Senate Votes to Overturn Browsing History Privacy

Donald Trump is president and you still believe forcing everyone into the military at age 18 is a moral thing to do...

Statism really is a disease, a mental one.

How long before employers can pay ISPs to get a summary of your internet browsing history for pre-employment screenings? We're all fucked from all the shit posting on the swill guys.

Man fuck the government.

Also X - I know this is off topic but I think GRR supports mandatory military service as a means to an end. That end actually being less rampant use of the military because voters and their children would be required to put their own lives at risk. It's kind of a silly position because I think there are better ways to achieve that end that don't involve enslaving your own people, but I see where he's coming from.

AnomanderRake wrote:How long before employers can pay ISPs to get a summary of your internet browsing history for pre-employment screenings? We're all fucked from all the shit posting on the swill guys.

Man fuck the government.

Also X - I know this is off topic but I think GRR supports mandatory military service as a means to an end. That end actually being less rampant use of the military because voters and their children would be required to put their own lives at risk. It's kind of a silly position because I think there are better ways to achieve that end that don't involve enslaving your own people, but I see where he's coming from.

I could see where Eric Rudolph was coming from but he was still very wrong. It's simply an unethical solution... this means to an end... if that's in fact his primary intention (which I suspect this is secondary).

Regardless, it's not "silly", it's plain evil. Every sane person wants to achieve that same end you're speaking of... it's just sadistic to think you need to force people at gunpoint to point guns at others or to even consider forcing people at gunpoint to point guns at others an option.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Man fuck the government.

Yes

GRR Spartan wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Didn't you actually state that you support forcing people to serve in the government's military, though?

"Definition of freedom", indeed...

There is a difference in being a taker citizen being allowed all the freedoms including voting for legislators who vote for war efforts while cheering an all volunteer military while thinking participation by paying taxes (which are always too high for many) equates to supporting the country without military service.  

There is no way we would have had a ten year war in Iraq and Afghanistan if your family and others  knew their votes would have sent their loved ones into harms way.  

This change allows employers, lending institutions, political organizations access to your online activity.  For example you decide you want to look at a motorcycle /4 wheeler on line.  The insurance industry develops an algorithm that relates your looking to putting you into a higher risk category.

You want to argue why manditory military service isn't a good thing start another thread.  I'll play.

Mandatory military service is a terrible idea that only appeals to the feeble-minded elderly. Dementia is terrifying.

How's this for a bit of irony?

Lawmakers scathing over FBI’s facial recognition database

So, they scream privacy over the FBI collecting data for facial recognition, but my web browsing history will be available to anyone who wants to pay for it?

I guess the ISP's profitability is more important than national security and safety of the American public.

I bet if you asked the fine, patriotic, freedom-lovin' republicans they'd tell you that they're all for "limited government"..

Cameron wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:

There is a difference in being a taker citizen being allowed all the freedoms including voting for legislators who vote for war efforts while cheering an all volunteer military while thinking  participation by paying taxes (which are always too high for many) equates to supporting the country without military service.  

There is no way we would have had a ten year war in Iraq and Afghanistan if your family and others  knew their votes would have sent their loved ones into harms way.  

This change allows employers, lending institutions, political organizations access to your online activity.  For example you decide you want to look at a motorcycle /4 wheeler on line.  The insurance industry develops an algorithm that relates your looking to putting you into a higher risk category.

You want to argue why manditory military service isn't a good thing start another thread.  I'll play.

Mandatory military service is a terrible idea that only appeals to the feeble-minded elderly. Dementia is terrifying.

Whats the matter Cameron?  Want to start with insults?  How about I toss elitism and cowardice your way.  That's the way to start an adult convesation.  Start a thread on manditory military service and I'll play sans insults.  Don't hijack this one.

Its funny all the small government types who wave the flag and talk freedom voted in unison to give the major ISP/wireless provders permission to sell their data bases with few restrictions.  

Everyone with a clue and a Facebook account is advised to "clean it up" so their employer or prospective employers don't eliminate them based on whats posted.

 We have an administration where profit has been the goal regardless of how the business and legal landscape needs to be manipulated from the President, his family to his cabinet appointments.  The US Senate Republicans just voted to give corporations an open Pandora's box to further minimize risk.  

Heads they win.  Tails we lose.

xsanguine wrote:Donald Trump is president and you still believe forcing everyone into the military at age 18 is a moral thing to do...

Statism really is a disease, a mental one.

Start a thread on this one and I'll join in.

The subject of this thread is important to keep at the forefront.

Honest question, as I don't follow internet privacy stuff that much, but don't companies already sell a ton of what we do online anyway (google and others)? So this just expands what is out there to be sold?

Also, if companies buy this kind of information to make employment tests, how will they really know who's who in a household with multiple people. Just because my IP address comes up with a lot of viewing to Viking Midget Porn (hypothetically) doesn't mean that it was me, as opposed to my wife, someone that might rent a room from us, a neighbor using my wifi, etc. Seems like companies could open themselves up to lawsuits by making hiring decisions based on the habits of what could be any number of people.

And for the same reason above (that different people use the internet of a particular house), does this mean that I'll get ads served based on Bob The Renter's habits, my wife's online shopping habit, my kid's Disney shows, etc.?

Just trying to find some reason to not be freaked out about this.

Why do people in this country protest everyone except Congress?

MiamiSpartan wrote:Honest question, as I don't follow internet privacy stuff that much, but don't companies already sell a ton of what we do online anyway (google and others)? So this just expands what is out there to be sold?

Also, if companies buy this kind of information to make employment tests, how will they really know who's who in a household with multiple people. Just because my IP address comes up with a lot of viewing to Viking Midget Porn (hypothetically) doesn't mean that it was me, as opposed to my wife, someone that might rent a room from us, a neighbor using my wifi, etc. Seems like companies could open themselves up to lawsuits by making hiring decisions based on the habits of what could be any number of people.

And for the same reason above (that different people use the internet of a particular house), does this mean that I'll get ads served based on Bob The Renter's habits, my wife's online shopping habit, my kid's Disney shows, etc.?

Just trying to find some reason to not be freaked out about this.

Yes, and FB has been doing this for years (kind of) by seeing what you 'like' on FB, and then having targeted ads.

Seems like it already has been going on for a while.

MiamiSpartan wrote:Honest question, as I don't follow internet privacy stuff that much, but don't companies already sell a ton of what we do online anyway (google and others)? So this just expands what is out there to be sold?

Also, if companies buy this kind of information to make employment tests, how will they really know who's who in a household with multiple people. Just because my IP address comes up with a lot of viewing to Viking Midget Porn (hypothetically) doesn't mean that it was me, as opposed to my wife, someone that might rent a room from us, a neighbor using my wifi, etc. Seems like companies could open themselves up to lawsuits by making hiring decisions based on the habits of what could be any number of people.

And for the same reason above (that different people use the internet of a particular house), does this mean that I'll get ads served based on Bob The Renter's habits, my wife's online shopping habit, my kid's Disney shows, etc.?

Just trying to find some reason to not be freaked out about this.

If companies do use the sort of information you're talking about when making hiring decisions, do you think they would be at all transparent with the candidates who are eliminated from consideration on this basis? I doubt it very much. If this becomes reality, I can't imagine anyone would ever be told "we didn't hire you because we saw the weird porn you look at," even if that is in fact the reason. You'd just not get the job and not really know why, you'd have no idea that it was your wife's viking midget porn habit making you unemployable.

The_Dude wrote:Why do people in this country protest everyone except Congress?

Fight for the Future to unleash billboards to expose Congress members who vote to gut Internet privacy rules

NigelUno wrote:

The_Dude wrote:Why do people in this country protest everyone except Congress?

Fight for the Future to unleash billboards to expose Congress members who vote to gut Internet privacy rules

Here's when people made tons of phone calls about health care

And then there were the protests of town halls. Honestly, what a stupid comment by the dude. Must've been a topic on rush's show today

The_Dude wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:Honest question, as I don't follow internet privacy stuff that much, but don't companies already sell a ton of what we do online anyway (google and others)? So this just expands what is out there to be sold?

Also, if companies buy this kind of information to make employment tests, how will they really know who's who in a household with multiple people. Just because my IP address comes up with a lot of viewing to Viking Midget Porn (hypothetically) doesn't mean that it was me, as opposed to my wife, someone that might rent a room from us, a neighbor using my wifi, etc. Seems like companies could open themselves up to lawsuits by making hiring decisions based on the habits of what could be any number of people.

And for the same reason above (that different people use the internet of a particular house), does this mean that I'll get ads served based on Bob The Renter's habits, my wife's online shopping habit, my kid's Disney shows, etc.?

Just trying to find some reason to not be freaked out about this.

Yes, and FB has been doing this for years (kind of) by seeing what you 'like' on FB, and then having targeted ads.

Seems like it already has been going on for a while.

But this sounds like it could theoretically kick it up a notch. You can choose not to be on Facebook. You can choose not to use Google (to some extent). In fact, when you do use those sites, you accept the terms and conditions that allow them to sell your info. This would mean that any site you use, regardless of that's site's privacy policies, are open to be sold. Short of using Tor or something, the only other option to not have your online habits sold is to not use the internet at all.

Cameron wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:Honest question, as I don't follow internet privacy stuff that much, but don't companies already sell a ton of what we do online anyway (google and others)? So this just expands what is out there to be sold?

Also, if companies buy this kind of information to make employment tests, how will they really know who's who in a household with multiple people. Just because my IP address comes up with a lot of viewing to Viking Midget Porn (hypothetically) doesn't mean that it was me, as opposed to my wife, someone that might rent a room from us, a neighbor using my wifi, etc. Seems like companies could open themselves up to lawsuits by making hiring decisions based on the habits of what could be any number of people.

And for the same reason above (that different people use the internet of a particular house), does this mean that I'll get ads served based on Bob The Renter's habits, my wife's online shopping habit, my kid's Disney shows, etc.?

Just trying to find some reason to not be freaked out about this.

If companies do use the sort of information you're talking about when making hiring decisions, do you think they would be at all transparent with the candidates who are eliminated from consideration on this basis? I doubt it very much. If this becomes reality, I can't imagine anyone would ever be told "we didn't hire you because we saw the weird porn you look at," even if that is in fact the reason. You'd just not get the job and not really know why, you'd have no idea that it was your wife's viking midget porn habit making you unemployable.

They don't have to be transparent about it, but things leak, get found out, etc., and at some point I could see this being challenged legally.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

Yes, and FB has been doing this for years (kind of) by seeing what you 'like' on FB, and then having targeted ads.

Seems like it already has been going on for a while.

But this sounds like it could theoretically kick it up a notch. You can choose not to be on Facebook. You can choose not to use Google (to some extent). In fact, when you do use those sites, you accept the terms and conditions that allow them to sell your info. This would mean that any site you use, regardless of that's site's privacy policies, are open to be sold. Short of using Tor or something, the only other option to not have your online habits sold is to not use the internet at all.

I believe that is the difference. Now it is your ISP, the one that you have to use, that many people don't have a choice in who they use, that can sell the information. Not only that but they don't have to tell you they are selling your information. Basically Congress and the Senate Republican's sold out for about $8 million dollars to protect American Citizens Corporations.

it's gonna be funny when some 13 year old kid hacks into the sexual predators search history and publishes it.

Oh - and I'll save you republicans some time.. it'll be "fake news".

MiamiSpartan wrote:Honest question, as I don't follow internet privacy stuff that much, but don't companies already sell a ton of what we do online anyway (google and others)? So this just expands what is out there to be sold?

Also, if companies buy this kind of information to make employment tests, how will they really know who's who in a household with multiple people. Just because my IP address comes up with a lot of viewing to Viking Midget Porn (hypothetically) doesn't mean that it was me, as opposed to my wife, someone that might rent a room from us, a neighbor using my wifi, etc. Seems like companies could open themselves up to lawsuits by making hiring decisions based on the habits of what could be any number of people.

And for the same reason above (that different people use the internet of a particular house), does this mean that I'll get ads served based on Bob The Renter's habits, my wife's online shopping habit, my kid's Disney shows, etc.?

Just trying to find some reason to not be freaked out about this.

I sure as hell don't know all the answers to those questions, but I still think some freaking out is healthy.

There's a good link in this Krebs article, worth the read itself, on picking a VPN provider.

Post-FCC Privacy Rules, Should You VPN?

It will be great if some outfit through legal purchase gets the web history data of the US Senators and Congressmen who passed this legislation and publishes it.

InTenSity wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
But this sounds like it could theoretically kick it up a notch. You can choose not to be on Facebook. You can choose not to use Google (to some extent). In fact, when you do use those sites, you accept the terms and conditions that allow them to sell your info. This would mean that any site you use, regardless of that's site's privacy policies, are open to be sold. Short of using Tor or something, the only other option to not have your online habits sold is to not use the internet at all.

I believe that is the difference. Now it is your ISP, the one that you have to use, that many people don't have a choice in who they use, that can sell the information. Not only that but they don't have to tell you they are selling your information. Basically Congress and the Senate Republican's sold out for about $8 million dollars to protect American Citizens Corporations.

You do have a choice. Many people have the ability to choose between multiple ISPs or there's not using any ISPs at all. Or you could use the library's ISPs.

Access to the internet is not a right.

President Trump just signed off on killing your Internet privacy protections

The party of freedom. Unless big business needs something.

xsanguine wrote:

InTenSity wrote:
I believe that is the difference. Now it is your ISP, the one that you have to use, that many people don't have a choice in who they use, that can sell the information. Not only that but they don't have to tell you they are selling your information. Basically Congress and the Senate Republican's sold out for about $8 million dollars to protect American Citizens Corporations.

You do have a choice. Many people have the ability to choose between multiple ISPs or there's not using any ISPs at all. Or you could use the library's ISPs.

Access to the internet is not a right.

Well that's all BS. Without the internet you can hardly function today. Is it possible, yes, but most of the time that person is labelled as going 'off the grid'. There is no way to not be connected to the internet, unless you are a bomber living in Montana who rails against society. Going to the library! Hah! The internet is such an integral part of the world today, there is no going back, but you continue to think its a privilege.

Go to any library and you are logged in with a library card and every library I've been in since 911 on business or going with my kids has multiple video cameras showing who's sitting where.

Internet is a great thing that got monetized a long time ago. This just furthers monetization for providers. Most have a monopoly or oligopoly depending on your address.

For example in Boston you have a choice unless you share an address with a university or college (and there are a lot of them). In those places Comcast got into exclusive arrangements with the schools and negotiated set asides for neighboring municipalities.

LightSpeed in Lansing has an easier time because the BWL has been more accommodating letting them share easements than Consumers Power and other providers who have agreements with ATT / another telco and a cable company.

For those of you who thought your vote for Trump was a statement over the status quo. You all got a pig in a poke.