US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
The idea is that they'll be allowed to retain and sell this data for their own gain. When they shouldn't be in the business of selling browsing data to profit off of their customers further.
Why shouldn't they? It is their network and you are merely renting the use of it. How is this different than Google tracking everything you do in Chrome or your cellular provider using your location data at will? It is not.
In all cases, you agreed to the terms of use of the service.
Yeah when signing up, there are many people who have existing service and now the intent is to change the terms of service without consent.
No, you are incorrect. The terms of service already allowed this. There has never been a rule against this that was ever enforceable. There is not any change to the ToS.
Had the original rules went into effect, the ToS would have had to been updated.
-
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
The idea is that they'll be allowed to retain and sell this data for their own gain. When they shouldn't be in the business of selling browsing data to profit off of their customers further.
Why shouldn't they? It is their network and you are merely renting the use of it. How is this different than Google tracking everything you do in Chrome or your cellular provider using your location data at will? It is not.
In all cases, you agreed to the terms of use of the service.
The difference is... one has monopoly access to your location, one does not. That makes them totally different.
-
@scottalanmiller said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
The idea is that they'll be allowed to retain and sell this data for their own gain. When they shouldn't be in the business of selling browsing data to profit off of their customers further.
Why shouldn't they? It is their network and you are merely renting the use of it. How is this different than Google tracking everything you do in Chrome or your cellular provider using your location data at will? It is not.
In all cases, you agreed to the terms of use of the service.
The difference is... one has monopoly access to your location, one does not. That makes them totally different.
You need to clarify what you are saying because that makes no sense. There is no difference between your cellular provider and wired ISP provider in the sense of knowing location.
-
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@scottalanmiller said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
The idea is that they'll be allowed to retain and sell this data for their own gain. When they shouldn't be in the business of selling browsing data to profit off of their customers further.
Why shouldn't they? It is their network and you are merely renting the use of it. How is this different than Google tracking everything you do in Chrome or your cellular provider using your location data at will? It is not.
In all cases, you agreed to the terms of use of the service.
The difference is... one has monopoly access to your location, one does not. That makes them totally different.
You need to clarify what you are saying because that makes no sense. There is no difference between your cellular provider and wired ISP provider in the sense of knowing location.
Monopoly on physical access on the lines running to your house. The access is not normally open and free for anyone that wants access. Just like water, sewer and roads there can only be one or a few providers to any given location. The access itself is not open in a free market, unlike web searches which are - anyone is free to make a search engine and get access to all customers.
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
This just makes it easier for business to legally be allowed to record user habits and browsing preferences to market specifically to those consumers.
This is horrible misguided. The rule in question has nothing to do with "business." It is specifically targeted at ISP.
Many, many, businesses had and still have unrestricted access to all of your data.
How is it misguided? ISPs are now legally allowed (or not going to be blocked from) accessing your personal browsing data to market material to you directly.
Is this a real problem? The answer should be NO - you know why? because you SHOULD be using pages that use HTTPS then the ISPs can't inject shit into your pages. Case closed.
Start demanding that small places you visit, like ML, use HTTPS.
-
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
The idea is that they'll be allowed to retain and sell this data for their own gain. When they shouldn't be in the business of selling browsing data to profit off of their customers further.
Why shouldn't they? It is their network and you are merely renting the use of it. How is this different than Google tracking everything you do in Chrome or your cellular provider using your location data at will? It is not.
In all cases, you agreed to the terms of use of the service.
The difference between my ISP and Google is that I pay my ISP, and I use Google for Free. The implied difference is that Google gets to use my data to pay for the services I use. I already pay the ISP. If they need to make more money, then they should be charging me more, not violating my privacy.
-
@Dashrender said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
This just makes it easier for business to legally be allowed to record user habits and browsing preferences to market specifically to those consumers.
This is horrible misguided. The rule in question has nothing to do with "business." It is specifically targeted at ISP.
Many, many, businesses had and still have unrestricted access to all of your data.
How is it misguided? ISPs are now legally allowed (or not going to be blocked from) accessing your personal browsing data to market material to you directly.
Is this a real problem? The answer should be NO - you know why? because you SHOULD be using pages that use HTTPS then the ISPs can't inject shit into your pages. Case closed.
Start demanding that small places you visit, like ML, use HTTPS.
Well I do agree, it doesn't mean that they still won't collect my browsing history and then try to sell it to a vendor like Lenovo, who then attempts to buy ad space from @minion-queen.
-
@Dashrender said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
The idea is that they'll be allowed to retain and sell this data for their own gain. When they shouldn't be in the business of selling browsing data to profit off of their customers further.
Why shouldn't they? It is their network and you are merely renting the use of it. How is this different than Google tracking everything you do in Chrome or your cellular provider using your location data at will? It is not.
In all cases, you agreed to the terms of use of the service.
The difference between my ISP and Google is that I pay my ISP, and I use Google for Free. The implied difference is that Google gets to use my data to pay for the services I use. I already pay the ISP. If they need to make more money, then they should be charging me more, not violating my privacy.
This is not correct. Payment or lack thereof implies nothing of the sort. You can never make such assumptions directly, nor hoist them on others. This opens the doors to "well yes we charged you, but not enough so you should have known you had no rights" and all other kinds of violations. Under no conditions does payment ever imply something of this nature.
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@Dashrender said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
This just makes it easier for business to legally be allowed to record user habits and browsing preferences to market specifically to those consumers.
This is horrible misguided. The rule in question has nothing to do with "business." It is specifically targeted at ISP.
Many, many, businesses had and still have unrestricted access to all of your data.
How is it misguided? ISPs are now legally allowed (or not going to be blocked from) accessing your personal browsing data to market material to you directly.
Is this a real problem? The answer should be NO - you know why? because you SHOULD be using pages that use HTTPS then the ISPs can't inject shit into your pages. Case closed.
Start demanding that small places you visit, like ML, use HTTPS.
Well I do agree, it doesn't mean that they still won't collect my browsing history and then try to sell it to a vendor like Lenovo, who then attempts to buy ad space from @minion-queen.
Anonymous data I'm totally fine with - but the ISP targeting me specifically, again since I pay them, I have a problem with. But as JB will say - it's probably allowed in the TOS so little I can do because as Scott said, monopoly.
-
I would say we're paying our MSPs to provide a specific service, they shouldn't attempt to bolster their income by selling my browsing history to advertisers for their own gain and offer the consumer nothing in return.
-
@scottalanmiller said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@Dashrender said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@JaredBusch said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
The idea is that they'll be allowed to retain and sell this data for their own gain. When they shouldn't be in the business of selling browsing data to profit off of their customers further.
Why shouldn't they? It is their network and you are merely renting the use of it. How is this different than Google tracking everything you do in Chrome or your cellular provider using your location data at will? It is not.
In all cases, you agreed to the terms of use of the service.
The difference between my ISP and Google is that I pay my ISP, and I use Google for Free. The implied difference is that Google gets to use my data to pay for the services I use. I already pay the ISP. If they need to make more money, then they should be charging me more, not violating my privacy.
This is not correct. Payment or lack thereof implies nothing of the sort. You can never make such assumptions directly, nor hoist them on others. This opens the doors to "well yes we charged you, but not enough so you should have known you had no rights" and all other kinds of violations. Under no conditions does payment ever imply something of this nature.
Yeah I know this is a broad over generalization...
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
I would say we're paying our MSPs to provide a specific service, they shouldn't attempt to bolster their income by selling my browsing history to advertisers for their own gain and offer the consumer nothing in return.
Well this is a complaint the ISP's (specifically wireless ones) are making. They don't seem themselves as selling a dumb pipe to the internet (even though that is EXACTLY what most of us want). For whatever reason, those ISPs feel that they can control the content that traverse their lines - This is something I just don't understand.
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
I would say we're paying our MSPs to provide a specific service, they shouldn't attempt to bolster their income by selling my browsing history to advertisers for their own gain and offer the consumer nothing in return.
I don't agree with any statement that uses the "multiple streams of revenue" argument. It's illogical, will never work and undermines privacy by making the issue about "hating profits of private companies" rather than "privacy." It's making people talk like this is how they made people not care about it.
-
@Dashrender said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
I would say we're paying our MSPs to provide a specific service, they shouldn't attempt to bolster their income by selling my browsing history to advertisers for their own gain and offer the consumer nothing in return.
Well this is a complaint the ISP's (specifically wireless ones) are making. They don't seem themselves as selling a dumb pipe to the internet (even though that is EXACTLY what most of us want). For whatever reason, those ISPs feel that they can control the content that traverse their lines - This is something I just don't understand.
Because they are businesses and in the US, they can. Americans have not demanded strongly enough that this not be the case, therefore it is the case.
-
@scottalanmiller said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@Dashrender said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@DustinB3403 said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
I would say we're paying our MSPs to provide a specific service, they shouldn't attempt to bolster their income by selling my browsing history to advertisers for their own gain and offer the consumer nothing in return.
Well this is a complaint the ISP's (specifically wireless ones) are making. They don't seem themselves as selling a dumb pipe to the internet (even though that is EXACTLY what most of us want). For whatever reason, those ISPs feel that they can control the content that traverse their lines - This is something I just don't understand.
Because they are businesses and in the US, they can. Americans have not demanded strongly enough that this not be the case, therefore it is the case.
Do the people in other parts of the world actually demand this? or does the gov'ment just force this upon businesses, and ultimately the people like it, and keep voting those types of people into office?
-
@Dashrender said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
Do the people in other parts of the world actually demand this?
Do you mean in Europe? China doesn't require this. Most of the world does not. In places like Europe, yes the people very much demand this of their government and the government does as it is supposed to.
It does in the US as well, the government is not disconnected from the people as much as everyone likes to claim. People just don't prioritize the same things.
-
@scottalanmiller said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
@Dashrender said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
Do the people in other parts of the world actually demand this?
Do you mean in Europe? China doesn't require this. Most of the world does not. In places like Europe, yes the people very much demand this of their government and the government does as it is supposed to.
It does in the US as well, the government is not disconnected from the people as much as everyone likes to claim. People just don't prioritize the same things.
I'm having a hard time imaging what this looks like that Europe population is so much more involved than the US population. Are you telling us there are rallies where people stand around demanding that they keep privacy alive, that they make internet connections just dumb pipes? How is their citizenry so much more involved in these things than ours is?
-
@Dashrender said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
I'm having a hard time imaging what this looks like that Europe population is so much more involved than the US population. Are you telling us there are rallies where people stand around demanding that they keep privacy alive, that they make internet connections just dumb pipes? How is their citizenry so much more involved in these things than ours is?
You are making leaps.
- Yes, they are far more involved. The US has a relatively uninvolved populace when it comes to politics. Even for the third world it's not very involved.
- Why would their be rallies when they've never had an issue? You are assuming that the government needs rallies to do its job. That can happen, but there is no reason to assume it. Most of Europe is very serious about privacy.
- The question is the opposite, I think. Why are so many Americans so uninvolved? Europeans tend to be as informed on US politics as Americans are, and moreso on their own. It should never be surprising that people take their governance seriously. It should be a question of why others do not.
-
Pai weighs in with a fallacy that is demonstrably false.
-
@coliver said in US Officially Signs Away Internet Privacy Protections:
Pai weighs in with a fallacy that is demonstrably false.
Wow - just wow - of course, you can make numbers say anything you want, can't you
