Senate Republicans Just Voted to Kill Internet Privacy

originally posted by: angeldoll
Trump is proving repeatedly that he is only working for big business and money. He gives no thought or consideration to the individual person, as promised in his campaign speeches.

This might be the biggest "bait and switch" in history.

Ok really now that's 13 out of 17 messages saying, "thanks a lot trump," or, "boo trump." What the hell does the President have to do with a senate vote in the LEGISLATION BRANCH. De...detailing ignorance? D...d...doodling ignorance? No no, what was the ATS motto again?

a reply to: jacobe001

Umm... you do have that power. Thanks to Google.

So playing devil's advocate; why is it assumed that this is “YOUR” information? That “YOU” have a right to keep privet?

I understand the emotional context of why it “FEELS” like it’s my information. But intellectually what exactly is “MINE” about it. I didn’t make or own the apparatus that is allowing me to access the internet my ISP did/does. The internet can hardly be considered a “privet” area, rather quite the opposite. So why shouldn’t my ISP be able to record and sell what is happening “inside” the apparatus they own and maintain? On what grounds do I have to claim my conduct in this privately owned (not by me) and public area cannot be recorded and used by the owner of that area?

Do I known the information my pharmacy collections on me when I use their silly little discount card? How about my barber when he records how many haircuts I’ve had so that he can give me the tenth one for free? Why is it different for the Internet and ISPs?

This is all about big brother, and it is coming at us from all sides. Orwellian, it is.

I never buy alcohol. I just learned that no matter how old you are, or appear, yout ID needs to be
presented and then it is scanned! Immediately I reasoned that this is part of the government gropecare program, and to assist insurers, the policestate, and anyone else to draw a bead on a person's privacy (as to infer deductions about a person's lifestyle with judgment in mind). It is sickening!

I never bother to go outside anymore, it just isn't for me (Total Coverage Package: I don't want them to lose sight of me should I pass an unsurveiled sliver of space outdoors), and I am weary of creating opportunities that end in chains and possible loss of life by chance interactions with the postate, or a texting driver. Or a person with a communication device who spied me resting in a field. But for those who take the plunge, this is, apparently, happening everywhere with no end in sight. My God! Ten years ago I was carded for selling ten dollars worth of scrap I found on the street. It used to be you could buy and sell gold and silver without an ID. Now the junk man has to pull your pants down and look for poop! It is the law.

They are keeping tabs on everything, it needs to stop. Thank God that Donald J. Trump will put a stop to this as the swamp gets drained. Clearly, the republicans are sabotaging his presidency, just as they did during the primaries, and all the way through the election process.

I believe they have it all backwards. Remember this:
WE define and shape THEM, and not the other way around. These political
perverts should be thrown off a cliff, while on fire, their heads already rolling.

I do realize that everything online is already leaked, duh, because I have received mails from my broker, after years of silence, only seconds after a post I made here regarding stock trading. In the letter's header, it specifically addressed a gripe I had posted about, in a penny stock thread, namely, that worthless securities were staining my protfolio, and here's how to remove them.... I didn't even have to open the letter to see this efficiency, as I guess we are supposed to think of it. We were able to connect these dots decades ago. But now the laws are cementing the crookedness into permanant shape.

To strip away, by law, any hope of a last scrap of internet privacy, is just a way to prepare against the impending revolt once the people see what is coming. They will try to
section us based on our mind's perception of this, I guarantee it.
Rightthink, wrongthink
It's all part of the mix.

Now don't get me wrong: I want this technofascism in my head, or should I say, erm, my empty vessel, just like you and everyone else, of course, stuffing wedges of silver right into brain, but only if I ask for it, and not vice-versa. I don't wanna be left behind, and sometimes, i just cannot stand the clanging in my empty, unfulfilled and spiritually void skull.

But what happens if I take steps to avoid this.
Note that this is not a question.

Sadhu SAYS:

Come on everyone, this is FUN. who wants to evolve?

# 733

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat

originally posted by: angeldoll
Trump is proving repeatedly that he is only working for big business and money. He gives no thought or consideration to the individual person, as promised in his campaign speeches.

This might be the biggest "bait and switch" in history.

Ok really now that's 13 out of 17 messages saying, "thanks a lot trump," or, "boo trump." What the hell does the President have to do with a senate vote in the LEGISLATION BRANCH. De...detailing ignorance? D...d...doodling ignorance? No no, what was the ATS motto again?

Did it make you feel good to type all that dribble?
Good then. At least it had some value, even if only to you.

resistancereport.com...

I think this would be a fun project to be involved with in relation to this topic Is it unfair to those whose information might be released? We have all known that nothing on the Internet is private for a while now.

I guess when everybody's search histories start getting released it will seem sensational at first. Then with time the majority of ppl will get used to it just like everything horrible we become desensitized to. The list of what we are becoming used to these days... I never could have imagined say 5 or 10 years back!

a reply to: DanDanDat

Using your devil's advocate logic... why not extend it to hotels?

You didn’t build or own the hotel that is allowing you to access a sleeping room. A hotel can hardly be considered a “privet” area, rather quite the opposite, their rooms are open to all for a fee. So why shouldn’t your hotel be able to record and sell what is happening “inside” the rooms they own and maintain? On what grounds do you have to claim your conduct in this privately owned (not by you) public hotel cannot be recorded and used by the owner of that hotel? All you've done is simply rent access to a room.

Or maybe your local gym's locker room?

You didn’t build or own the gym that is allowing you to access showers and a changing area. A gym can hardly be considered a “privet” area, rather quite the opposite, their facilities are open to all for a fee. So why shouldn’t your gym be able to record and sell what is happening “inside” the premises they own and maintain? On what grounds do you have to claim your conduct in this privately owned (not by you) public gym cannot be recorded and used by the owner of that gym? All you've done is simply "rent" access.

It's bad enough that any of these (including the original ISPs being discussed) would consider recording your activities, let alone turning around and selling such to make another buck off you after you've already payed them. Yes, you're now paying them for the privilege of allowing them to further make money off of selling your recorded activities. At this point it seems we should be getting a cut of the profits from our initial "investment".

What this does is limit the abilities of defense lawyers who represent terrorists and criminals.
As far as John and Jane Q are concerned, privacy is just a illusion, it hasn't existed in a long, long time.
People had a choice years ago and they choose to do nothing.


Buck

originally posted by: flatbush71
What this does is limit the abilities of defense lawyers who represent terrorists and criminals.

No, it doesn't.

What this does is allow ISPs to make additional revenue by selling your habits, interests, and personal information.

This has nothing to do with "terrorists and criminals", and everything to do with corporate profits.

originally posted by: jacobe001
I wonder how the defenders of this would react if we let citizens and consumers have this power as well?
I mean, we could pull up the post history of anyone across the internet regardless of their username or IP in order to ascertain if they are a Corporate Shill or a Pro American.

It seems they only want Big Business to have that power and everyone else to be subject to their fascism

Under this bill you're able to do just that. ISP's will likely sell data in bulk but it's still available for anyone to purchase. They're going to use it as a revenue stream.

What this does is allow ISPs to make additional revenue by selling your habits, interests, and personal information.

They have been selling it for a long time.

Buck

originally posted by: DanDanDat
So playing devil's advocate; why is it assumed that this is “YOUR” information? That “YOU” have a right to keep privet?

I understand the emotional context of why it “FEELS” like it’s my information. But intellectually what exactly is “MINE” about it. I didn’t make or own the apparatus that is allowing me to access the internet my ISP did/does. The internet can hardly be considered a “privet” area, rather quite the opposite. So why shouldn’t my ISP be able to record and sell what is happening “inside” the apparatus they own and maintain? On what grounds do I have to claim my conduct in this privately owned (not by me) and public area cannot be recorded and used by the owner of that area?

Do I known the information my pharmacy collections on me when I use their silly little discount card? How about my barber when he records how many haircuts I’ve had so that he can give me the tenth one for free? Why is it different for the Internet and ISPs?

It's actually a question that's not legally defined. Does data belong to the person who created it or the person that stored it? If data belongs to the creator then using a persons likeness is identity theft (not currently the case). If however data belongs to whoever is storing it, then your financial information belongs to the bank storing it and not to you. And therefore it's theirs to freely modify or release however they want, or medical information belongs to the hospital rather than the patient. More broadly, this would make cloud services the owners of vast amounts of information.

originally posted by: flatbush71
They have been selling it for a long time.

Buck

No they haven't.

a reply to: flatbush71

No, and the "cool shades" smiley doesn't make it true either.

They've been storing it for quite awhile, and have had to turn over those records to law enforcement (if ordered by the courts to do so), but selling it wasn't an option.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes it has been done for years. The privacy law that this potential new law us changing just went into effect October 2016. Nothing stopped your ISP before then.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes it has been done for years. The privacy law that this potential new law us changing just went into effect October 2016. Nothing stopped your ISP before then.

They sold advertising information which was mostly metadata about what customers preferred and it was anonymized since it was dealing with groups. There's a difference between an ISP selling information to a company that 3% of it's amazon shoppers also like Tide bleach, and the company selling individualized browsing history.

The first is a bit sketchy, the second is an outright violation of privacy.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes it has been done for years. The privacy law that this potential new law us changing just went into effect October 2016. Nothing stopped your ISP before then.

They sold advertising information which was mostly metadata about what customers preferred and it was anonymized since it was dealing with groups. There's a difference between an ISP selling information to a company that 3% of it's amazon shoppers also like Tide bleach, and the company selling individualized browsing history.

The first is a bit sketchy, the second is an outright violation of privacy.

Thank you, well said and easily understood.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes it has been done for years. The privacy law that this potential new law us changing just went into effect October 2016. Nothing stopped your ISP before then.

They sold advertising information which was mostly metadata about what customers preferred and it was anonymized since it was dealing with groups. There's a difference between an ISP selling information to a company that 3% of it's amazon shoppers also like Tide bleach, and the company selling individualized browsing history.

The first is a bit sketchy, the second is an outright violation of privacy.

So it would seem. And this is not what was elected.

Looks like he's serious about keeping his job, after all the jocular kabosh and posing, during the campaign,
that had the media creatures reeling.
My guess is that he's not a religious man. My guess is that everyone is happy about this.

Happy as hellhounds
in heat at a black mass knowing that the eye of God is a figment
of a disease
needing treatment

I can play this game.
serious question for everyone:
Can you?

# 734

a reply to: Aazadan

August, 2013

It is not a good thing, but it has been happening for a very long time.

Under the terms of the proposed policy, AT&T will now have the right to monitor its customers’ communications for marketing and research purposes. In doing so, AT&T is joining wireless carriers Sprint and Verizon which announced similar programs over the last two years. All three companies’ programs are similar: the carrier collects extensive information about what customers do on their networks — including the websites they visit, the apps they use, and their physical location. Based on that data, the companies compile market research reports about how people use their networks. For example, a carrier might sell to a local newspaper publisher information about what other types of sites were visited by users who went to the newspaper’s site. Or the carrier could tell a store how many phones are in or near the store at certain times of day.

If the aggregate reports were created from truly de-identified data sets, our concerns might be addressed, however, it’s not clear that that’s happening here. Even when identifiable data is collected and retained for limited purposes, consumers could reasonably worry that their data could later be used for new, unexpected, and unwanted purposes; accessed and misused by a rogue employee; breached by hackers; unwittingly exposed; or accessed by law enforcement or an intelligence agency without robust legal process.

source

a reply to: BlueAjah

Your source is saying the exact same thing as Aazadan did.

As for the second portion, "Even when identifiable data is collected and retained for limited purposes, consumers could reasonably worry that their data could later be used for new, unexpected, and unwanted purposes". Welcome to "later" with this new piece of legislation.