Senate Votes 50-48 To Allow ISPs To Sell Your Data

[roblov1]

This is such a deliberately inflammatory article that is completely misstating what net neutrality was about.

Net Neutrality was all about government control of internet content and for the government to determine where bandwith is allowed to be used. They wanted to tax netflix and other high bandwith providers as well as limiting access to popular sites.

Such awful propaganda being spread under the cover of protecting people.

 

[Wisecracker]

R-E-M-A-I-N C-A-L-M
Everything will be alright, America. Equal Justice Under Law. We can appeal to the ...

Oh. Wait ...

 

[ravewulf]

This is such a deliberately inflammatory article that is completely misstating what net neutrality was about.

Net Neutrality was all about government control of internet content and for the government to determine where bandwith is allowed to be used. They wanted to tax netflix and other high bandwith providers as well as limiting access to popular sites.

Such awful propaganda being spread under the cover of protecting people.

I don't know how, but you managed to get it completely backwards (unless you're trolling on purpose). Internet service providers (corporations) wanted to charged high bandwidth sites more for priority access. This fits in with the profit motive that all corporations have and was anti-consumer. It was the previous FCC that wanted to put a stop to that and make sure all internet traffic was treated exactly the same without prioritization.

 

[damric]

With Trump in power the US is regressing a lot faster than I would have though possible.

It's very possible that all of his controversial tweets and antics are just smoke cover to sneak through legislation like this. I'd say the distraction is working, because I do not see any coverage of this story on the top 5 news media outlets.

 

[Nathan A Thompson]

I'm conservative, and this is ridiculous. ISPs have natural monopolies. They should not be allowed jurisdiction or control over what you see and hear online. Freedom of speech is being infringed upon. Guns are becoming increasingly necessary.

 

[damric]

I'm conservative, and this is ridiculous. ISPs have natural monopolies. They should not be allowed jurisdiction or control over what you see and hear online. Freedom of speech is being infringed upon. Guns are becoming increasingly necessary.

Our two main parties flushed those ideals down the toilet in favor of donor money.

 

[bit_user]

Guns are becoming increasingly necessary.

Wait, wut?!? So, you're going to shoot the cable guy, who's just working a crap job to pay his rent? Or you're going to get in a firefight with the security guards at the corporate HQ of the cable company, throwing away your life and the lives of more folks just working a job to get by?

Please help me see how guns fix anything about this! I'm not anti-gun, so much as simply confounded by the idea that guns are somehow the answer to this.

Newsflash: you can't take down the elite with some guns. Even if you do manage to kill some lobbyists or Telco CEOs, there are dozens more just lining up to take their place, and then they'll have even better security measures. If you somehow manage to turn the country into a bloodbath with some kind of revolution, how do you figure it won't just turn into an even more unequal place, when the dust settles?

The brilliant thing about our republic is that you can change things without violence. The people have been getting outmaneuvered by the special interests, for a while, but it's still very possible to turn things around.

 

[Danilushka]

@Tomsummer: Not a very accurate comparison.
One can easily abstain from Google and Facebook.

Facebook you can abstain from and I do.
Search engines, however, are fundamental and if m ost people don't use Google, they'll be using Bing or Yahoo or some other search engine who collects and sells their data.
Use Ghostery or similar http/https connection watchdog or TCP/IP monitor like Wireshark and see just how many web sites track every click you make now in a browser—any browser despite your privacy settings! And your browser knows who you are and a lot more and it shares it like a cheap whore.
Why do you think privacy statements are many pages long, full of arcane and dissembling terms, and revised seemingly constantly?
Visa and Mastercard and your bank sell your spending and income data already
Any privacy you think you have unless you use a fake registration and name, a VPN, and Tor to work hard at anonymity is simply illusory already and has been for years. And even then you not fully anonymous.

Truth is, this just allows ISPs to do what every other business you are involved with does already.
You can not lose again what you've already lost.

 

[krissrock]

fuckin replublicans!

 

[krissrock]

fuckin republicans!

 

[willgart]

so we pay our cable and on top of this they'll resell our data!!!
if at least they force the ISP to do: free access and you can resell the data.
VPN and AD blocker will become more and more popular.

 

[problematiq]

On WHAT planet is it beneficial to the people to allow ISP's to sell their data? When was the last time you saw a bill being passed for the good of the people?

 

[problematiq]

Stupid politicians... We need to have a vote to get rid of THEM!

We do.
Every couple of years.

Interestingly, reelection rates for US congress hover around 90%.
What's wrong with this picture?

I think the problem is, the people that are right for the job, don't want the job. Kinda like parenting now days, by majority the people who would raise kids well are the ones not having children.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Stupid politicians... We need to have a vote to get rid of THEM!

Stupid people voted these people into office, because they were told the party of corporate power and no consumer rights cares about the little guy. They were easily duped, now we all suffer for their poor critical-thinking skills.

This is great news for VPN providers, great news for corporations that want to exploit Internet users, and terrible news for the rest of us.

Well, stupid for the fact they refuse to be educated in the truth. However, don't let the other party fool you either. THEY are just as bad, if not worse, for putting their own agenda above the little guy.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

@TOMSUMMER

Last I checked, Americans have the fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Aside from the obvious fact that violating privacy violates liberty let's focus on life.
To live you need food water and shelter. This means you need money. Therefore you have a fundamental right to have a job, if you choose.

DO NOT forget the rights specified in the U.S. Constitution (For US Citizens)... The rights are specific. Those not specified are left to the States, per US Constitution.

How does one get a job? They apply online, get called into an interview on the phone, and then they go in for a interview.

Therefore it follows that if you have the right to live, you have the right to access the tools that are necessarily to live - specifically communication and transportation.

Ahhh... but there lies the fallacy. BEFORE the internet became what it is... You physically went to your prospective employer, and turned in an application and/or your resumé. They then manually reviewed it and made their decision. The "right" to employment existed pre-computer age. The internet, and computers are just tools, a more convenient way to do it. They do not define the "right."

Surely it wouldn't be acceptable if comcast used it's unlimited access to internet traffic to steal trade secrets from its competitors, or simply block them from the internet entirely? What if Verizon or AT&T decided to block citizens from calling their congressman to complain about it, or sold a list of the people complaining to a political party or foreign government?

That would be unethical.

 

[TJ Hooker]

How does one get a job? They apply online, get called into an interview on the phone, and then they go in for a interview.

Therefore it follows that if you have the right to live, you have the right to access the tools that are necessarily to live - specifically communication and transportation.

Ahhh... but there lies the fallacy. BEFORE the internet became what it is... You physically went to your prospective employer, and turned in an application and/or your resumé. They then manually reviewed it and made their decision. The "right" to employment existed pre-computer age. The internet, and computers are just tools, a more convenient way to do it. They do not define the "right."

Just because that's how things used to work doesn't mean that's how they still work. At one time phones and email didn't exist, doesn't mean that having one or both of those things isn't pretty important to being able to get a job these days. Many employers will try to insist you use their online application portal when applying for jobs. I remember going to career fairs at university and when I'd try to hand a resume to someone at a booth as often as not they'd tell me to just apply online.

Is it impossible to get a job without the internet? Absolutely not. Does not having the internet put you at a considerable disadvantage in a job market that's probably already pretty competitive? I certainly think so.

 

[falchard]

I think they forget that many of these laws are already in place with other agencies or other regulations within the FCC. Using a persons data, and inserting ads is more of a hypothetical result. Companies have the power to do many things, but often do not. I would not get caught up in the 'consequences' that may happen if a company is given greater freedom. These hypotheticals are just used as excuses for government action.
The privacy provisions proposed by the FCC would be difficult to implement and are vague which is why the majority of ISPs object to it. They would be spending a lot of money making sure they are in compliance.

 

[problematiq]

I think they forget that many of these laws are already in place with other agencies or other regulations within the FCC. Using a persons data, and inserting ads is more of a hypothetical result. Companies have the power to do many things, but often do not. I would not get caught up in the 'consequences' that may happen if a company is given greater freedom. These hypotheticals are just used as excuses for government action.
The privacy provisions proposed by the FCC would be difficult to implement and are vague which is why the majority of ISPs object to it. They would be spending a lot of money making sure they are in compliance.

I understand what you are saying, there are some regulations in the energy sector that cause more headache then help. That being said, it's kinda hard not to be in compliance with not taking money in exchange for browsing information. It's not hard to be in compliance with the law to NOT sell other peoples prescription drugs.

 

[Danilushka]

fuckin republicans!

The Democrats did this: they alienated a broad swath of America with their pandering to illegals, Black Lives Matter, War on Police, ignoring the Bill of Rights, sending working people the tab for increasing big government and socialist income redistribution theft and nominating a corrupt liar who sold access to the office of the secretary of state for her own enrichment. People who want smaller government, respect for all rights in the Bill of Rights, and getting the government out of the charity and wealth redistribution business on the backs of working people had to choose the lesser of two evils. Fucking statist commie socialist fascist DemocRats left us no choice. Sanders would have turned the USA into the next Venezuela. The Obama legacy, Clinton, and Sanders needed to be kept out of power because power corrupts.

 

[falchard]

They are overturning the whole framework, not just the bits and pieces they don't like. The framework basically makes the ISP responsible for any information they may obtain about a customer and what happens to that information. It's a bit vague in its wording and limitation which opens the door for regulatory interpretation.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

They are just voting along party lines. I doubt many of them even read the details on what they were voting for. They are getting paid for free.

Parties are dumb. I would never associate myself with a political party because then I would subject my own will into the hands of the elite. I will not be a supporter, I will not be an opposer. I will just be. To most people extremely loyal to a political party, it is merely a sports competition, and they want to win, and beating the opponent releases endorphins. They want to advance the party rather than the country. Political parties infringe on people's independent thought process by inferring to them how they should think and act. It is cultist behavior on a more professional, concealed level.

 

[problematiq]

They are just voting along party lines. I doubt many of them even read the details on what they were voting for. They are getting paid for free.

Parties are dumb. I would never associate myself with a political party because then I would subject my own will into the hands of the elite. I will not be a supporter, I will not be an opposer. I will just be. To most people extremely loyal to a political party, it is merely a sports competition, and they want to win, and beating the opponent releases endorphins. They want to advance the party rather than the country. Political parties infringe on people's independent thought process by inferring to them how they should think and act. It is cultist behavior on a more professional, concealed level.

It's one of thoes things where you are suppose to join the party that share your views, instead it's join a party and you conform to their views.

 

[canadianvice]

@Tomsummer: Not a very accurate comparison.
One can easily abstain from Google and Facebook.

Facebook you can abstain from and I do.
Search engines, however, are fundamental and if m ost people don't use Google, they'll be using Bing or Yahoo or some other search engine who collects and sells their data.
Use Ghostery or similar http/https connection watchdog or TCP/IP monitor like Wireshark and see just how many web sites track every click you make now in a browser—any browser despite your privacy settings! And your browser knows who you are and a lot more and it shares it like a cheap whore.
Why do you think privacy statements are many pages long, full of arcane and dissembling terms, and revised seemingly constantly?
Visa and Mastercard and your bank sell your spending and income data already
Any privacy you think you have unless you use a fake registration and name, a VPN, and Tor to work hard at anonymity is simply illusory already and has been for years. And even then you not fully anonymous.

Truth is, this just allows ISPs to do what every other business you are involved with does already.
You can not lose again what you've already lost.

There are adblocking scripts and Do Not Track options for much of that, and DuckDuckGo comes up as a decent search engine that does not track its userbase.

It's hard, not impossible. Also, since when has "Shit already sucks, so let's just let more people do the shit" been a good philosophy for policy making?

@Tomsummer:

For many it has become a fundamental part of their integration into society. I literally cannot apply for most jobs without an internet connection. They'll refuse paper apps. That integration is a major part of happiness and a huge contributor to human progress.

Yes. It's not a right like being allowed to live, or having freedom of religion, but it's still very important, to the point that many people are starting to consider that it essentially should be.

Either way, Google and FB have your info.... since when has "People already do shitty things, so let's let more people do those shitty things" ever been a personally beneficial policy?

Google is free. FB is free. They have to make their money somewhere, and as is often said, "if you're not paying, you're the product", but it's worth noting there are scripts and many tools to help make this tracking much harder.

However, none of them work at the ISP level, and further, an ISP is already being compensated (typically well beyond costs) for providing the service. There's no real justification for them selling information - unless they're going to pass those savings on to the consumers.


Either way, what I really don't get: on a personal level, is this beneficial to you? Do you see yourself being happy about them doing it? Indifferent, maybe, but ultimately, it's not actually good for you.

Why vote to enable it then? That's like me voting for the tax cut party when I'm barely putting food in my mouth. They stand opposed to personal interests, so there's no particular logic in enabling them.

 

[canadianvice]

fuckin republicans!

The Democrats did this: they alienated a broad swath of America with their pandering to illegals, Black Lives Matter, War on Police, ignoring the Bill of Rights, sending working people the tab for increasing big government and socialist income redistribution theft and nominating a corrupt liar who sold access to the office of the secretary of state for her own enrichment. People who want smaller government, respect for all rights in the Bill of Rights, and getting the government out of the charity and wealth redistribution business on the backs of working people had to choose the lesser of two evils. Fucking statist commie socialist fascist DemocRats left us no choice. Sanders would have turned the USA into the next Venezuela. The Obama legacy, Clinton, and Sanders needed to be kept out of power because power corrupts.

It's really not that black and white, and seeing it that way is exactly how you've all been tricked into not only licking the boots of those in power, but violently demanding your right to do so.

The dems, the republicans.... they're not working for you. Yes, do continue pretending that the pancreatic cancer is so much better than the leukemia, really. It only works to their advantage when things are so simplified and stratified by division.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Is it impossible to get a job without the internet? Absolutely not. Does not having the internet put you at a considerable disadvantage in a job market that's probably already pretty competitive? I certainly think so.

Oh I agree it can be a considerable disadvantage. It's a disadvantage MANY suffer with. (many in this case != a majority)... Those who can, work around it by going to libraries, or friends who do have internet.

My point being, it is only mandatory for survival as we impose it to be. It would be a severe inconvenience if the internet was to disappear tomorrow, but we'd survive it in the long run.