quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
And, no, ISPs haven't "always sold browsing history," despite what some of the predictably-pro-business, predictably-pro-"conservative" types around here will tell you. At least not in the way they want to. Mainly they were only providing it to traffic-ranking sites, which is a far cry from what they plan to do.

Thanks for the compliments!! You forgot 'capitalist' with a capital C!!

And yes, they have been selling your browsing data, and no, the rules that Obama's FCC tried to rush thru at the last minute wouldn't have prevented it, they would have just required a click thru disclosure that no one would have read any way.

From 2008:
For Sale: Your Browser History

Most People Don't Realize Their ISPs Are Already Spying On Them

The notoriously conservatively biased NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/al...tions-in-perspective

Nothing. Burger.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
From 2008:
For Sale: Your Browser History

quote:

Charter's proposal drew an immediate outcry from customers and privacy watchdogs. In June, the company announced that it would suspend its traffic-monitoring plan.
...
Though they're all approaching it in different ways, a bunch of large Internet firms—including ISPs like Charter and AT&T and Web companies like Yahoo, Microsoft, and perhaps even Google—are crawling toward adopting "behavioral targeting" systems.

Note emphasis in that 2nd bit. Also: Everybody knew Google and the like were doing that. Difference is: You can choose your search engine and email provider. Often you cannot choose your ISP, because there may be only one. (The new FCC Chairman's assertions to the contrary.)

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Most People Don't Realize Their ISPs Are Already Spying On Them

Compete and Hitwise are traffic "hit" tracking rating sites. Apples:Oranges.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
The notoriously conservatively biased NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/al...tions-in-perspective

That hardly bolsters your argument that "ISPs have been doing it all along." Quite the reverse.

quote:

Originally posted by henryaz:
I don't believe any email provider is secure, ...
 

Which is why I provide my own email services.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
The notoriously conservatively biased NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/al...tions-in-perspective

That hardly bolsters your argument that "ISPs have been doing it all along." Quite the reverse.

The Obama FCC rules have not ever gone into effect and would not have stopped the ISP's.

In other words, a bunch of chicken little nonsense running around today claiming the world is ending and NOW your privacy is at risk.

Anyone who is on the internet in 2017 and believes that anything they do is private is either oblivious or willfully ignorant.

As soon as large database companies were started (i.e. Oracle etc.), the government we knocking at their doors to store information - in large amounts.

This is back in the 1980s. Just what do you think they wanted to store/have access to?

This is how these companies made their bones. Ponder that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SIGnified,

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
The notoriously conservatively biased NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/al...tions-in-perspective

That hardly bolsters your argument that "ISPs have been doing it all along." Quite the reverse.

The Obama FCC rules have not ever gone into effect and would not have stopped the ISP's.

In other words, a bunch of chicken little nonsense running around today claiming the world is ending and NOW your privacy is at risk.

Anyone who is on the internet in 2017 and believes that anything they do is private is either oblivious or willfully ignorant.

That begs the question, why isn't Congress moving legislation that would actually protect ones privacy? MG

quote:

Originally posted by midwest guy:
That begs the question, why isn't Congress moving legislation that would actually protect ones privacy? MG

Because you freely enter into an agreement with your ISP/email carrier/search engine/social media platform, etc. regarding use of their products and how data you choose to share with them is used. Not the business of the government.

quote:

Originally posted by midwest guy:
That begs the question, why isn't Congress moving legislation that would actually protect ones privacy? MG

That isn't "begging the question," but, "raises the question." "Begging the question" would be insisting something's true because it's true. Circular reasoning, essentially. E.g.: A certain "info guru" (hint: real info gurus don't have to make the claim they're info gurus) asserts "nothing done on the Internet is private." His sole argument? His claim that nothing anybody does on the Internet is private. That is an example of "begging the question." (Hint the 2nd: His assertion is provably false.)

As for your question: Because Congress is in business' pocket, mainly. There are exceptions, on both sides of the aisle, but, they're exceedingly rare. Kind of like unicorns.

You can probably expect essentially every Internet consumer protection put into place these last few years to be eroded, if not completely destroyed, under the current FCC, Congress and President. Some of the few, very few things Zero actually got right.

I knew all this was coming when I voted the way I did. *shrug* It was this or the kind of crap the Evil, Lying Harpie and a leftist-dominated Congress might do. Not-to-mention judiciary.

Not to worry. It won't last long. Guaranteed.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by midwest guy:
That begs the question, why isn't Congress moving legislation that would actually protect ones privacy? MG

That isn't "begging the question," but, "raises the question." "Begging the question" would be insisting something's true because it's true. Circular reasoning, essentially. E.g.: A certain "info guru" (hint: real info gurus don't have to make the claim they're info gurus) asserts "nothing done on the Internet is private." His sole argument? His claim that nothing anybody does on the Internet is private. That is an example of "begging the question." (Hint the 2nd: His assertion is provably false.)

As for your question: Because Congress is in business' pocket, mainly. There are exceptions, on both sides of the aisle, but, they're exceedingly rare. Kind of like unicorns.

You can probably expect essentially every Internet consumer protection put into place these last few years to be eroded, if not completely destroyed, under the current FCC, Congress and President. Some of the few, very few things Zero actually got right.

I knew all this was coming when I voted the way I did. *shrug* It was this or the kind of crap the Evil, Lying Harpie and a leftist-dominated Congress might do. Not-to-mention judiciary.

Not to worry. It won't last long. Guaranteed.

Thanks for the clarification and your insight! MG

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
E.g.: A certain "info guru" (hint: real info gurus don't have to make the claim they're info gurus)

Wow man, you really can't discuss anything without taking it personal, can you?

The CUT was made as a joke based a Dilbert comic strip in the early 2000's - that's Wally's nickname, the only avatar I have had since joining the forum, not mine.

You have presented ZERO evidence to back up your chicken little claims that today is any different than yesterday in regards to internet privacy. You have no argument, because these proposed FCC rules have never been in effect.

The government is not the solution to every problem.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BamaJeepster,

^ Nor is the free market, sadly, because some people (the universal) are insufferable assholes and have no respect for others privacy, and want to profit from it as well.

Ones privacy should be an enumerated Right. It is no one else's business what I, you, or anyone else does, whether online, in their yard, on the phone, or otherwise.

At least some are trying to fix the monumental problem as it exists today. That so many are willing to give up and accept this notion of folks having no privacy is appalling.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Ones privacy should be an enumerated Right. It is no one else's business what I, you, or anyone else does, whether online, in their yard, on the phone, or otherwise.

That isn't really the problem, here. The only "right to privacy" you have, and it's a thin right, indeed, is "The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures..." as affirmed by the 4th Amendment.

But, that applies to government intrusion. ISPs are private property. And this is where it gets sticky--kind of like 1st Amendment rights in the "modern public square": The shopping mall, which is all private property. If there truly was competition in the ISP marketplace then one might reasonably argue "If you don't like it, go elsewhere." But, for most people, there is no "elsewhere" to go. Most ISPs, in most areas of the country, have, if not an actual monopoly, as least a monopoly in practice. (E.g.: I could get DSL. Yay! Go from 50mb/s to 1.5.)

The ISPs want to eat their cake and have it, too. They want the market control of monopolies, but, they don't want the regulation that should reasonably come with such a position.

The Republican-dominated Congress seems all too willing to give them everything they want. Little surprise, there. This is what Republicans do. This is why they keep getting the boot, and will again. Like the Democrats: They seem oblivious to the fact that they keep getting the same results out of the same actions. It's kind of fascinating, in a perverse kind of a way.

As the good Judge Napolitano says, while our privacy invasions by the government are legal, they certainly are not constitutional.

Think about that. We have allowed our government to invade our privacy in the name of safety.

Many believe the "Intelligence" agencies act in highly unconstitutional ways, violating a good many of our amendments in the Bill of Rights.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
^ Nor is the free market, sadly, because some people (the universal) are insufferable assholes and have no respect for others privacy, and want to profit from it as well.

Ones privacy should be an enumerated Right. It is no one else's business what I, you, or anyone else does, whether online, in their yard, on the phone, or otherwise.

At least some are trying to fix the monumental problem as it exists today. That so many are willing to give up and accept this notion of folks having no privacy is appalling.

This is exactly what I meant in my previous post on that matter. Fakebook I don't go on, never have, never will. Same goes for the rest of the cesspool social media apps/sites. I pay my isp fucking money. The shit isn't free. It isn't cheap any longer. Oh the horror of citizens wanting their information private when they pay for the fucking service. Free comes with a dick in your ass so it's crystal with social media. This is different and I agree with ensigmatic on this 100%. Nothing more than the people we elected colluding with big business and we and our privacy chunked aside for dollars. Not what we elected them for.

Info guru for more than 25 years. Who has met the Bama Jeepster, and, yeah, he's one of them too.

Late newsflash, (by order of a bunch of years...)

"ISPs" could give a shit about your or anyone else's "privacy", they are businesses and only care about the almighty dollar.

Gone are the days of people who were in the scene for the sake of the scene.

Or as we used to say back in the good ol' days of 60s and 70s; "It's a corporate sellout, man!"

Shit, I have forgotten a fuckton more about internet, networking and anything "IT" then a good many people who think they know something about this gig will ever learn.

Most are simply regurgitating other dead men's brains, and those who were the instigators, the innovators and doing this stuff as it evolved, for the most part, were living in the moment and not trying to warehouse every scrap of knowledge, because we never figured there would be a test.

And young people wonder why older folks tune them out and change the subject.

Oh, Internet privacy? Yeah, it's an open secret.

Or then again...

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
On the internet, you have no privacy.

Bingo !!! we have a winner

Bob

Thanks for interviewing Mr. Smith. We've decided to hire the other candidate. He's less qualified, but according to your browsing history you seem to have visited a number of diabetis information sites. We checked further and see that you have a family history of members who developed type 2. Sorry, we don't wanna take that chance. The other guy statistically has a better chance of not getting a disease.

quote:

Originally posted by Spokane228:
I've always assumed, unless you log into a service, your traffic is seen as just an IP address. They can't tie it to a name.

Bad assumption. Google 'browser cookies' for a start.

We had telephone co landlines for most of the 20th century. I think selling records, of who you called and what was discussed, to private industry would have been considered a gross invasion of privacy years ago. Yes, you can say that selling the info is fine because it's Capitalism but that doesn't imbue it with rightousness. Capitalist factory owners used to employ 10 year old children in their factorys. Doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. Capitalism can be good or bad depending on how it's used.

quote:

Originally posted by maxdog:
We had telephone co landlines for most of the 20th century. I think selling records, of who you called and what was discussed, to private industry would have been considered a gross invasion of privacy years ago. Yes, you can say that selling the info is fine because it's Capitalism but that doesn't imbue it with rightousness. Capitalist factory owners used to employ 10 year old children in their factorys. Doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. Capitalism can be good or bad depending on how it's used.

I think the difference is that my dad's WWII generation would not have tolerated it. They had a well developed sense of right and wrong and the guts to do something about it rather than saying, "That's just the way it is. Get used to it". That generation would not lie there and get screwed. They would say"Let's fix this!". I think this generation is too complacent. We just say, "get used to it" as one by one those in power bleed our rights. This sort of cowardice will serve us well when they finally come for or guns. We'll just whine "Get used to it." The socialists have conditioned us well.