I have to say, I am not all surprised by this. After all these years, this is par for the course for American "laws" after all those ultra secret courts and ultra secret "National security letters". Now, they can just sell your privacy for profit.
I have to say, I am not all surprised by this. After all these years, this is par for the course for American "laws" after all those ultra secret courts and ultra secret "National security letters". Now, they can just sell your privacy for profit.
So many dirty bags of slime in the Senate. When I see nonsense like this, I start thinking that Senators should have no more than a 1-month term-limit. The less time they can get in bed with lobbyists, the better.
All REPUBLICAN Senators voted to let Internet providers share and sell your web browsing history without your permission.
Every DEMOCRAT voted against it.
Thanks.
The NSA has already slurped all the metadata anyway.
So in other words, in an exercise of democracy, the freely elected Senate over-turned a bureaucratic FCC 'rule' made by nameless appointees. And you wonder why unelected judges are the greatest fear in USA today.
Why shouldn't they be able to share and sell this? It's likely demanding a 'privacy agreement' for buying a Starbucks coffee or something. No, you can't tell my employer if I get a flat white or not... Obviously there shouldn't be a LAW against this, people can just go to a different coffee fix if they don't like how SB operates with its info gathering.
Been everywhere man wrote:
All REPUBLICAN Senators voted to let Internet providers share and sell your web browsing history without your permission.
Every DEMOCRAT voted against it.
Thanks.
Thanks for what exactly? All you did was allegedly tell us who voted which way, but you didn't tell us their reasoning. There are understandable reasons to support both sides of the argument. Were those reasons used on either side?
“Additionally, it’s likely that these regulations would only confuse consumers and give them a false sense of security,†Flake said.
https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=D739A8C2-2B70-4D7B-9FFB-4E62CA992DB4In 2016, the (infamous) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the FTC no longer had jurisdiction to regulate ISPs when it came to privacy issues, and without the FTC, there is only one agency that has the jurisdiction to "protect" consumers from ISPs - the FCC.
Basically, they were trying to stop the Obama FCC from expanding its sphere of influence.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-war-in-online-privacy-rules-1488413165Flake’s resolution, S.J.Res. 34, would not change or lessen existing consumer privacy regulations. It is designed to block an attempt by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to expand its regulatory jurisdiction and impose prescriptive data restrictions on internet service providers. These restrictions have the potential to negatively impact consumers and the future of internet innovation.
For two decades, the Federal Trade Commission has been America’s sole online privacy regulator. Under the FTC’s watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the world. The agency’s evidence-based approach calibrates privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of information collected, used or shared online, and applies protections in a consistent and evenhanded way across business sectors. Consumer behavior demonstrates the success of the FTC’s regulatory approach: Each day people spend more time engaging in online activities.
But in 2015, in a bid to expand its own power, the Federal Communications Commission short-circuited the effectiveness of the FTC’s approach by reclassifying internet service providers as common carriers, subject to Title II of the Communications Act.
In taking that unprecedented action, the FCC unilaterally stripped the FTC of its traditional jurisdiction over ISPs. The FTC can no longer police the privacy practices of providers, leaving us with a two-track system under which the FCC applies its own set of rules for ISPs while the FTC monitors the rest of the internet ecosystem.
Even after the 2015 power grab, the FCC could have simply adopted as its own the FTC’s successful sensitivity-based model of privacy regulation. Instead—after last year’s election—the FCC finalized privacy regulations that deviate extensively from the FTC framework in several key respects.
Everyone a spy wrote:
Why shouldn't they be able to share and sell this? It's likely demanding a 'privacy agreement' for buying a Starbucks coffee or something. No, you can't tell my employer if I get a flat white or not... Obviously there shouldn't be a LAW against this, people can just go to a different coffee fix if they don't like how SB operates with its info gathering.
Your example illustrates exactly the problem. ISPs are totally different from Starbucks in two key ways:
1. They see everything that passes through them (well subject to encryption) - they are a conduit to all business you do on the web.
2. In most of the US, they form monopolies or near-monopolies. You can't just "go to a different ISP" if you only have one real option.
It's worse than if cash were abolished, and VISA and Mastercard both decided to sell your complete purchasing history to anyone willing to pay (which I think they already do....). You would have almost no choice in the matter. Or if the postal service were abolished and UPS and FedEx both decided to read all your mail and sell all information about it.
The problem is, the barrier to entry for becoming an ISP is extremely high, and regulations like this actually make it higher. So the "free market" argument falls down here. My examples above are not as bad because it's reasonably possible to start a new delivery company or credit card company, but it's virtually impossible to start a new ISP.
This is a classic political hypocrisy where politicians claim they're promoting a free market, but they're actually making it harder for small companies to compete while making it easier for the big pseudo-monopolies to screw consumers.
By the way, the FTC / FCC thing boils down to the fact that an internet service provider acts as a utility, delivering things to and from your home. The rest of the internet ecosystem acts as endpoints that you transact with THROUGH the ISP.
These are fundamentally different, which is why the FCC classified ISPs as common carriers.
It's like the power company and the appliances you choose to buy that run on that power. The power company supplies electricity for any appliance you choose to buy, and is regulated as a utility. Imagine if the power company decided to monitor which appliances you were using, at what time of day, and also could decide to change how much it was billing you for power based on what brand of microwave you bought. That would NOT be good for competition or the free market.
ISPs keep saying they want to be treated the same as "the rest of the internet" like Google and Facebook, but this is a misleading argument. The rest of the internet is subject to standard competition - if I don't like one website, I just stop going to it and it gets nothing from me. But an ISP gets to see what I'm doing online no matter what it is. That's why they should be regulated differently.
Congressional reviewer wrote:
So in other words, in an exercise of democracy, the freely elected Senate over-turned a bureaucratic FCC 'rule' made by nameless appointees. And you wonder why unelected judges are the greatest fear in USA today.
No, those elected with the help of the corps that will benefit from this idiotic decision once again choose the few over the many. Seems to be a trend for the GOP. Next step will be when a state with some common sense decides to create legislation to oppose this and the supposed party of state rights first will step in a squash that effort.
The greatest fear in the US is the fact that legislators at the federal, state and local levels are open for purchase to the highest bidder. And the qualifications for becoming a legislator are basically non existent.
This is a political decision. Republican Party backers can buy the data and use it "help" gerrymander districts more than they already are. They can decide which homes to target to work to get them to vote Republican. They could even figure out figure which homes need a ride to polls to get them to vote.
Why are you complain, guys?
You have your democracy, lighthouse in the dark and we all need to follow that light of democracy, right?
The fuking truth is that even in adolf's germany 70 years ago they didn't have law acc. which they were able to lock you indefinitely - yes they done much worse things latter but before the war you had to see a judge for that at least a formality but... and in democracy no layers no judges, gag orders, 9/11... and it will become much worse in near future..
So enjoy until you can.
Democrats are for consumer protection.
Republicans are for corporate profit.
Libertarians actually want to protect your privacy while removing corporate bureaucracy.
And yet nobody voted for Gary Johnson. You have only yourselves to blame!
Shoebacca wrote:
Democrats are for consumer protection.
Republicans are for corporate profit.
Libertarians actually want to protect your privacy while removing corporate bureaucracy.
And yet nobody voted for Gary Johnson. You have only yourselves to blame!
And what do American Greens stand for?
So you are the so called Keniano. Trollism thinks I'm you. You've screwed his mind.
Shoebacca wrote:
Democrats are for consumer protection.
Only if it's a lip-service talking-point used to disguise greater regulation, greater government control, and control you by making the flow of money more predictable so that the predictability of lobbying allows them to line their pockets better.
Shoebacca wrote:
Libertarians actually want to protect your privacy while removing corporate bureaucracy.
Only some of them want that.
Shoebacca wrote:
And yet nobody voted for Gary Johnson.
Case in point. Gary didn't want to protect much else other than privacy.
As for Republicans, at least a non-negligibly large section of them are just as interested in staying in power as Democrats, they're just more transparent about it.
No one single party uniformly truly has your best interests in mind.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday