• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hubbl3

Unconfirmed Member
I guarantee the very moment some group buys and publishes the Internet history of these republican Congressmen, they'll write a bill changing the law.

Nah, they'll just create some "Blue Lives Matter"-esque amendment that makes it a crime to purchase, share or search a Congressman's private data.
 
Could someone challenge this using something like HIPA regulations? Like if I go to webmd that should be confidential bit of browsing.
 

manakel

Member
Could someone challenge this using something like HIPA regulations? Like if I go to webmd that should be confidential bit of browsing.
Or even FERPA. What if I'm accessing my grades/transcripts online? Or typing up reports of students I work with on the online service we use?
 

shandy706

Member
I expect to get paid for my contribution.

I'm the one doing the work you bastards. You can't sell my crap without me getting a cut.....haha. Class action lawsuit time.
 

RCSI

Member
The most troubling aspect is the collection of information and use of encryption on that collection. I expect to see data breaches occurring for those purchasing or storing this information.
 
So this isn't even anonymous data, like "what sites do people in Washington visit" but you can actually purchase data with the names attached?
 

studyguy

Member
Spicer just asked moments ago what the president thought on signing this bill and what the whitehouse rhetoric was on who this benefited beyond corporations.

Spicer didn't even do his word salad answer, just said the WH had a statement out on it, or would put one out. Moved on to the next question.

Basically get fucked.
 
So is there any kind of legal argument that could be made that customers should be compensated for these companies making money with their personal data? I feel like if someone could successfully make that argument it would shut down this shit real quick.
 
So is there any kind of legal argument that could be made that customers should be compensated for these companies making money with their personal data? I feel like if someone could successfully make that argument it would shut down this shit real quick.

You give up those rights when you click AGREE to any EULA or sign any contract with a provider.

If you don't want your personal data shared, you'll have to cancel your ISP and stop using the internet altogether.
 
Impossible! How can they have the moral high ground, but still cheat on their significant other? Especially, if their base is the religious right.

They justify it with "God forgives me". He doesn't forgive others however. Everyone else is a godless, perverted heathen. But they're holy and by working on their relationship with Jesus, one day they'll kick this vice.
 
You know Russia is rubbing their hands together right now thinking about all the Kompromat Blackmail they'll have LEGAL access to now.

Russia will be buying all the top politicians' browsing histories and simply handing them over to Wikileaks to publish. No hacking required.
 

OraleeWey

Member
What does this mean for the average Joe? Could this mean that the average Joe could be denied a a job opportunity because his employer bought his web browsing history and didn't like what he saw?

Who does this mostly affect? Am I able to buy anyone's browsing history of any of you guys and vice versa?
 
What does this mean for the average Joe? Could this mean that the average Joe could be denied a a job opportunity because his employer bought his web browsing history and didn't like what he saw?

Who does this mostly affect? Am I able to buy anyone's browsing history of any of you guys and vice versa?

I'm really curious about the specifics.

How much is this information going to cost?
Is it tiered? Would Average Joe's data cost as much as Barack Obama's?
Is this information available to anyone who has the cash?

What a fucking mess.

Also, denying somebody a job based on their browser history could be grounds for a lawsuit.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
So, uh, how did this get past the Senate? Why didn't we filibuster it? I've seen no mention of reconciliation or cloture... did the Democrats not even try to stop this?
 

Exis

Member
Could someone challenge this using something like HIPA regulations? Like if I go to webmd that should be confidential bit of browsing.

You sir, are a genius! I work in tech around HIPA and will gladly sue when my ISP sells information... hell everything I do for work will need to go through VPN now.
 

BasicMath

Member
I disagreed upon entering the thread but agreed once I read the bits of the article posted.

The gentleman from Texas is absolutely right. Why is the government picking winners and losers? Why is it ok to have privacy for the connection but not the OS, software and other digital services? Just make the ISP update their terms of service or overhaul the current system we have.
 

geomon

Member
Here’s how much Comcast paid members of Congress to sell your browser history

However, one bit of consolation lies in the transparency of campaign finance records. Thanks to data compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, we can find out exactly how much each member of Congress who voted to kill internet privacy received in campaign contributions from the telecom industry in the most recent election cycle. The donation amounts include industry PACs as well as donations from individual employees of telecom giants.

Highlights: In the Senate, John Thune (R-South Dakota) received the most money from the telecommunications industry, with over $215,000 in donations from industry PACs and employees. Senator John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) sold out for the least, voting to kill internet privacy rules for just $1,000 in donations. It’s also important to note that Sen. Luther Strange (R-Alabama) received $0 in campaign donations, as he was recently appointed by Alabama Governor Robert Bentley to replace Sen. Jeff Sessions after he was appointed Trump’s Attorney General.

In the House, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon) is the favorite of the telecom industry, with over $155,000 in donations in the most recent election cycle. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana) sold out to the industry for a paltry $300.

Read the full list of donations below:

Full list of these fucking sellouts is there.
 

BasicMath

Member
I would like more people to weigh in on this. I feel like this is true.
Depends really.

If you use Tor or even learn how to use it, you're on a list. End of story.

If you're using a foreign VPN or service, your communications are being saved. They probably won't look at it though unless its someone in Russia thanks to the current Red Scare.

If you use a domestic VPN or service, the government still collects but there's some small hoops they have to go through with secret courts and such.

Didn't Snowden say something about how they keep a list of who visits the TOR website and even people who visit linux websites.
Correct on Tor but it's only a distro or two they keep full tabs on.

The government in general likes to check those who can protect themselves more than those who don't.

Thank Bush/Obama and Trump too soon.


And GAF, please. You're late on the outrage. Save it. Everyone can look your shit up somehow and this has been going on for a while. The only difference is that the ISPs can make money off your shit. Both parties are the same on the issue. There's just cosmetic differences here and there.
 
Depends really.

If you use Tor or even learn how to use it, you're on a list. End of story.

If you're using a foreign VPN or service, your communications are being saved. They probably won't look at it though unless its someone in Russia thanks to the current Red Scare.

If you use a domestic VPN or service, the government still collects but there's some small hoops they have to go through with secret courts and such.


Correct on Tor but it's only a distro or two they keep full tabs on.

The government in general likes to check those who can protect themselves more than those who don't.

Thank Bush/Obama and Trump too soon.
It's fiction (as far as we know), but in Barry Eisler's The God's Eye View,
the God's Eye program explicitly monitors people who try to hide and just flat out ignores normal activity. The difference between that and what's happening right now in the real world is that the fictional version takes it to a level higher, where, like if your cell phone goes offline, it'll track you.
I can only imagine that if such a program doesn't already exist, it will sometime soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom