which cat eats him. Why would it matter to you which politician gets to decide whose cronies get to fleece you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Internet is going to become unusable

      It's already well down that path. Most online discussions are hate filled or pc wastelands, at least when compared to what it was ten or twenty years ago. Most of the traffic volume is streaming video. The internet is the successor to cable tv.

    16. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darrell Issa is aware, very aware he might lose is seat, so he wanted to vote against this bill. So, they counted up all the votes and realized they needed his vote to get it to pass, so he voted for it. This is a game they regularly play and it is right to be cynical about it, but to say he is unaware is not true. He's hyper aware.

    17. Re:Flaw in this tactic by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      The internet is the successor to cable tv.

      Of course even so-called 'cable TV' is just streaming data, not pure RF signals in the sense that OTA broadcasts are. It's the only way they can jam so many hundreds of shitty channels nobody watches onto the same coax.

      Falling for the 'Internet streaming video' meme

      That's pretty much what it is; I agree with you. Just shifting the fees from one thing to another. I'll stick with my antenna, CableCos, kthxbye.

    18. Re:Flaw in this tactic by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Of course this isn't only a republican issue, it's also a problem with democrats. And anyone can see the allegiance of politicians who tend to vote for corporate interests over public interest (but finding out which measures are best adapted to gauge the swamp's depth might be a bit more complex).

  3. Marsha Blackburn is in a safe district by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    so safe she was mentioned as a VP possibility for Trump. maybe all four have little reason to worry about reelection.

    1. Re:Marsha Blackburn is in a safe district by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      It's a sad state of affairs. In certain districts, with the right letter after your name on the ballot, you could be Satan himself and be elected by a landslide.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:Marsha Blackburn is in a safe district by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Satan typically couldn't make it through the primary. There's always a filter somewhere. In my Congressional district, the last time an incumbent retired his successor was picked in the Democratic primary.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Electronic adverts listing consumers purchases by mikael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I read the title, I thought these billboards would be electronic adverts listing the persons most recent purchases or targeted ads for health problems. I bet if that happened, they would soon push for legislation.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    1. Re:Electronic adverts listing consumers purchases by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      Probably, but it'd look similar to their attempt to scrap preexisting condition protections for everyone but includes an exception that protects the congress critters forced by law to also buy insurance from the marketplace.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:Electronic adverts listing consumers purchases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, that shit passed this time around. Oh well, until people show some resistance, don't expect much...

    3. Re:Electronic adverts listing consumers purchases by Boronx · · Score: 2

      ISPs will never sell you that info, because it would threaten their ability to sell your info.

      --
      Play Command HQ online
    4. Re:Electronic adverts listing consumers purchases by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh please, considering how secure the average ISP is, do you really think I'd spend money just to get that information?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Electronic adverts listing consumers purchases by houghi · · Score: 1

      The legislation would not be what you want it to be. It will be some or all of the following:
      1) No purchasing of data of politicians
      2) No publishing of bought data to the public
      3) A black-list or white-list of companies
      4) An NDA ...

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  5. Perhaps they should've included more info by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like, perchance, these congressperson's home addresses and phone numbers. Maybe their kids' names and birthdates.

    After all, what's sauce for the goose...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Perhaps they should've included more info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Once available, including a few of the websites these people are known to visit on the billboard should do the trick.

  6. The full picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do the billboards also mention that the rules had not been in effect yet, so the vote removed future restrictions and actually changed nothing for how things currently are? I'm all for privacy, but let's stop inflating what this vote actually did. It did not open the spigots for something that had not already been possible/happening.

    1. Re:The full picture by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a bit pedantic. The rule may not have been in play yet, but now it won't be. To use your spigot analogy, the spigot is open, was scheduled to be shut off, and now it won't be.

      The end effect is the same -- lawmakers sold us all out to the telecoms.

    2. Re:The full picture by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      Even then your under selling it. The rule was put in place because of a concerning new practice by a few in the industry. It wasn't just a theoretical problem, it was a real problem that needed stopped before a dangerous practice took foothold. Now the green light is on, it will now take legislative action to stop, as they are now forbidden from enforcing any similar rules.

  7. Heller can go to hell....... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dean Heller is one of my Senators and until this, I naively thought he was one of the "good_guys"... Looks like I was wrong... Wonder how much he got for his vote for selling us out? hehe maybe I'll call his office and ask that VERY question... Of course, his staff won't have the answer (or at least won't give it to a *mere* pleeb such as I)...

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    1. Re:Heller can go to hell....... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Dean Heller is one of my Senators and until this

      He'll be a private citizen before you know it. Heller is one of the GOP congressmen least likely to survive the 2018 election.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Heller can go to hell....... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Want to bet that he'll be a corporate-employed citizen after 2018?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Heller can go to hell....... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      He's a senator, not a congressman.

    4. Re:Heller can go to hell....... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're correct. I misspoke. But I stand by the fact that Heller is almost certainly going to lose his reelection bid.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Heller can go to hell....... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      New boss, same old boss.

  8. What a load of garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean, stop implementing rules that haven't taken effect so only Google, Facebook, etc. are allowed to sell your data? Stop those meanie ISP's, we only like our evil corporations!

    What a bunch of whiners. These "rules" didn't protect anyone, just favored one set of corporations over another.

    Half baked policies and laws that have no real end effect for the user shouldn't be allowed. We already have enough rules without more ineffective ones.

    1. Re:What a load of garbage. by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "Half baked policies and laws that have no real end effect for the user shouldn't be allowed. We already have enough rules without more ineffective ones."

      Yup, we need less bad rules and more good ones.

    2. Re:What a load of garbage. by darthsilun · · Score: 2

      Well, AC, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

      When someone points their browser at the Mayo Clinic's web site and searches for early signs of breast cancer, their ISP can make inferences about them that Google and Facebook can't.

      They don't have to use Facebook. Lots of people don't. They don't have to use google either. They may have a priori knowledge about web sites like WebMD, their local Ford dealer, or their favorite porn site.

      "Protection" from Google and Facebook are also important, but not nearly as important as being sure their ISP can't give or sell information about their browsing history or to whom they sent email.

      Because it's nobody's fucking business except their own. The fact that the new rules hadn't taken affect yet is neither here nor there. The rules have to start sometime though, and the sooner the better.

    3. Re:What a load of garbage. by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can opt into Google if I consider them trustworthy. If where I live there's only evil choice A for ISP in my area (very common), or even if there's also an evil choice B, I still have no choice. You also ignore the confidence/protection codified law brings. While before the rule there was nothing prohibiting selling user data, there was also nothing giving permission to do so either. Lawyers make much of their money off such ambiguity.

      Internet connectivity is no more optional than phone service is optional. This was one of the drivers behind common-carrier status for ISPs. It's illegal to buy/sell phone records without the record holder's permission or a writ from a court. The privacy law was meant to bring ISPs into parity with telcos. Given that Internet communications often include substantially more sensitive data than phone records, that protection was crucial.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    4. Re:What a load of garbage. by JohnFen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      just favored one set of corporations over another.

      In a sense, but there's a very huge difference between Google, etc., and ISPs. While I agree that the all behave terribly, Google, Facebook, etc., are different animals than ISPs are and it's not so crazy that regulations between the two groups should not be identical.

      ISPs are like the phone company -- they supply the pipe. Google, Facebook, etc., supply stuff that flows through the pipe, like services that you would call through your telephone.

      Pipes should be hands-off and not look at anything you do that isn't required to keep the pipes working well, just like the telephone.

      One of the evil things the telecoms keep doing is conflating these two things, as if Facebook and ISPs somehow are engaging in the same sort of business. They're not. Not even close.

    5. Re:What a load of garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can opt out of Google and Facebook. You have choices to choose alternate sources. You can choose not to go to their sites and accept their services. You can block their cookies and scripts. Their services are optional, and if you choose to use them you pay by being the product.

      You can't opt out of your ISP though, and most people in the land simply can't switch. There's no alternative whatsoever. You pay them cold hard cash to get online, and then they mine your connection for saleable resources so they can make even more profits. Besides, the saying goes "If you're not paying for the service you're the product." With an ISP, you're paying for the service. You shouldn't be the product too.

      There's no comparison between ISPs mining your information and online services doing so. Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant or a shill.

    6. Re: What a load of garbage. by oobayly · · Score: 2

      My first thought was "at least more websites are serving content over HTTPS so all the ISP will get is the domain, not the content", and then I decided to check. It turns out xhamster values your privacy more than both WebMD and Mayo Clinic.

    7. Re:What a load of garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both those companies already have means to track what you're doing when not on their web site. The argument for killing the yet to be enforced regulation was that it unfairly targeted one set of players over others. The right thing would have been to replace it with a more complete regulation. Killing it really didn't do anything to take away privacy from people. They didn't have it, and plenty were exempted to keep selling your habits anyhow.

    8. Re:What a load of garbage. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Google, Facebook, etc. are allowed to sell your data?

      Google, Facebbook, etc Don't sell your data. They make money off your data. They collate it, package it in an API, then provide 3rd parties the ability to get in the faces of people who match the their requirements. Google and Facebook are valued based on the data they have that no one else does. Their core business is about extracting value out of this data without giving it away.

      ISP's core business is selling subscription services to the end user. The ability to sell your data to whoever will pay is just a sweetener and they have no incentive to keep your data "semi-private".

    9. Re:What a load of garbage. by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      ISPs are like the phone company -- they supply the pipe. Google, Facebook, etc., supply stuff that flows through the pipe, like services that you would call through your telephone.

      Unless you count Google Fiber or Free Basics.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    10. Re:What a load of garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As unrealistic as it might seem I can blacklist Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Foursquare, Microsoft, ..... My ISP on the other hand can passively collect my traffic, and that is the difference.

  9. Why JUST Isps???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why block just the isps and not all the companies running ad farms and such? Google amazon me Apple and a thousand companies you never heard of are tracking everything you do and that's just peachy so long as Comcast and Verizon don't??

    1. Re: Why JUST Isps???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a stupid AC and a retarded set of posts through the comments.

      Because we can't stop one asshat we should not stop the other asshat. Do you feel that since a foreign company doesn't care about their local ecosystem, we shouldn't have such restrictions on ours? It's only fair!

      The governing body that could govern the ISPs decided on a rule before the ISPs could abuse us. Setting a precedent and warning to many others. Unfortunately they don't have authority over Google and the like. Congress can do it but they are clearly bought and paid for.

      If you can't tell the difference between a tax payer subsidized ISP with monopolistic rights of way and a regular tech corporation then this conversation shouldn't have even started.

    2. Re:Why JUST Isps???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please prove you're not a troll? I'd be willing to argue if you're being sincere and are actually interested in hearing arguments, but the obvious problems with your comparison makes it incredibly difficult to believe that's the case.

    3. Re: Why JUST Isps???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're only as protected as the weakest link. If you have 100 holes in your house and plug 1, you'll still have just as many mice and bugs entering. Plugging that one hole does nothing of value.

    4. Re: Why JUST Isps???? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's a start. You have to start at one hole. Else you just lament that there's hundreds of holes without improving the situation in any way.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: Why JUST Isps???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a troll. I'm saying that Facebook Microsoft or google could track me anywhere I am and any device I use to log into their service or in the case of Facebook 3rd party buttons, no login needed.

      Comcast can only track devices I use on that modem or with that hotspot login. Verizon can only track my phone, it's still somewhat segmented.

      I don't like any of it. My point is that they are, as the Bible put it, complaining about a splinter while ignoring a plank.

  10. QED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6 Full, 2 Abbreviated, 9 Hidden.

    Seems like americans have given up on Privacy.

  11. Congress: The Problem by meadow · · Score: 2

    The Congress of the United States is the greatest threat to the United States.

    1. Re:Congress: The Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need to finish your sentence. ..."other than the President"

    2. Re:Congress: The Problem by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Oh dear! What does that say about the people who (re)elect them?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Congress: The Problem by meadow · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't really consider the process "election", more like electoral farce. Elections are bought. This is not democracy, but oligarchy.

  12. Better than nothing. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2

    At least we are not just taking it. This gets people talking, and that's a start. Better late than never. Maybe this will open the floodgates. Fingers crossed.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  13. Bugs me when they go after Jeff Flake by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    10-15 years ago our sales rep for our JTAG debugger was Jeff Flake (not the congressclown). This guy was great. He knew his stuff, and if I asked him a question he didn't know he'd find out and let me know (we were trying to automate test scripts via Perl with a COM library developed in house. Basically guessing how the JTAG debugger internals works and asking Jeff when we guessed wrong).

    It pisses me off to see congressclown Jeff bring down the awesome Jeff Flake the sales represenative.

  14. wont do a thing by Osgeld · · Score: 2

    the problem is, the people that voted these asswipes in, are the majority. the majority is stupid and apathetic, need proof? see point #1

    1. Re:wont do a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >...the people that voted these asswipes in ... were tricked. Poeople can be tricked, OK?

      Look, no candidate runs on the platform that they are going to abuse you. And no one votes wanting to be abused. So when a politician does something harmful while in office, the voting populous cannot stop them at that very moment. It comes after the fact, and is exactly what these billboards are doing..

      You're scolding people for being duped, you should scold the politicians for accepting corporate bribes at the expense of their constituents. Which is exactly what these billboards do.

  15. I've been seening these a lot by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    This one comes to mind. It's a good way to protest. Gets a lot of attention for relatively little cash.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  16. I should add by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Makes me tempted to do a few "Go fund mes" for some things. I got buddies with illnesses that are gonna be high and dry (read:dead) if the ACA gets repealed. And no, it's not "Bad Livin'" it's genetic. But yeah, there's a Republican Congressman who blamed it on that while pinky swearing he'd give guys like my friend a pass. Only thing is that's not what happened pre-ACA. Wish more people would just say "You Lie!" to these guys.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  17. the real flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real flaw is that the Democrat PACs funding this are hurting themselves by continuing to be a bunch of crybabies months after the election was decided. You thought those "donations" came from grassroot support? Lol.

  18. Users need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Users need the power to generate their own encryption keys, install them in their email clients, plus publish their public key in a repository that email clients can access. Ideally, the model will be extended to browser clients and servers.

  19. Put their web history on a billboard by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 2

    That will have an effect

    1. Re:Put their web history on a billboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, these politicians are not fulfilling their obligation to serve the voters first.
      Their actions can only be described as treason. It appears that there is an overall trend in people getting fucked by the Lords of society. Taking back power will not be easy.

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Re:Notice they're all from one party. by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doxxing people? Telling someone who their elected representative is is doxxing now? I thought that was public election results.

  22. Dumb Internet Users Abound by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Rescinding rules that were never put into effect shouldn't cause internet butthurt, but it does.

    It's because all those AOL users were let on. Now they've bred.

  23. Re:Notice they're all from one party. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Are you high on something? These people allegedly represent me, they are allegedly my employee. How stupid does one has to be to consider it a good thing that some employee essentially gets paid by a competing organization to work against the interests of his employer?

    Such an employee should be fired.

    Out of a cannon.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Re:Notice they're all from one party. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Into a brick wall. Head first. On national television.

  25. Re: Notice they're all from one party. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But not the one with Mexico. A real one.