Slashdot Mirror
Billboards Target Lawmakers Who Voted To Let ISPs Sell User Information (theverge.com)
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.
Good.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Doxxing people? Telling someone who their elected representative is is doxxing now? I thought that was public election results.