Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

PrivacyFollow

#1 Mar 29 2017 at 10:05 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,226 posts
https://www.searchinternethistory.com/

Lets get the obvious out of the way. Republicans finally had a chance to return the favor to the ISPs. Yay. Amusingly, a fair amount of people seemed peeved. I was genuinely surprised when the idea of crowdsourcing politician's data came about into mainstream.

But that is not what I wanted to talk about initially, it was this. I obviously don't care about abortion portion. I am just not sure what side I am on. Am I on the side of complete privacy where you can't record anyone without consent? Or am I on the side of: **** it, at this point everything is being recorded anyway and I might as well keep the film rolling?

I don't know. Life is hard and confusing.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2 Mar 30 2017 at 6:24 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,896 posts
I'm an anti-privacy advocate. All information should be public. People wish to hide their information from others who are hiding what they will do with it. After all, everyone should have a gun to protect them from everyone who has a gun right? There is also a culture of privacy in place wherein a facade of what is normal is being collectively maintained and no individual wants to have their traits fully revealed as being out of bounds of that facade, but once everyone is out in the open, the sense of normalcy shifts.

In turns of security, I think we're going to eventually see a shift away from secrecy and more toward verification. It's easy enough to steal my one super secret password for logging into my bank account, no matter how convoluted it is. It's far more difficult to simultaneously spoof my identity to every single other agency.

The shift would be chaotic, and to prevent that chaos several regulations will be implemented to slow it and create decreasingly quasi-privacy based rules. There will also always be the incentive for someone to be the lone defector and maintain their privacy while everyone else does not, but that will become more challenging as more services are tied to public information.
#3 Mar 30 2017 at 7:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That whole "Buy Ryan's history" thing is cute and all but do these people actually believe that they'll be able to call Comcast and hand them a check for one specific guy's web usage logs?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Mar 30 2017 at 7:33 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,488 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That whole "Buy Ryan's history" thing is cute and all but do these people actually believe that they'll be able to call Comcast and hand them a check for one specific guy's web usage logs?
Well, something like $200,000 worth of crowdfunding says they do believe that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Mar 30 2017 at 9:50 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That whole "Buy Ryan's history" thing is cute and all but do these people actually believe that they'll be able to call Comcast and hand them a check for one specific guy's web usage logs?


Yes. You could do this before, it just wasn't, strictly speaking, legal. It was also usually not packaged or compiled nicely, you'd have to go through a bunch of different contractors etc. therefore it wasn't done that often because you'd need an exceptional use case.

Once it's commercially available, cheap, and more user friendly, many of the constraints on utilization will swiftly melt away. At the minimum for Op. Research. Definitely for marketing, and possibly for public facing hiring decisions, but that one will probably be diceier. Tor usage is already tracked for clearancing purposes, but that's partly due to it being a state apparatus.

I'd suspect ISPs would try to prevent sales to petty grievance holders as they don't pay well, and are really poor PR.

Comcast might not care though, their PR dept appears to be largely ceremonial.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#6 Mar 30 2017 at 10:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
I'd suspect ISPs would try to prevent sales to petty grievance holders as they don't pay well, and are really poor PR.

That's really the point. It's one thing to sell data on a million users to MegaMarketingCo. It's another to sell data from the House Speaker (a guy who, incidentally, just opened the way to big extra profits for you) to a random guy with a GoFundMe page.

If they pull it off, good for them. I'm extremely skeptical that they'll pull it off.

Edited, Mar 30th 2017 11:17am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Mar 30 2017 at 5:20 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,226 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I'd suspect ISPs would try to prevent sales to petty grievance holders as they don't pay well, and are really poor PR.

That's really the point. It's one thing to sell data on a million users to MegaMarketingCo. It's another to sell data from the House Speaker (a guy who, incidentally, just opened the way to big extra profits for you) to a random guy with a GoFundMe page.

If they pull it off, good for them. I'm extremely skeptical that they'll pull it off.

Edited, Mar 30th 2017 11:17am by Jophiel


Sadly, you are probably correct. It would be relatively trivial for an ISP and identify and scrub PEPs from the logs they sell to the highest bidder. The potential cost of ******** someone, who can actually hurt your bottom line via legislation is not insignificant ( insert a rant how as customers we should be able to hurt their bottom line here, but are effectively prevented from doing so ).

Then again, if there is one thing that I know, it is that if that information is there ( "PEP profile"), it will go out.. whether by error ( maybe improperly flagged during scrubbing - you don't expect them to do it manually do you ?), incompetence, or good old-fashioned malice. And if that is true, we will have some more interesting times ahead of us.

Personally, I am very much against anti-privacy.. mostly, because of stuff like this. Granted, this lawsuit is about publicly available information, but the effect is much worse if third parties do get a hand on you and your formerly private online habits. Google autoerotic asphyxia and watch your car, life, home and healthcare insurance premiums rise as dynamic pricing algorithm deems you a high risk individual bound to be involved in dangerous activity. Order pizza online and only your healthcare and life goes up. You hopefully get the idea.. I could beat the dead horse more, but do I have to?

I think people, who do not care about privacy are those, who do not understand human nature. We are not hive species. We are barely able to work together unless there is either a direct benefit to us, or an immediate threat of extinction.. and even then some will choose expediency of the moment.

The odd thing to me is the attitude of youngins, but they will learn the same way most people eventually do; by having **** they don't want others to know in broad daylight.. not completely unlike Trump - as you will notice how very, very transparent he is.

Edited, Mar 30th 2017 7:22pm by angrymnk

Edited, Mar 30th 2017 7:22pm by angrymnk

Edited, Mar 30th 2017 7:25pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#8 Mar 30 2017 at 10:22 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,511 posts
But, Incognito mode keeps you safe, right?

...Right?!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#9 Mar 31 2017 at 7:49 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,488 posts
angrymnk wrote:
I could beat the dead horse more, but do I have to?
You don't have to, you got it down that slippery slope.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Mar 31 2017 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I'd suspect ISPs would try to prevent sales to petty grievance holders as they don't pay well, and are really poor PR.

That's really the point. It's one thing to sell data on a million users to MegaMarketingCo. It's another to sell data from the House Speaker (a guy who, incidentally, just opened the way to big extra profits for you) to a random guy with a GoFundMe page.

If they pull it off, good for them. I'm extremely skeptical that they'll pull it off.

Edited, Mar 30th 2017 11:17am by Jophiel


Paul Ryan isn't someone I'd classify as a target of a petty grievance. This service will likely be more effective than the equivalent value in campaign ads, so we will have a good idea of who where and when people solicit unorthodox services. This will mean we wil will be constrained in our electoral choices to only generally boring people with myopic world views.

The other option is of course the complete seizure of media in this country by a mono-party bloc, but fortunately it's much more likely that we just purge those breaking with administrative orthodoxy. We have the outside possibility of shifting culturally to a society more tolerant of less mainstream interests, but I suspect the political class is more likely to use witch hunts for the easy leverage that it provides, so I'm not optimistic.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#11 Mar 31 2017 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,566 posts
Privacy rights for the activities of private citizens should be absolute without a narrowly tailored warrant or subpoena for the release of specific information relevant to civil or criminal proceedings.

I'm a little more warm to the idea of obtaining information on public servants so long as the information is relevant to their public role, but determining which information is relevant and which isn't is a process ripe for abuse, so I'd prefer to err on the side of caution/privacy or at least design a system (like the grand jury) to separate the wheat from the chaff outside the public sphere.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#12 Mar 31 2017 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,226 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I could beat the dead horse more, but do I have to?
You don't have to, you got it down that slippery slope.


Since it is you, I almost automatically give you the benefit of not being serious. Especially since it is SUCH a stretch that companies that already use data would use more data should it become available. Such a stretch down that slippery slope..
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#13 Mar 31 2017 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,226 posts
This just in. ISPs won't sell individual histories. No word on bulk, renting, or mining **** up themselves^^: I hate marketing.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#14 Apr 01 2017 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
angrymnk wrote:
This just in. ISPs won't sell individual histories. No word on bulk, renting, or mining **** up themselves^^: I hate marketing.


Quote:
Under the rules, internet providers would have needed to obtain consumer consent before using precise geolocation, financial information, health information, children's information and web browsing history for advertising and marketing. Websites do not need the same affirmative consent.

The White House said Wednesday that President Donald Trump plans to sign the repeal of the rules, which had not taken effect.


ISPs have just said "Of course we won't do this". The new law states that you can.

Market Innovation will occur.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#15 Apr 03 2017 at 7:18 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,488 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Such a stretch down that slippery slope..
Well, believing that your fascination with dudes choking themselves while jerking off affecting your car insurance is.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 Apr 03 2017 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,226 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Such a stretch down that slippery slope..
Well, believing that your fascination with dudes choking themselves while jerking off affecting your car insurance is.


Hwell, fascination it too strong a word; harmless interest is probably more accurate; not completely unlike car accidents.

That said, it is not a question of belief. It is a question of what is available for grabs, because if it includes everything, everything will be used. ¿Simple concept,no?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#17 Apr 04 2017 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,350 posts
I'm being told this will have huge ramifications in Canada, given all data at some point, crosses from here to the US and then back. Having a hard time finding the capacity to give a **** at this point though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#18 Apr 04 2017 at 9:32 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,488 posts
Better not look up bestiality or your dentist might charge more for a cleaning.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#19 Apr 04 2017 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,790 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Better not look up bestiality or your dentist might charge more for a cleaning.

Or less, you never know what he and all those Hygienists are into.

Side note:
Is it just my area, or are all dentist's offices filled with female hygienists? I've asked around locally and it seems that most if not all the Dentists here are staffed with one or sometimes two Dentists, either male or female, but the the rest of the staff is made up of women. From customer service and desk employees to all the hygienists and support staff. Seems if there is a male in the office, it's usually the Dentist.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#20 Apr 04 2017 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'm being told this will have huge ramifications in Canada, given all data at some point, crosses from here to the US and then back. Having a hard time finding the capacity to give a **** at this point though.


It has to cross into the US so we can look at the data, cc your gov't and pass through to transatlantic cables.

If it makes you feel better your data was probably already monitored, it will just be easier and more lucrative to do so now.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#21 Apr 04 2017 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Better not look up bestiality or your dentist might charge more for a cleaning.

Do YOU want to put your fingers into a mouth that's been sucking dog dick?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Apr 04 2017 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
3,306 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Better not look up bestiality or your dentist might charge more for a cleaning.

Do YOU want to put your fingers into a mouth that's been sucking dog dick?



Fingers? No.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#23 Apr 05 2017 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,350 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
If it makes you feel better your data was probably already monitored
I've always worked on this premise which I think is why i'm having an issue getting riled up about it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#24 Apr 05 2017 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
I think the only thing that will get people to care about data privacy in this country is when home insurance companies charge them more for owning or looking at purchasing a firearm.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#25 Apr 05 2017 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,488 posts
Which "this" country? That'd lower insurance as it'd be classified as a home security device.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#26 Apr 05 2017 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,226 posts
Politicians write the darndest op-eds. They never cease to amuse and, at times, amaze me. ISPs and search engines are the same, Obama broke it all, and all you prole chicken littles better stop whining, because it simply does not make sense to the ruling class.

Fascinating read.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#27 Apr 05 2017 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
While I'm generally a strong proponent of privacy rights, I do think that this particular order was a huge over reach, which didn't really do much to improve privacy, but merely re-classified things into different buckets and heaped a ton more government regulations into the pot. I also found it very interesting that they lumped in a set of network layer aspects of a users activities as "CPNI" which is protected from sharing (but then makes inconsistent exceptions for, say IP addresses which kinda have to be shared to work). While not explicitly stated in the document (which, let's face it, I skimmed at best), my usual concern about absurd network neutrality rules being adopted becomes present here. If network layer stuff is "protected" (like say, the application type, packet type, source and destination info, etc), then it becomes much easier under this change to declare any sort of packet based sorting as illegal, because the ISP is barred from sharing that information with third parties.

I'll also point out another objection I've raised with this sort of thing in the past. While the rules prohibit the ISP from sharing this with third parties, it does not at all prohibit them from using that information internally, nor within the context of content that they provide. The net effect could easily be handing a huge content advantage to the local provider since, as both Service and Content provider, that company can use network layer CPNI to shape network traffic to make their content work better than a potential competitor operating outside the range of the ISP (or BIAS) as they call it in the document.

Seems like it's more about providing a legal groundwork for ISPs to raise prices (and pad profits) by being "required" to provide additional security for their customers, while simultaneously providing them a competitive advantage to market content to their customers. The fact that the regulations actually acknowledge the issue of many customers having little or no choice about their service provider, while proceeding to lump a ton of regulation that will only increase costs to those same consumers (with, again, little or no choice), just seems to be about giving those ISPs the opportunity to raise those prices without having to worry about normal market forces preventing it.

There's pretty much zero in there that actually increases the existing laws regarding privacy when using the internet. So yeah. Bad regulation, pushed in during a lame duck administration period, more or less in the dead of night? Probably a good idea to eliminate it. Then maybe look at actual problems with network privacy and adopt legislation addressing just those things. Just dumping the entire thing into the realm of a new agency, and shoving the square peg of internet service providers into the round hole of a nearly century old set of laws regulating telephone companies, just seems like a really really bad idea.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Apr 05 2017 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hey guys, Gbaji is setting aside his usual feelings to go along with the "Obama is bad; Republicans are good" camp! Are you all surprised? I know I'm surprised.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Apr 05 2017 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hey guys, Gbaji is setting aside his usual feelings to go along with the "Obama is bad; Republicans are good" camp! Are you all surprised? I know I'm surprised.


I've opposed the idea of redefining ISPs as falling under the telecommunication carrier laws since long before either of us had ever even heard of Obama Joph. I get that it's easier for you to see this in terms of support or opposition of a person or group, but for me, it really is and always has been based on the actual proposed legal change.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Apr 05 2017 at 8:54 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
3,306 posts
Do you know how Gbaji burned his mouth?

He was eating that pizza long before any of us had ever even heard of it!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#31 Apr 05 2017 at 10:15 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I get that it's easier for you to see this in terms of support or opposition of a person or group, but for me, it really is and always has been based on the actual proposed legal change.

You're adorable because you probably believe that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Apr 06 2017 at 7:19 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,488 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You're adorable because you probably believe that.
Obviously it's just a coincidence that it happens 100% of the time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#33 Apr 06 2017 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
I did hear a thing on fox about how the privacy protection legislation was government overreach, and as expected, it came into this thread through a man who does not even watch news.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#34 Apr 06 2017 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I did hear a thing on fox about how the privacy protection legislation was government overreach, and as expected, it came into this thread through a man who does not even watch news.


So because an opinion is mentioned on Fox, that must be the only source for that opinion?

It's almost like there isn't a section at the bottom of the pdf I linked which contains dissenting opinions (and describes the regulation as government overreach). Oh wait! There is. But let's ignore that and assume "parroting what someone on Fox said", instead. Or, and this is just crazy, maybe notice that I've posted this exact opinion about net neutrality proposals (in this case, wrapped in a not very believable privacy burrito), for like a decade and a half on this forum, and conclude that maybe my opinions predate someone's statement on Fox last week, or someone's dissent written last year. And even, for those decent at math, the entire Obama administration itself.

Shocking, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Apr 06 2017 at 10:13 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
3,306 posts
Awfully defensive, Gbaji. He literally said you don't watch news.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#36 Apr 07 2017 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
******
49,488 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
He literally said you don't watch news.
It's all fake, except the stuff that coincidentally happen to agree with his narrative. Which is also coincidental it just happens to be Fox News 100% of the time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Apr 07 2017 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Awfully defensive, Gbaji. He literally said you don't watch news.


He's free to say whatever he wants. I ignored it because it's just silly fluff.

Um... But in this specific case, I read the link in the OP, searched for the text of the original FCC change,and read that, then formed an opinion and wrote it in my post. I have not read, watched, or listened to a single thing about this except what has been linked to on this thread. Crazy isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Apr 10 2017 at 8:46 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,488 posts
gbaji wrote:
Crazy isn't it?
That after "a decade and a half" you still believe no one recognizes your patterns?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Apr 10 2017 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Politicians write the darndest op-eds. They never cease to amuse and, at times, amaze me. ISPs and search engines are the same, Obama broke it all, and all you prole chicken littles better stop whining, because it simply does not make sense to the ruling class.

Fascinating read.
I liked this part the best:

Quote:
Others argue that ISPs should be treated differently because consumers face a unique lack of choice and competition in the broadband marketplace. But that claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny either. For example, according to one industry analysis, Google dominates desktop search with an estimated 81 percent market share (and 96 percent of the mobile search market), whereas Verizon, the largest mobile broadband provider, holds only an estimated 35 percent of its market.
Not even sure where to start on that one... Smiley: rolleyes

Bye bye wild west of the internet you will be missed. On the plus side at least once everyone realized everyone else uses search engines to look for **** maybe we can all stop being shocked by it. But first, scandals I'm hoping.

Lots of them.

Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#40 Apr 10 2017 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Sure, I'm looking forward to seeing people's lives fall apart because they have *** the wrong way.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#41 Apr 10 2017 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
They won't be ruined. Well maybe the first few won't go so well, but then it's just like reading about another one of Clinton's or Weiner's escapades. Saturation becomes a thing, and we're all like "meh, so what if Ivanka Trump likes watching dolphins rape each other, everyone has their kinks" and move on with life.

Edit: Wait... sex is censored but rape isn't? Seriously? Smiley: dubious

Edited, Apr 10th 2017 1:36pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#42 Apr 10 2017 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Eh, I know people who suffered 6 digit damages from legal battles against things that were not illegal, so I'm somewhat sensitized to it.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#43 Apr 10 2017 at 3:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
It's in isolation, which is a problem. Like a bandaid, it hurts more when you do it a little at a time, gotta rip the whole thing off at once. If it only comes out that Ivanka watches dolphin rape videos, it's a problem. If her name is on a list of 29,374,908 people that watched the same video, including several other notable people, then suddenly nobody cares quite so much.

Nobody really cares about nude pictures of a new actress like they did 15-20 years ago. it's not going to ruin a career. These days it's not at all surprising if they have a fully-stocked pornhub account.

Times change.

Edited, Apr 10th 2017 2:00pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#44 Apr 10 2017 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I liked this part the best:

Quote:
Others argue that ISPs should be treated differently because consumers face a unique lack of choice and competition in the broadband marketplace. But that claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny either. For example, according to one industry analysis, Google dominates desktop search with an estimated 81 percent market share (and 96 percent of the mobile search market), whereas Verizon, the largest mobile broadband provider, holds only an estimated 35 percent of its market.
Not even sure where to start on that one... Smiley: rolleyes


It's written in a bit of a mangled style, but my take is that they were pointing out that when dealing with how to help protect online user's privacy, it's not necessarily valid to focus only on the number of options available to a user, but also on the resulting choices users make. If 95% of all searches on the internet are run through google, and you're concerned about how user search histories might be used in ways that infringe their privacy, it kinda makes sense to focus your efforts on google searches first and then maybe worry about the broadband providers. They were pointing out that the changes made last year actually does it the other way around, focusing the most effort on the service providers while doing little or nothing about where most of us are actually most vulnerable (online social media and search engines). That's where information that might be valuable to a third party is most likely to be generated.

And that's not to mention that since you pay directly for your ISP, there's always some form of use agreement involved, including privacy agreements, which are already governed by the agency that has historically managed privacy agreements between consumers and businesses, the Federal Trade Commission. Ironically, by moving ISPs from the FTC to the FCC, they actually reduced the applicable privacy rules and regulations, and just kinda made up some new ones that almost certainly would not have the same effect.

You don't have an FTC regulated business relationship with google, btw. Or with Facebook. Or almost any "service" on the internet (unless you pay for it, of course). So the previous changes were very poorly aimed, and as I mentioned earlier, almost certainly had little to actually do with privacy, and more to do with increasing government regulation on *how* broadband providers operate (hence my comment about wrapping long sought after net neutrality rules into a bogus privacy burrito).

Turning that bad regulatory change back to where it was previously is actually a really good thing.

Quote:
Bye bye wild west of the internet you will be missed. On the plus side at least once everyone realized everyone else uses search engines to look for **** maybe we can all stop being shocked by it. But first, scandals I'm hoping.


Which is strange because if anything, this restores the "wild wild west" of the internet that you're going to miss. The previous regulation changes, which this change is undoing, is what was going to break the old status quo.

That's not to say that there may not be a need for further regulation on service providers for the purpose of online privacy, but that's not what the previous changes did, nor does this undoing of that change affect that either. It's just setting things back to the previous state.

Quote:
Lots of them.

Smiley: popcorn


No more than there were previously. Because, all this change is doing is putting things back the way they were prior to the changes last year. So I'm not sure why there's massive crying about privacy here, but total silence when the actual harmful regulation was put in place last year.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Apr 10 2017 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
I don't care if google is giving me better ads when I use their service. I can choose to use to use DDG instead if it bothers me. I don't need to use social media, and can curate the content which goes there.

ISPs are usually regional monopolies or at best oligopolies. I cannot use the internet for any purpose without them. They also have access to far more personal information, by virtue of it all traveling over their wires, whereas google only sees a fraction.

As a computer engineer, the fact that you don't see this rather basic distinction is frankly shocking.

ISPs have also recently done another shitty thing which is traffic shaping, in which they look at content and choose how fast to serve it, essentially allowing them to pick winners and losers in the market, and I don't trust them not to use this purely for personal enrichment.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#46 Apr 10 2017 at 8:46 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
ISPs are usually regional monopolies or at best oligopolies. I cannot use the internet for any purpose without them. They also have access to far more personal information, by virtue of it all traveling over their wires, whereas google only sees a fraction.


Er, yes and no. The personal information your ISP has about you (your name, address, SSN, email address, and whatever contact/payment info you provide as part of being their customer) is already covered/protected by existing business law. The same FTC laws which prohibit your bank from handing out information about you, or your credit card company from doing the same, or the vendor you purchased something from, etc, etc, apply to your ISP. Again, ironically, moving the regulations from the FTC to the FCC for ISPs and only ISPs could actually result in fewer legal protections for customers, not more. Hence my suggestion that this wasn't ever really about privacy protections in the first place. That was just the smoke screen they used to cover for the move.

For completions sake, the stuff that *isn't* protected are exactly the sorts of online activities that google and facebook are more likely to collect about you. And yes, I suppose your ISP could also trap that data, but it's actually harder for them to do so, and they aren't nearly as poised, market wise, to actually use it. It's not an all or nothing situation here, but the point is that to single out ISPs for new/different rules, while claiming you're making a change to improve privacy for online users, is pretty darn misleading. Which was also the point of the editorial linked earlier.

Quote:
As a computer engineer, the fact that you don't see this rather basic distinction is frankly shocking.


I do see this distinction. And as a computer engineer, I also understand what that distinction actually means in terms of actual privacy concerns and where the loopholes are in our existing laws, and how those loopholes may be exploited by each party involved, based on how the actual technology operates.

Quote:
ISPs have also recently done another shitty thing which is traffic shaping, in which they look at content and choose how fast to serve it, essentially allowing them to pick winners and losers in the market, and I don't trust them not to use this purely for personal enrichment.


Uh huh. And this is the far more complicated actual issue at hand here, not the BS privacy excuse being trotted out in front of us.

And even within the correct context, there's a whole lot of fear mongering and false BS that gets tossed around. There are a boatload of very good, and arguably necessary reasons for ISPs (broadband providers as a whole) to engage in "traffic shaping". Hitting the entire thing with a giant mallet is an incredibly naive approach, and in most cases will cause far more harm to the functioning of the internet than good. Again though, I've made this argument several times in the past in several different net neutrality threads. I don't really feel like re-hashing them here. My point is that this move was always about imposing NN restrictions, under the guise of "privacy protection". So basically, they couldn't win the NN argument on its own merits, so they just changed the label and pretended it was being done for a different, even more BS, reason.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Apr 11 2017 at 12:18 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,518 posts
gbaji wrote:

It's written in a bit of a mangled style.


Smiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: oyvey


Nexa
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#48 Apr 11 2017 at 7:21 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,488 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
As a computer engineer, the fact that you don't see this rather basic distinction is frankly shocking.
Is it really that shocking?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Apr 11 2017 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I liked this part the best:

Quote:
Others argue that ISPs should be treated differently because consumers face a unique lack of choice and competition in the broadband marketplace. But that claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny either. For example, according to one industry analysis, Google dominates desktop search with an estimated 81 percent market share (and 96 percent of the mobile search market), whereas Verizon, the largest mobile broadband provider, holds only an estimated 35 percent of its market.
Not even sure where to start on that one... Smiley: rolleyes


It's written in a bit of a mangled style, but my take is that they were pointing out that when dealing with how to help protect online user's privacy, it's not necessarily valid to focus only on the number of options available to a user, but also on the resulting choices users make.
I'm not sure we're on the same point here. To clarify my "Smiley: rolleyes" was based on the following things:

1) Since when does mobile internet = broadband? Smiley: dubious

2) When people are complaining about lack of choice in the marketplace they're usually upset someone like Comcast is the only person who can bring premium high-speed service to their address, with other options such as phone line, satellite, or mobile service only offering lower speeds on data transfers, and forming more of low-quality service option, instead of direct competition.

3) That somehow having the 4 top carriers in the USA (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T) take up ~75% of the market share is better, as if an oligopoly is going to offer them drastically better service, or not want to harvest their personal data for business use. Your phone isn't exactly a bastion of privacy either for that matter.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Bye bye wild west of the internet you will be missed. On the plus side at least once everyone realized everyone else uses search engines to look for **** maybe we can all stop being shocked by it. But first, scandals I'm hoping.


Which is strange because if anything, this restores the "wild wild west" of the internet that you're going to miss. The previous regulation changes, which this change is undoing, is what was going to break the old status quo.
I doubt search engines, websites, and other misc. internet-based businesses, the government, etc are going to stop tracking browsing history, web traffic information, and gathering misc. personal data just because we eased regulations a bit.

gbaji wrote:
So I'm not sure why there's massive crying about privacy here, but total silence when the actual harmful regulation was put in place last year.
I've been told I whine too much already. Have to choose my battles, or at least wait for others to go first so I can claim I was caught up in the crowd mentality. Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#50 Apr 11 2017 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
As a computer engineer, the fact that you don't see this rather basic distinction is frankly shocking.
Is it really that shocking?
Hopefully not too much. I'm not a computer engineer or anything, but have heard-tell that random arcs of electricity and computers aren't the best of friends.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#51 Apr 11 2017 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,488 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
1) Since when does mobile internet = broadband? Smiley: dubious
Pretty much about the time when cell phones became surgically attached to people's wrists and they needed a trendy moniker to label it. Tablets, usb modems, laptops, pretty much anything that can take advantage of wifi hotspots that I've misspelled as wife the last six times I tried to type it. Which, in itself would also probably be a good business venture.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 64 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (64)