Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Someone Built a Tool To Get Congress' Browser History (vice.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the retaliatory-actions dept.

A software engineer in North Carolina has created a new plugin that lets website administrators monitor when someone accesses their site from an IP address associated with the federal government. It was created in part to protest a measure signed by President Trump in April that allows internet service providers to sell sensitive information about your online habits without needing your consent. Motherboard reports: A new tool created by Matt Feld, the founder of several nonprofits including Speak Together, could help the public get a sense of what elected officials are up to online. Feld, a software engineer working in North Carolina, created Speak Together to share "technical projects that could be used to reduce the opaqueness between government and people," he told Motherboard over the phone. "It was born out of just me trying to get involved and finding the process to be confusing." The tool lets website administrators track whether members of Congress, the Senate, White House staff, or Federal Communications Commission (FCC) staff are looking at their site. If you use Feld's plug-in, you'll be able to see whether someone inside government is reading your blog. You won't be able to tell if President Trump viewed a web page, but you will be able to see that it was someone using an IP address associated with the White House. The tool works similarly to existing projects like CongressEdits, an automated Twitter account that tweets whenever a Wikipedia page is edited from IP addresses associated with Congress.

68 comments

  1. Nice by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just hope he will donate that tool free of charge to pornhub if they give him the data they collect.

    1. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      porn hub is a business, they aren't in the habit of burning their best customers.

    2. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "porn hub is a business, they aren't in the habit of burning their best customers."

      If that were true there'd be a lot less malware on their page.

    3. Re:Nice by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Since when is a product a customer?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Nice by Higaran · · Score: 2

      Forever, just ask facebook, and google.

    5. Re:Nice by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you get stuff for free, you ARE the product. The stuff you get for free is the bait.

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

      Pornhub still isn't SSL; they don't need to hand over any data since it's not encrypted.

  2. Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by TimothyHollins · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm taking bets on how long until this guy gets v& on Trumped-up (harhar) national security charges.

    I bet a lot of conservatives don't want their history on hotmale.com exposed.

    1. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 0

      You do realize that Trump is not a SoCon right?

      And there is no reason any free market leaning, not to mention Libertarian leaning, Republican who would have the slightest problem with this. As a matter of fact they would argue that this is the free market in action (note to socialist Free Market means not government directed).

      So, your snarky message completely misses the point. Not to mention that SoCons are (at most 25% of Republicans) and there influence is waning in key areas such as gay marriage (That fight has been won) and in abortion they are (even in their most restrictive moments) less restrictive than Roe v Wade. (Roe v Wade, in case you didn't know, restricted abortion to the first trimester)

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by AC-x · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do realize that Trump is not a SoCon right?

      He is very big on "security" though -

      "We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.” - Trump, Nov 2015

      "We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people." - Trump, Dec 2015

    3. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by AC-x · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NeoCons (ex Socialists who became Conservative in the 1970s - and their intellectual descendants) who, as we all know, are big interventionists.

      George W Bush and Dick Chaney are ex-Socialists? Never heard that one before!

      Trump is for security against Islamofascism.

      Lets not forget as well as hating privacy he also hates freedom of speech -

      "I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

      I hope he's not into nation building and other such things (so far no indication of that).

      Indeed, in fact he's very into nation destroying right now.

      Trump is for the US following existing law regarding immigration.

      What I'm talking about affects American Citizens, not immigrants.

      He's not an ideologue for either free trade

      He refused to label China a currency manipulator, refused to withdraw from NAFTA, hasn't reviewed "foreign trade practices that hurt American workers", so his anti-globalization stance has been luke-warm at best.

      or interventionism

      Stepping up bombing campaigns counts as intervention.

      You mock him with the Bill Gates quote. I hope you, like me, equally mock AntiFa and SJW

      They're not the president, they don't control the house, they don't control the senate. Trump and the Republicans do, so when they say they want to do something that attacks freedom of speech, privacy or liberty, you should actually take notice because they have the actual political power to enact it.

    4. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2
      The original NeoCons were ex-Socialists from the 1960s who became conservative in the 1970s. They formed the intellectual framework of what we call Neo-Cons. They convinced others of their interventionist viewpoint and became an important force in the Republican Party during the 1990s. Patrick Buchanan and other (those we now call PaleoCons) railed against the NeoCon viewpoint.

      This quote from Wikipedia is pretty good:

      The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism.[2] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[3][4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.[5][6] They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.[7][8] C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973),[9] though in doing so they may draw upon meaning that Strauss himself did not endorse.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    5. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by AC-x · · Score: 2

      Trump is for security against Islamofascism.

      Oh, and don't forget he did a multi-billion dollar arms deal with the one of the world's biggest exporters of Islamofascism extremism, Saudi Arabia...

    6. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Certainly it seems some of the original figures of neoconservatism came from right-leaning socialism, but it was the conservative Republican party that brought their ideas to the forefront of government, along with neoliberalism.

    7. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      That's very true. I would prefer that we denounced Saudi Arabia and brought out the relationship between the Wahabbi's and the Saudi leadership. As important as that is it is more imperative that both left and right denounce Sharia Law and ask supporters of Sharia Law which tenets of the faith that they denounce?

      Instead we have progressives defending Sharia law. WTF?

      I guess what counts about the arms sale is - how much of this can be used against the US and its allies (precious little). Will the arm sales help ISIS? No. Will the arm sales help "lone wolf" actors? No.

      So. US Companies made billions. US workers have jobs. Local, State and the Federal Government collect taxes.

      I'm less exercised about the arms sale than people not standing up and saying that if you want blasphemy laws don't come to this country. If you want Sharia law - fine. But not here.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    8. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      What makes neo Conservatism separate from Paleo Conservatism is

      1. foreign interventionism.
      2. the rejection of social issues.
      3. the general thought that the success of international trade (multi-national companies) is good for world peace and the world economy.

      Paleo Conservatives were

      1. isolationists
      2. thought social issues were of primary importance
      3. were more for main street economy and jobs in the US (as opposed to multi-national companies) and were for tariffs.

      The quintessential PaleoConservative was Patrick Buchanan -

      1. opposed to the Gulf War
      2. big on social issues
      3. against NAFTA, etc...

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    9. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Instead we have progressives defending Sharia law. WTF?

      Do you not consider the government banning individuals from entering into lawful (as in it breaks no existing law) private contracts between themselves to be a massive overreach of government? Don't conservatives support small government with minimal intrusion into the private lives of citizens?

      Many rules in Sharia are already illegal, and no progressives are asking for them to be made legal. However many things in Sharia are mundane things that, if not labeled as "Sharia", you would never know even came from a religious source.

      To ban otherwise legal activity purely because of its name is utterly unconservative.

    10. Re: Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      In one area, he's absolutely not wrong. We do have a lot of foolish people.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 0

      We have numerous videos, from Linda Sasour to numerous debates and interviews of people wanting Sharia Law.

      Nobody gives a damn about Muslims not eating pork, or fasting during Ramadan. What people care about is the Koran deals with how others ought to behave. The fact that you can find things in the old testament is less important than how people behave. Ask how your atheist friends would be treated under Sharia, your gay friends. Look at the polling among Muslims regarding blasphemy laws, It's frightening.

      And what's sad is when progressives equate Islamofascists with Baptists and Mormons. Imagine if the Greenborough Church (I think that's the one) became one of the dominant Christian denomination and were actively killing people then there would be a point of comparison.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    12. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by AC-x · · Score: 1

      The Bible says how others ought to behave. The Torah says how others ought to behave. Many of the things they say are illegal. Many of the things Sharia says are illegal. Many are not.

      The point, which you've avoided answering, is to put a blanket ban on how individuals enter into contracts with one-another is completely unconservative.

      The fact that you can find things in the old testament is less important than how people behave. Ask how your atheist friends would be treated under Sharia, your gay friends. Look at the polling among Muslims regarding blasphemy laws, It's frightening.

      And you're falsely equating banning Sharia with enacting every Sharia as law. Many Sharia laws are already illegal, can you find any progressives that want to make those laws legal?

      I'll ask again, do you believe the government should have the power to arbitrarily ban individuals from entering into private contracts with each other?

    13. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 0

      Except how many Jews and Christians in 2017 are actively promoting blasphemy laws. The majority of Christians under 30 are libertarian enough not to oppose gay marriage.

      Jews and Christians aren't promoting stoning of adulterers.

      There is plenty of evidence (see the debates on youtube between atheists and Muslims, between Christian apologists and Muslim apologists and hear the questions. Watch the videos muslim speakers (with 1000s in attendance) saying that every iota, every jot must be followed and see the crowd applaud (and these are in the West - not Pakistan).

      I understand that not every aspect of sharia is hateful. Who the eff cares if someone eats pork or not. Don't want to eat pork? Fine.

      It's horrifying that so many people want this ideology - and I don't care if they do. But not here. We have enough problem with Christian fundamentalists that the last thing I want to do is to import more.

      One concept of Islamic Jurisprudence deals with contradiction in the Koran by arguing that those which came later supersede those that came before it. Next time you hear "there is no compulsion in Islam" remember that it is superseded by that which came after. Muslim liars will say to the uninformed - "and remember this is one of the first verses in the Koran." For the uninformed that implies it's one of the more important verses. For the muslim - it's been superseded. I'll let you figure out what verse triumphed.

      As an atheist I do not want more Islamic immigration and I want Muslims here to clearly understand that charges of blasphemy will fall upon deaf ears; and that both left and right are united against this sh!t.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    14. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by AC-x · · Score: 1

      You're still avoiding the question, which is should the government prevent individuals from entering into legal contracts between each other just because they came from Sharia. It's a very simple yes or no question.

    15. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      No. I didn't even realize that was the question you were asking. No. Of course not.

      That being said I think we - as citizens - need to actively convince show proponents of Sharia Law that blasphemy laws have no place here. The prayer in public squares have no place here. That no prayer rooms are required from employers; that the full face must be shown when walking down the street; that sharia courts cannot be used in place of civil courts (and yes they exist ).

      And much, much more.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    16. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by AC-x · · Score: 1

      No. I didn't even realize that was the question you were asking. No. Of course not.

      Ok then, so you stand shoulder to shoulder with progressives "defending Sharia law".

      That being said I think we - as citizens - need to actively convince show proponents of Sharia Law that blasphemy laws have no place here

      But again, that's just equating "defending Sharia law" with "wanting to implement all Sharia law", which isn't the same. It's a strawman. How many instances can you find of progressives specifically asking for blasphemy laws? Probably not many..?

      The prayer in public squares have no place here.

      How would that work? You gonna start arresting people for saying "please god" in public now?

      that the full face must be shown when walking down the street

      Again this one is hard to actually implement. Should this guy be arrested? Is this now illegal?

      that sharia courts cannot be used in place of civil courts

      But you just said the government shouldn't prevent private individuals from entering in to otherwise legal contracts. Why shouldn't private individuals have the option of using whatever arbitration service they choose as long as it also adheres to secular laws? Can you devise a law that would ban "sharia courts" without using the word "sharia" and without banning all other arbitration services?

    17. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      that's just equating "defending Sharia law" with "wanting to implement all Sharia law", which isn't the same

      And where do you draw the line? I have heard progressives outraged at Christians and Conservatives but, for far worse statements said by imams and Muslim speakers I've heard ....... from progressives.

      Saying "Please God" is one thing. Taking over a public square or street is another.

      It's one thing to wear a balaclava to keep yourself warm or to protect yourself from wind. It's another to keep yourself covered for political reasons (the KKK, AntiFa); and custom has not been accepted as an end-all-be-all reason to do what you want (even if it has religious rational):

      - polygamy
      - clitoridectomy (we're now seeing a pushback against circumcision )
      - prayer is not considered to be a substitute for surgery

      We have gone too far in cases such as preventing the use of firecrackers in Chinese celebrations. And we've been hypocritical (such as allowing one group of people to use mushrooms but not all). Here's an interesting factoid - it's custom NOT religion that requires the full-body covering.

      Re arbitration. Of course. Anyone can use arbitration but:
      1. arbitration agreements cannot under any stretch of the imagination contravene US law.
      2. arbitration agreements cannot be so worded as to circumvent US law. (Send a girl child back to Pakistan to be punished by the family there.)
      3.If one party breaks the agreement the US government doesn't enforce the original agreement. It now (as it does for other arbitration agreements) enters the purview of US courts.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    18. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by AC-x · · Score: 1

      And where do you draw the line?

      It's very simple really, let Muslims do among themselves whatever legal activity they like. For all this talk of progressives defending Sharia and how bad Sharia is, what's actually bad is allowing the government the massive overreach of arbitrarily banning otherwise lawful activity.

      I have heard progressives outraged at Christians and Conservatives but, for far worse statements said by imams and Muslim speakers I've heard ....... from progressives.

      Right now Christians Conservatives control the house, the senate, the presidency, and any number of states. Muslims have almost no political power. These Christians Conservatives are perceived to be having a negative effect on people's everyday lives, and they're the ones in charge, so is it really surprising they get the most push-back from their actions?

      Plus because of the right's obsession with banning otherwise lawful activity as above it's going to create more push-back still. If the right concentrated on cutting back government overreach (including existing laws like drug laws) and only concentrated on behavior that actually warranted laws, then I'm pretty sure the left wouldn't be pushing back.

      Saying "Please God" is one thing. Taking over a public square or street is another.

      So now protests, vigils and flash-mobs are illegal? Why would any conservative support such an anti-freedom law?

      It's one thing to wear a balaclava to keep yourself warm or to protect yourself from wind. It's another to keep yourself covered for political reasons (the KKK, AntiFa);

      And how do you codify that into a law without, again, creating an anti-freedom monstrosity?

      and custom has not been accepted as an end-all-be-all reason to do what you want (even if it has religious rational)

      Yes, that's been well established (see polygamy in the Mormon Church), any progressives argued against that? No?

      Here's an interesting factoid - it's custom NOT religion that requires the full-body covering.

      Yes, and? The point is how do you construct a law against it that isn't an anti-freedom nightmare? How would you even fully define the legal distinction between custom and religion anyway?

      Re arbitration. Of course. Anyone can use arbitration but: etc. etc. etc.

      Yes, all of those apply to any Sharia court ruling without banning Sharia courts, what's your point?

    19. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      OK. I agree delineating the law in the edge cases is near impossible.

      Why no outrage about FGM? We have new cases coming out. Not a peep;
      Why no outrage at "kill gays". We have tons of video.
      Why no outrage at the misogyny? Look at all the outrage of Trump BSing in a lockerroom (pu$$ygrabbing) and yet .... nothing.
      Why no outrage at Muslims saying we want the caliphate here (US and England). We have tons of video.

      Show some motherf**king outrage at this sh!t. The fact that progressives say sh!t makes them look if they don't believe what they're saying.

      If Christian Republicans said those things you would be going apoplectic. (And, as an atheist, I would be on your side 100%). But the same sh!t is said by a muslim and ....

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    20. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by AC-x · · Score: 1

      OK. I agree delineating the law in the edge cases is near impossible.

      Well exactly, you're defending Sharia in so much as it's full of perfectly legal rules that cannot be made illegal in a fair way.

      Why no outrage about FGM? We have new cases coming out. Not a peep;
      Why no outrage at "kill gays". We have tons of video.
      Why no outrage at the misogyny? Look at all the outrage of Trump BSing in a lockerroom (pu$$ygrabbing) and yet .... nothing.
      Why no outrage at Muslims saying we want the caliphate here (US and England). We have tons of video.

      There's already a lot of outrage about all of those things, have you ever heard progressives *supporting* one of those things? Just because right now most progressives are directing outrage at different things doesn't mean anything. Why be outraged at things there is already mainstream outrage about? Especially if Conservatives are trying to use that outrage as an excuse to take away freedoms. Why not be outraged at things you see as wrong but that there isn't yet wide outrage about?

      When was the last time you showed public outrage about drink driving? How about vehicular homicide? Ever shown outrage at fatalities caused by fire safety violations? Medical malpractice? Corporate corruption?

      Why does everyone have to show public outrage at everything bad brown people do if you don't show outrage at everything everyone does?

      Oh and that reminds me, where is the conservative outrage about male genital mutilation? Why are conservatives only outraged at the mutilation of children's genitals when it's brown people doing it?

    21. Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      First. Muslims are not necessarily brown. Arabs are not brown. So that argument is moot.

      The second thing is that nobody is for medical malpractice. There may be differences in opinion in how to deal with it. I would reduce the use of financial reward and increase the use of remove licenses and (in extreme cases) jail. - Let's leave that point aside. The key point is that we all agree medical malpractice is a bad thing.

      However proponents of Sharia Law promote (in my opinion) many bad things

      Kill atheists (Hey that's me!!!)
      Kill my gay friends.
      Practice FGM.
      Want to institute blasphemy laws
      Use violence to intimidate. (Let's do a Piss Mohammad and see what the f**k happens.)

      There are no promoters of medical malpractice. There are promoters of Sharia Law.

      And I say f**k that. You want sharia law? Fine. Then why the f**k are you coming here. I want progressive social values; I want a limited government. I don't want religion in the public arena.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  3. Head of the house rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Applying the methodology of the *AA organizations w.r.t. sharing of movies, the head of the house is responsible for everything that happens in the house.

  4. One step by toutankh · · Score: 1

    Now all we need is a tool to signal every time somebody from the Congress uses TOR.

  5. Trump viewing a web page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that man cannot read anything longer than a tweet anyway. Perhaps even that is too long.

    1. Re:Trump viewing a web page? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Trump's national security briefings include little text, many pictures and a box of crayons.

    2. Re:Trump viewing a web page? by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      That joke feels like it's recycled from a decade ago. Are we going to get refurbished Bush-jokes now?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Trump viewing a web page? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Funny

      That joke feels like it's recycled from a decade ago.

      Trump is getting the same national security briefings that Ronald Reagan got in the final years of his administration.

      Are we going to get refurbished Bush-jokes now?

      Who knew that George W. was an intellectual?

    4. Re:Trump viewing a web page? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Trump's national security briefings include little text, many pictures and a box of crayons.

      Still sounds more useful than Trump's circle jerk Cabinet meetings where all the Cabinet members prostrate themselves and praise him like they are a bunch of North Koreans seeing Kim Jong Un

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Trump viewing a web page? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Still sounds more useful than Trump's circle jerk Cabinet meetings where all the Cabinet members prostrate themselves and praise him like they are a bunch of North Koreans seeing Kim Jong Un

      The same group of people who wanted a tank-and-missile display at the inauguration like they do in Russia and North Korea.

  6. So is slashdot officially an anti-trump site now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I mean, I didn't vote for the guy, but that's all the news there is here now

  7. Misleading headline by the_saint1138 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This does not have anything to do with Congress' browser histories.

    This tool makes it easier to determine if Congress visits YOUR WEBSITE ONLY.

    This info is in the summary, but come on SlashDot, there is no need for the clickbait headlines.

  8. Better late than never. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A Swedish version of this called Creeper has existed since 2007.

  9. I don't need his plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I IP filter my website ALREADY. Just coz some script kiddie wrote a shell script doesn't make him a social hero. It's great click-bait and browser hits for slashdot... a dying website though.

  10. Hilarious by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is good. The website end has always been able to store visitor information and do whatever the hell it wants with it. So, this guy writes a tool that uses the #1 privacy invasion in the world today to protest letting ISPs store which IP addresses clients on your home network connect to, which doesn't even crack the top 100, thanks to SSL and browsers pushing auto-SSL.

    Just for comparison, Facebook knows who you are, where you live, what and where you like to eat, who your friends are, what your politics are, what websites you visit, what products you purchase, and everything else about you. What does you ISP know about you? They know that you spend a lot of time on Facebook.

    Oh, but Zuckerberg is a progressive and Trump is a Republican. Everyone get your pitchforks and torches so we can go protest the second one.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:Hilarious by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can avoid using Facebook.

      I cannot avoid using my ISP.

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

      I am no Republican, but believing Trump is a Republican is the GOP's entire disease.

      He's not a Democrat either, though. He's nowhere in particular on that scale, and right at the authoritarian end of the other axis.

      Let it go. Trump is a Trumpist. Tell your GOP representatives the same; he doesn't represent them.

      (Apparently they now think so; today's news is likely to be important)

    3. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Oh, but Zuckerberg is a progressive and Trump is a Republican [...]

      And you seem to be an idiot. You seem to imply that just because Zuckerberg is an asshole breaking the internet just to get filthy rich Trump is any better.

      In my book, they both are undesirable. The only difference is that *currently* Trump is doing far much more collateral damage (but that's not a fundamental difference: Zuck would, if he could, as long as it made him even richer). Uglúk and Grishnákh.

    4. Re:Hilarious by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trump is a Republican.

      Trump may be many things be he isn't a Republican. The Republican Party was a convenient tool for him to use for his own ends; but in the end he only cares about what is best for Trump, the Republican Party or anyone else be damned. If destroying the Republican Party enables him to get the adulation he so desperately craves he'll be the first to toss on gasoline and light a match.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:Hilarious by kainosnous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can avoid using Facebook.

      I cannot avoid using my ISP.

      You can use a VPN to hide your traffic from your ISP. They would only know when and how much your location makes connections. VPN technology is pretty easy to setup and is generally good for security.

      On the other hand, to block Facebook, you would have to null route their hostnames. That can become a chore. Even if you don't intend to visit Facebook, unless they are null routed somehow, simply surfing most popular sites will connect you to Facebook. And that's just one site. There's tons of other trackers on the web, and most people couldn't even name a few of them. Yes, there are tools to restrict these, but they aren't as effective as a simple VPN.

      --
      There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
    6. Re:Hilarious by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Just for comparison, Facebook knows who you are, where you live, what and where you like to eat, who your friends are, what your politics are, what websites you visit, what products you purchase, and everything else about you.

      I can safely say that facebook knows very little about me. Everything they know about me is either from harvested public records or something someone else has written. Being uncool has been very easy and saved me a lot of money on electronics that spy on you.

      What does you ISP know about you?

      Far more than they should.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    7. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a few web sites are broken when accessed using a VPN. Some web site owners acknowledge that they deliberately block all traffic from known VPNs.

      Now that IPv6 is a thing, note that many if not most VPNs are IPv4 only. Your IPv6 address is still sent in the clear. That leak is slowly being fixed by the better VPN providers, but is still present with many.

      Facebook in particular is a problem. Even if I have their scripts blocked (thank you NoScript) I can't be sure that I have found everything. Then there are all the "news" sites that do little more than republish Facebook and Twitter posts - if for some reason you really want to see that content (why bother, when it's paraphrased elsewhere) you have to unblock them - then be hosed.

    8. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook only knows who I am and who my friends are.
      Only retards use Facebook for anything further than that.
      Everything not Facebook CDN(s) and main site is blocked.

      I even have it actively open right now. Mainly to shitpost on the comments section of news sites and post silly messages to friends walls.
      For all Facebook knows, I could be 10 separate people.

    9. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can avoid using Facebook.

      Facebook's late to the game, sport, and you are not avoiding Google no matter how hard you try.

    10. Re:Hilarious by thomst · · Score: 1

      Orgasmatron stated:

      Just for comparison, Facebook knows who you are, where you live, what and where you like to eat, who your friends are, what your politics are, what websites you visit, what products you purchase, and everything else about you.

      Yeah, about that: if you use NoScript, you can use the following user script in its Application Boundary Enforcer (NoScript/Options/Advanced/ABE) subsection to block Facebook scripts from operating on other websites:

      Site .facebook.com .fbcdn.net
      Accept from .facebook.com .fbcdn.net
      Deny INCLUSION(SCRIPT, OBJ, SUBDOC)

      That, plus denying third-party cookies should do a reasonable job of keeping Mr. Zuckerberg's nose out of your non-Facebook browsing.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    11. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That just makes you VPN provider your ISP in the same sense.

  11. in Sweden, 'creeper' has been around for ages. by ard · · Score: 3, Informative

    So here's an existing system tracking Media and government access in Sweden:

    https://mediacreeper.com/index
    http://gnuheter.com/creeper/senaste

    Basically, you put the 'creeper' tag on your home page, and it logs accesses from netblocks known to be used by media and gov't.

    1. Re:in Sweden, 'creeper' has been around for ages. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I'll bet that works fine until the media adds "mediacreeper.com" to their ad-block blacklist, or block it on their corporate proxies.

  12. Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    An IP address "associated" with the federal government could be just about anybody. You can bet that the media will try to pin every visit to a disreputable web site on President Trump personally, though. I am not a big Trump fan, but the vitriol against him has reached epidemic proportions. Gee, I wonder if any Democrats get caught up in this "Dragnet" and that it will be reported in the media anywhere? Sounds like more fake news where the conspiracy theorists have a field day with no direct evidence whatsoever.

  13. Proving the bill changed very little by kainosnous · · Score: 1
    I think that this sort of thing is a good argument in favor of the legislation change. This collecting of information was not enabled by the change. This is something that people could have done anyway, and still can do, and even the ISPs could have used similar technology already.

    I'm not saying that it isn't bad for ISPs to sell info. I'm not in favor of the big ISPs, but I believe they are what they are because of government intervention, and not in spite of it. Also, this legislation doesn't explicitly allow them to sell information, such as what all the hype tries to indicate. It simply removes some legislation that some of the politicians believed was unfair. If they can block ISPs from selling data, why couldn't they also, by the same argument, block software like this, or sites like Facebook, which people freely give the same information to, and which openly states that they are doing so to track you and sell your habits. Furthermore, a VPN could prevent such tracking by your ISP, but not by itself from these other sites. Facebook is already much better at selling your traffic than any ISP could be anytime soon, and yet nobody is lobbying Washington to demand they add legislation to prevent that.

    I'll grant that ISPs are a bit different, but I think that overall, software like this is much more of a potential issue than the legislation it is attempting to protest. If you have a problem with the legislation, you should have a problem with this software also. Or is it only okay because they claim to only be gathering data from people you don't care about?

    --
    There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
  14. A tool? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Just a tool? Surely you meant wrote an AI?

    1. Re:A tool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      according to TFS he only wrote a tool, and don't call me Shirley.

  15. Plugin? What is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this a wordpress plugin?

    Apache module?

    Tomcat .jar file?

    Perl module?

    I RTFA, and there is still no info.

    1. Re:Plugin? What is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may not be hard to find, but everyone shouldn't have to search for it:
      https://github.com/edsu/anon
      (CoffeeScript in case someone does not want to open link)

      I didn't see this twitter in summary either:
      https://twitter.com/congressedits

  16. "Plugin" FOR WHAT ??? by SigmundFloyd · · Score: 1

    TFA doesn't say... Then again, IT reporting is difficult stuff.

    --
    Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
  17. Inject some ads in their content.. by ponraul · · Score: 1

    Ads for CP

  18. cool by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    So you can find out what elected officials get up to online... or what regular people do when they slack off at work, if their work happens to be a government agency.

  19. What about the logs??? by bib1620 · · Score: 1

    What the hell is the difference between this and the normal logs produced by the web server?

    1. Re:What about the logs??? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      They're keeping track of the blocks of IP addresses corresponding to various government entities, making it easy to spot them in the logs I guess, and eventually plan to make the data publicly available, according to what I read here:

      http://www.speaktogether.org/blog/we-built-a-tool-that-gets-congress-browser-history