Senate Votes to Overturn Browsing History Privacy

US Senate votes to let internet providers share your web browsing history without permission

The US Senate has voted to overturn consumer-friendly internet privacy rules that would have prevented internet providers from sharing your web browsing history without permission.

The privacy rules, passed last year by the FCC, required internet providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T to get each customer’s permission before sharing personal information like which websites they visit. But internet providers want to be able to sell that data and use it to target ads, so they’ve been vocal about opposing the rules since around the time President Trump took office.

This is not the kind of deregulation that Americans are looking for.

Home of the free. Just need to agree with their definition of freedom.

GRR Spartan wrote:Home of the free.  Just need to agree with their definition of freedom.

We should take nominations for which senator will be the first to have his/her porn browsing history disclosed.

It's great how the GOP wants to stay out of our lives.

I'm thinking our resident idiot on here is thinking that's a good thing, cause the republicans did it.

Didn't we vote against this shit already? This fucking country, man.

Net Neutrality is an evil librul scheme guyz!!!

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Help me out, do republicans really want to take our privacy away but by bit? Why are they in board with this?

DWags wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Help me out, do republicans really want to take our privacy away but by bit? Why are they in board with this?

I've looked for answers to that and can't find a solid explanation. Except they're all crooked and have taken big money from the ISPs and marketers hungry for the data.

I'm really frustrated by this one.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

DWags wrote:

Help me out, do republicans really want to take our privacy away but by bit? Why are they in board with this?

I've looked for answers to that and can't find a solid explanation. Except they're all crooked and have taken big money from the ISPs and marketers hungry for the data.

I'm really frustrated by this one.

I think you nailed it on your first try. They'll claim its good for business because now you'll get offers on things you've shown an interest in.
<coughcough> bullshit <coughcough>

And we can only imagine how the new Administration has given carte blanche to the agencies charged with protecting the country. Snooping just got a lot more complex and invasive.

tGreenWay wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

I've looked for answers to that and can't find a solid explanation. Except they're all crooked and have taken big money from the ISPs and marketers hungry for the data.

I'm really frustrated by this one.

I think you nailed it on your first try. They'll claim its good for business because now you'll get offers on things you've shown an interest in.
<coughcough> bullshit <coughcough>

And we can only imagine how the new Administration has given carte blanche to the agencies charged with protecting the country. Snooping just got a lot more complex and invasive.

Probably best if I drop the im a homicidal maniac with a pit in my basement "schtick" huh geenway

How can we protect ourselves? Any way at all?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

I think you nailed it on your first try. They'll claim its good for business because now you'll get offers on things you've shown an interest in.
<coughcough> bullshit <coughcough>

And we can only imagine how the new Administration has given carte blanche to the agencies charged with protecting the country. Snooping just got a lot more complex and invasive.

Probably best if I drop the im a homicidal maniac with a pit in my basement "schtick" huh geenway

Too late. On the bright side, you're probably going to get some pretty good deals on shovels and guns.

DWags wrote:How can we protect ourselves? Any way at all?

Stay off the internet. (In other words, I don't know.)
All we can hope for is a national uproar that makes the House GOP take notice.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

I think you nailed it on your first try. They'll claim its good for business because now you'll get offers on things you've shown an interest in.
<coughcough> bullshit <coughcough>

And we can only imagine how the new Administration has given carte blanche to the agencies charged with protecting the country. Snooping just got a lot more complex and invasive.

Probably best if I drop the im a homicidal maniac with a pit in my basement "schtick" huh geenway

The 'schtick' is fine, just quit checking out those YouTube videos on how to conceal your 'hobbie'

tGreenWay wrote:

DWags wrote:How can we protect ourselves? Any way at all?

Stay off the internet. (In other words, I don't know.)
All we can hope for is a national uproar that makes the House GOP take notice.

Bahahaha, like they give a Fuck about their constituents that don't donate.

So the government my internet history is fair game. Does that apply to Congress and The First Family?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

I think you nailed it on your first try. They'll claim its good for business because now you'll get offers on things you've shown an interest in.
<coughcough> bullshit <coughcough>

And we can only imagine how the new Administration has given carte blanche to the agencies charged with protecting the country. Snooping just got a lot more complex and invasive.

Probably best if I drop the im a homicidal maniac with a pit in my basement "schtick" huh geenway

I'm gonna be sad when you get sent to a federal "pound me in the ass" prison. Just kidding. Enjoy shower time buddy!

I want to know what the Republicans on our board have to say about this.

The "party of freedom" continuously shows they don't give a fuck about our freedoms.

AnomanderRake wrote:I want to know what the Republicans on our board have to say about this.

The "party of freedom" continuously shows they don't give a fuck about our freedoms.

I predict silence.

Does the passage of this bill deplete any "pork" that was in the law as it was attached to it? Sometimes laws are changed by the party in power to erase pork spending and shit line that that these fuckers always attach to bills.

I just don't get why 52 republicans did this.

DWags wrote:Does the passage of this bill deplete any "pork" that was in the law as it was attached to it? Sometimes laws are changed by the party in power to erase pork spending and shit line that that these fuckers always attach to bills.

I just don't get why 52 republicans did this.

Unlikely. As I understand it, all they did was vote to overturn and FCC regulation. The FCC wouldn't have had any pork in their regulation.

Yay, now the house of cable representatives.

Repealing Broadband Privacy Rules, Congress Sides with the Cable and Telephone Industry

Putting the interests of Internet providers over Internet users, Congress today voted to erase landmark broadband privacy protections. If the bill is signed into law, companies like Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon will have free rein to hijack your searches, sell your data, and hammer you with unwanted advertisements. Worst yet, consumers will now have to pay a privacy tax by relying on VPNs to safeguard their information. That is a poor substitute for legal protections.

Make no mistake, by a vote of 215 to 205 a slim majority of the House of Representatives have decided to give our personal information to an already highly profitable cable and telephone industry so that they can increase their profits with our data. The vote broke along party lines, with Republicans voting yes, although 15 Republicans broke ranks to vote against the repeal with the Democrats.

House Roll Call

Floyd Robertson wrote:

DWags wrote:

Help me out, do republicans really want to take our privacy away but by bit? Why are they in board with this?

I've looked for answers to that and can't find a solid explanation. Except they're all crooked and have taken big money from the ISPs and marketers hungry for the data.

I'm really frustrated by this one.

They tend to talk about these things before they vote on them... did any of them actually provide a plausible reason for this?

Floyd Robertson wrote:House Roll Call

That party that protects our freedoms. Just ask them.

They just won't catch on. Not deplorable just dumb.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

I've looked for answers to that and can't find a solid explanation. Except they're all crooked and have taken big money from the ISPs and marketers hungry for the data.

I'm really frustrated by this one.

They tend to talk about these things before they vote on them... did any of them actually provide a plausible reason for this?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&

Fuck you peasant.

You know what would be super anti establishment, populist and for the little guy? Vetoing this. At least he wouldn't be 100% full of shit.

He won't, since he's 100% full of shit.

Now its legal for your internet provider to sell your web history to employers or employment agencies and you don't get hired because they see something they don't like.

In the good old days (last month) that information was not for sale.

GRR Spartan wrote:Home of the free.  Just need to agree with their definition of freedom.

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

"Definition of freedom", indeed...

xsanguine wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Home of the free.  Just need to agree with their definition of freedom.

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

"Definition of freedom", indeed...

Wow. You're cool with Republicans selling your personal info.

InTenSity 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...

Wow. You're cool with Republicans selling your personal info.

wat?

I guess if this is how it works, intensity, you're cool with forcing people to fight wars on the government's behalf. Amirite?

xsanguine wrote:I guess if this is how it works, intensity, you're cool with forcing people to fight wars on the government's behalf. Amirite?

I'm just not sure how you justify whats been done because someone else wanted to bring back the draft.
In one case an actual real thing has happened and on the other side someone who had no power supports a draft.
You don't care.

InTenSity wrote:

xsanguine wrote:I guess if this is how it works, intensity, you're cool with forcing people to fight wars on the government's behalf. Amirite?

I'm just not sure how you justify whats been done because someone else wanted to bring back the draft.
In one case an actual real thing has happened and on the other side someone who had no power supports a draft.
You don't care.

GRR didn't say he supports the draft. He said he supports forcing everyone, upon age 18 to serve (I believe he said 4 years) in the military. Against your will. By punishment of enslavement. The draft would be bad enough.

I didn't say anything in support or against this bill. I'm simply pointing out GRR's perpetual hypocrisy.

You're right on one thing, Intensity. I don't care.

I don't trust the government or any corporations. They're the same entity, in my opinion.

Get a VPN.

xsanguine wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Home of the free.  Just need to agree with their definition of freedom.

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.

Pretty sure that thread would be called "why not being forced by threat of enslavement to participate in rich men's conquests is a good thing".

You would be arguing why being forced by the threat of enslavement to participate in rich men's conquests is a good thing, of course.