Selling out our country - Comcast paid what to whom?

We need to build a fire Wall between our private data and the filthy hands of the public sector.

seriously though, my big take-away on that list is: Who is this Luther Strange who is the only one to refuse funding. He sounds like a diabolical archenemy.

 

I figured I'd hear at least one reasonable argument in favor of this legislation by now.

But so far it's just "but muh liberty/free market!"

 

In principle, the massive windfall ISPs will get from being able to sell all your data could mean they pass some of that on to the consumer by making their internet access cheaper. But if anyone believes that'll actually happen, I've got some oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell them.
You could also say that "yay, think how much this'll help big telecom shareholders! 'Murica!"
You could also say this will mean people see more relevant ads... because now advertisers will know everything about them.

Seriously though, there's just no meaningful argument to make that this is good for the everyday consumer.

 

Yeah, cuz if you don't like your provider collecting and selling this information then you can build your own telecom, infrastructure etc instead of being a snowflake lib. Self reliance and rugged individualism--use a couple of cans and some string, make your own fiber optic cable out of the fiberglass from your 84 vette, use your F-250 to drag a plow and trench in your own hand made phone line made out of copper that you smelted yourself. Libtard tears are so salty...MAGA

 

Seems more like conservative tears to me. Can't imagine Repubs wanting the 1984 action described here, but maybe it's a new form of idiot that isn't Republican or Democrat.

 

A new form of idiot or just tallanvor.

 

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

 

Sarcasm meter, Bro!

 

https://www.americancommitment.org/content/what-online-privacy-vote-really-about

Spoiler

What’s really happening is that a corrupt Google power grab from the Obama administration is being overturned.

Here’s the real history.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) until 2015 was the cop on the beat for Internet privacy, data security, and consumer protection broadly. The FTC had a well-developed framework that treated all the players the same way – Internet Service Providers (ISPs), search, advertising networks, and social media companies.

That all changed when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on a 3-2 party-line vote to adopt Barack Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet like a public utility.

That vote pre-empted the FTC’s jurisdiction and stripped Internet users of consumer protections – deliberately creating a vacuum which could then be used to shift the focus of the privacy debate to ISPs, taking the heat off Google, which has vastly more access to personal data.

The FCC took this party-line action despite warnings from the FTC that it would no longer be able to protect consumers as it had in over 100 privacy and data security cases and 150 spam and spyware cases.

FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen warned that “economists (and common sense) tell us that if different sets of rules govern competitors, companies subject to the more onerous or unpredictable regime are disadvantaged compared to those outside that regime.”

That’s precisely what happened as Google – which had an astonishing 250 personnel rotate into the Obama administration – used its stroke to hobble competitors.

Under the proposed FCC regulations, ISPs with limited market share and limited ability to collect user information would be subject to heavy-handed regulation effectively prohibiting running ads without a prior opt-in, while edge providers that have dominant market share and vast databases of user information are exempt.

The FCC claimed ISPs are uniquely situated to collect user information, but the best available data shows otherwise. Steven Englehardt and Arvind Narayanan of Princeton University found that 61 percent of the top million sites on the web use Google Analytics.

The FCC claim that ISPs are uniquely situated to collect and use user information reflects a basic misunderstanding of how the Internet works.

The Institute for Information Security & Privacy at Georgia Tech concluded that ISPs are highly limited in their ability to collect user information because the average Internet user has more than six different devices, encryption is pervasive and employed by all 10 of the largest websites and 42 of the top 50, and users increasingly decline to use DNS services offered by their ISPs. They found companies like Google have far more access to user information.

As Ajit Pai observed in his dissent: “due to the FCC’s action today, those who have more insight into consumer behavior (edge providers) will be subject to more lenient regulation than those who have less insight (ISPs).”

Pai continued, “when you get past the headlines, slogans, and self-congratulations, this is the reality that Americans should remember: nothing in these rules will stop edge providers from harvesting and monetizing your data, whether it’s the websites you visit or the YouTube videos you watch or the emails you send or the search terms you enter on any of your devices.”

Under the Democratic rules, ISPs can use personal data to tailor advertising or make you special offers – but they need to buy the data from Google first. That’s crazy.

The vote in Congress wasn’t about whether privacy should be protected, but rather who should do the protecting – and whether there should be a level playing field or a sweetheart deal for Google; it’s unfortunate that so many “real” news organizations bought into the Obama Administration spin instead of checking the facts.

 

The irony of those who pick and choose their battles for the sole purpose of their blind political stance. Its not ok for ISP's to do what Google is doing. Never mind Googles primary revenue is just this; Collecting and reselling user information. Nevermind Google is one of the top fortune 500 companies. Shall we go on about Facebook too?

Then we have DaDakota rambling on about how Comcast has tried to buy out Congress, but he has no problem with wall street buying out Hillary.

 

Google got the FCC to further entrench their monopoly on selling user data.

Congress overturned this.

 

So the reasons they support this seem to boil down to:

1) ISPs can't gather much, if any, information anyway (besides being a terrible reason to allow them to do it, it's also flatly untrue).

2) It creates undue burden/regulation on the ISPs (no, it doesn't).

3) "since 3rd parties aren't subjected to the same rules about collecting and selling information on people, neither should ISPs. (i.e. 1st parties)"

All the while they ignoring the fact that in many cases people don't even *have* a choice for an ISP, but using 3rd party services like Google is completely voluntary while on the web. Not only that, you can take steps to prevent the harvesting of your data from 3rd parties *without incurring cost* unlike with a 1st party. How's that for a "basic misunderstand of how the internet works"?

Sorry, but this reasoning is total rubbish. It's more well articulated than "muh freedumz" but it's the same line of thinking.

This is a pure cash favor for the telecomm industry at the expense of personal privacy.

 

Wow, a Koch-linked, funded by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (surprise surprise!) electioneering group tells you that ISPs are not evil. I. AM. SHOCKED. Shocked I tell you! What next, a tobacco industry organization telling me that smoking isn't bad for your health?

 

The irony is you're gobbling this garbage up because it has "R" on it.

Meanwhile, the rest of us happen to appreciate personal privacy online.

 

Its not a matter of supporting it. Its more about its not that big of a deal. Everyone is selling your information these days. ISP's can't magically root around on your computer and pull up your browsing history. If anyone is concerned about privacy, they should be using a VPN or TOR. Or not use the internet at all.

 

We all have the perfectly fine option of using the internet without not using Google.

Technically I don't NEED internet, but I also technically don't NEED electricity.

 

This Phil Kerpen guy is a hoot. Totally anti-net neutrality. In the tank for basically letting "muh freedumz" rule teh interwebs.

Yeah, no thanks, Phil. Keep the internet open and accessible.

 

poster identifies demand for ISP that doesn't sell user data

if only there were some mechanism for fulfilling a demand