One of the few things I hate about republicans is the weird anti freedom views on privacy.  First the patriot act, etc and now stuff like this.
http://www.techzone360.com/topics/techzone/articles/2017/03/29/430805-congress-passes-consumer-privacy-rollback.htm#

Browser information is already obtained and stored by the websites you visit and any firewalls or proxies your network traffic must traverse, especially at work or in public places. 

ISPs having and selling this information is no more of a privacy risk than other means of obtaining your browsing history. 

How many times do you Google an item for researching price or features, only to have that item now appear on FB, Twitter and 2aHawaii as ads?  Same targeted marketing as the rolled-back bill covers.

I don't see this as something to "hate about Republicans," as you said.  I see it as one more example of how we consumers might benefit by receiving relevant advertising for things we are interested in as opposed to being inundated with ads in hopes they get lucky and actually offer something each of us would like to see.

One of the few things I hate about republicans is the weird anti freedom views on privacy.  First the patriot act, etc and now stuff like this.
http://www.techzone360.com/topics/techzone/articles/2017/03/29/430805-congress-passes-consumer-privacy-rollback.htm#

You just can't fix stupid.....

Browser information is already obtained and stored by the websites you visit and any firewalls or proxies your network traffic must traverse, especially at work or in public places. 

ISPs having and selling this information is no more of a privacy risk than other means of obtaining your browsing history. 

How many times do you Google an item for researching price or features, only to have that item now appear on FB, Twitter and 2aHawaii as ads?  Same targeted marketing as the rolled-back bill covers.

I don't see this as something to "hate about Republicans," as you said.  I see it as one more example of how we consumers might benefit by receiving relevant advertising for things we are interested in as opposed to being inundated with ads in hopes they get lucky and actually offer something each of us would like to see.

There is a utterly massive difference between you volunteeringly visiting a site and letting them log you than everything you can do is logged from the source without consent. Its the difference between cameras in the stores you visit to shop and cameras inside your house.  There are plenty sites or other internet uses that do not log you.  IF the ISP logs you unless everything you do is encrypted it doesn't matter what you do on the internet via site, application, etc it can and will be logged and sold.  Its simply privacy just like the patriot act you lose it with this bill. 

I find it funny that you who view conspiracy theories like the deep state as many times fact would think that mass surveillance of anything you do on the internet as perfectly find, in-fact maybe beneficial.

There is a utterly massive difference between you volunteeringly visiting a site and letting them log you than everything you can do is logged from the source without consent. Its the difference between cameras in the stores you visit to shop and cameras inside your house.  There are plenty sites or other internet uses that do not log you.  IF the ISP logs you unless everything you do is encrypted it doesn't matter what you do on the internet via site, application, etc it can and will be logged and sold.  Its simply privacy just like the patriot act you lose it with this bill.

Do you really think that information you "opt out" is safe?

Info is stolen by insiders and hackers all the time.  Unscrupulous companies have clauses that let them sell "info that is not personally identifiable" to third parties.  Hell, most people refuse to even read the terms of use or privacy policies.  They click "I accept" so they can get on with their download, purchase or registration form.

There's no  differences.  Websites that use services that manage ads can, and do, know where you go and what you view, even if the site you opted into is a different one.  By accepting their cookies, you also accept their third party's tracking of your activity.

How does a regulation prevent an ISP employee from stealing and selling your data?  The best it can do is fine the ISP after your data is gone. 

YOU have to take responsibility for your own privacy.  If you aren't educating yourself and using software and hardware methods that prevent access and gathering, don't expect the US Government to protect you!  That's just crazy!   

Do you really think that information you "opt out" is safe?

Info is stolen by insiders and hackers all the time.  Unscrupulous companies have clauses that let them sell "info that is not personally identifiable" to third parties.  Hell, most people refuse to even read the terms of use or privacy policies.  They click "I accept" so they can get on with their download, purchase or registration form.

There's no  differences.  Websites that use services that manage ads can, and do, know where you go and what you view, even if the site you opted into is a different one.  By accepting their cookies, you also accept their third party's tracking of your activity.

How does a regulation prevent an ISP employee from stealing and selling your data?  The best it can do is fine the ISP after your data is gone. 

YOU have to take responsibility for your own privacy.  If you aren't educating yourself and using software and hardware methods that prevent access and gathering, don't expect the US Government to protect you!  That's just crazy!   

Hacks/leaks are sadly part of life but just cause they happen doesn't mean you should throw caution to the wind and let everything run free.  Just cause cars with locks are stolen doesn't mean we should just leave our doors open.  If you visit a site and give them consent to track you that is your own decision.  You can use software to mitigate that, delete cookies, vpn etc.  But if everything is tracked from the source unless everything you do is encrypted you are helpless.   Regardless of your precautions.  Regulation makes it so the ISP employee cant legally sell your info.  You cant stop all thief's but if you make it legal to steal there will be a lot more thieves.  ISP's provide a service akin to electricity or water, there needs to be protections for the people and is actually the best candidate to be regulated. Not all regulation is bad...ISP's should remain neutral.  They shouldn't be able to throttle speed or spy on you and sell your data.  Just like the electric company shouldn't have a meter on everything that uses power and tell you how much electricity you can or cant use or make you pay more for using a samsung tv over a sony.

Hacks/leaks are sadly part of life but just cause they happen doesn't mean you should throw caution to the wind and let everything run free.  Just cause cars with locks are stolen doesn't mean we should just leave our doors open.  If you visit a site and give them consent to track you that is your own decision.  You can use software to mitigate that, delete cookies, vpn etc.  But if everything is tracked from the source unless everything you do is encrypted you are helpless.   Regardless of your precautions.  Regulation makes it so the ISP employee cant legally sell your info.  You cant stop all thief's but if you make it legal to steal there will be a lot more thieves.  ISP's provide a service akin to electricity or water, there needs to be protections for the people and is actually the best candidate to be regulated. Not all regulation is bad...ISP's should remain neutral.  They shouldn't be able to throttle speed or spy on you and sell your data.  Just like the electric company shouldn't have a meter on everything that uses power and tell you how much electricity you can or cant use or make you pay more for using a samsung tv over a sony.

You are saying I posted things I never said (how unusual for you!).

I'm saying, regardless of what the government tries to do, you have the most to lose if your information is being sold.  Therefore, you need to learn to protect yourself.

Since you are Mr Analogy, here's a good one for you:  Are you going to depend on the government to pass laws and have a 911 system to keep you safe?  Or do you try to learn about potential risks and take action yourself to increase your safety?

If you relegate your security to the government, you get whatever they give you.  If that's enough to make you feel comfortable, fine. If not, then you need to take more steps personally. 

All the government will do is fine the ISP.  No one will be prosecuted, because that takes time and resources, not to mention the backlash from public relations.

You are saying I posted things I never said (how unusual for you!).

I'm saying, regardless of what the government tries to do, you have the most to lose if your information is being sold.  Therefore, you need to learn to protect yourself.

Since you are Mr Analogy, here's a good one for you:  Are you going to depend on the government to pass laws and have a 911 system to keep you safe?  Or do you try to learn about potential risks and take action yourself to increase your safety?

If you relegate your security to the government, you get whatever they give you.  If that's enough to make you feel comfortable, fine. If not, then you need to take more steps personally. 

All the government will do is fine the ISP.  No one will be prosecuted, because that takes time and resources, not to mention the backlash from public relations.

Why must there be an all or nothing approach?  Can't you have 911 system and your own precautions to increase your safety.  Just cause 911 doesn't work 100% of the time or isn't fail safe doesn't mean we should get rid of it.... It's there to serve a general purpose and a general good.  Just like the ISP's its there to serve internet and be neutral.  They should do absolutely nothing other than providing internet.  Just like the electric company shouldn't police or policy my use of electricity or the water company, my use of water.

Its all about redundancies.  We are American we should value freedom, like the freedom for speech, freedom to have arms and general freedom.  Having the government come in and restrict my freedom to privacy should offend true Americans. Just like when the demos try and come in and restrict our freedom to bear arms. I'm sure if the government waned to install a camera in your bathroom you would protest. 

Why must there be an all or nothing approach?  Can't you have 911 system and your own precautions to increase your safety.  Just cause 911 doesn't work 100% of the time or isn't fail safe doesn't mean we should get rid of it.... It's there to serve a general purpose and a general good.  Just like the ISP's its there to serve internet and be neutral.  They should do absolutely nothing other than providing internet.  Just like the electric company shouldn't police or policy my use of electricity or the water company, my use of water.

Its all about redundancies.  We are American we should value freedom, like the freedom for speech, freedom to have arms and general freedom.  Having the government come in and restrict my freedom to privacy should offend true Americans. Just like when the demos try and come in and restrict our freedom to bear arms. I'm sure if the government waned to install a camera in your bathroom you would protest.

Once again I NEVER SAID THAT!!

Nothing says you can't have both.  I simply said don't rely on the solutions of the government to do the job!

You have to take steps anyway, so whatever the government does or doesn't do is a non-issue.

End of story,

Once again I NEVER SAID THAT!!

Nothing says you can't have both.  I simply said don't rely on the solutions of the government to do the job!

You have to take steps anyway, so whatever the government does or doesn't do is a non-issue.

End of story,

You literally are contradicting yourself in the same post.  Can't only rely on solutions from the government but what the government does doesn't matter....Because you can't rely on 911, what the government does with the program doesn't matter...they could expand it, they could axe it.  No difference. 

You literally are contradicting yourself in the same post.  Can't only rely on solutions from the government but what the government does doesn't matter....Because you can't rely on 911, what the government does with the program doesn't matter...they could expand it, they could axe it.  No difference.

I'm too busy to teach you simple logic.

I did not contradict myself, and your own post proves it.

There is a difference between you recognizing your responsibility and taking appropriate action versus relying on gov't and doing nothing.

Pathetic.

I'm too busy to teach you simple logic.

I did not contradict myself, and your own post proves it.

There is a difference between you recognizing your responsibility and taking appropriate action versus relying on gov't and doing nothing.

Pathetic.

 

You can rely on the government AND take responsibility for your security/privacy.  BOTH should be done to the max. 

Just like retirement, you both rely on the government for social security AND should have your own investments (401k, stocks, land, etc). 

 

You can rely on the government AND take responsibility for your security/privacy.  BOTH should be done to the max. 

Just like retirement, you both rely on the government for social security AND should have your own investments (401k, stocks, land, etc).

What does ANY of that have to do with Internet Privacy and ISPs potentially selling data to marketers?

What does ANY of that have to do with Internet Privacy and ISPs potentially selling data to marketers?

....cause the government has a duty to make ISP's neutral and respect privacy of individuals and data?  Are you not following the whole convo of which you turned into a discussion about the duties of the government?

....cause the government has a duty to make ISP's neutral and respect privacy of individuals and data?  Are you not following the whole convo of which you turned into a discussion about the duties of the government?

Where is it written that the government has any such duty.

Next week, Trump will sign an EO making it legal to sell your grandmother for profit.

Well, I think we all know who the idiot here is now.

 

Where is it written that the government has any such duty.

http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]

In a more general sense the government exists to serve the people.  Much like water and electricity in a modern society internet should be considered a similar resource.  There is a reason why water and electric are neutral.  Internet should be no different. 

http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]

In a more general sense the government exists to serve the people.  Much like water and electricity in a modern society internet should be considered a similar resource.  There is a reason why water and electric are neutral.  Internet should be no different.

Your link says nothing about a Constitutional duty regarding privacy.  It states privacy is a LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  That in no way requires the government pass regulations to infringe on commerce with the pretext of protecting privacy.  That's a civil matter between the customer and the business.

Maybe you should do some Google-research on the difference between federal duties, protections against the federal government and rights violations between non-government entities.

Water and electricity are designated necessities and run in most states as monopolies.  The government regulates utilities for the good of the public.

The Internet has not yet been designated a public utility.  Your comparison is faulty and totally wrong.

Your link says nothing about a Constitutional duty regarding privacy.  It states privacy is a LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  That in no way requires the government pass regulations to infringe on commerce with the pretext of protecting privacy.  That's a civil matter between the customer and the business.

Maybe you should do some Google-research on the difference between federal duties, protections against the federal government and rights violations between non-government entities.

Water and electricity are designated necessities and run in most states as monopolies.  The government regulates utilities for the good of the public.

The Internet has not yet been designated a public utility.  Your comparison is faulty and totally wrong.

You do know I've been saying it SHOULD be designated a necessity the whole time right? Or do you not read or follow conversations?   The first amendment is affected by the neutrality of the internet. I can get deeper into this later if you don't get it.