Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

This is totally why we elected Trump

126 views
Skip to first unread message

dotsla...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 28, 2017, 7:52:43 PM3/28/17
to
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html

It'll be corporate interests over individual rights every time. As God himself intended.

Cheers.

Some dued

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 9:53:32 AM3/29/17
to
Unsurprisingly, no comments on this because its completely unjustifiable.
Maybe AT&T can go back to charging $29/mo for privacy: http://time.com/3713931/att-privacy-charge/

Some dued

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 9:55:27 AM3/29/17
to
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty clear which party represents its constituents and which represents its donors: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 11:15:35 AM3/29/17
to
I have mixed emotions about this - privacy gives liberals and other
traitors a place to hide.

Hugh


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

JGibson

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 11:25:23 AM3/29/17
to
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 11:15:35 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:55:26 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
> <theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html
> >>
> >> It'll be corporate interests over individual rights every time. As God himself intended.
> >>
> >> Cheers.
> >
> >Pretty clear which party represents its constituents and which represents its donors: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml
>
> I have mixed emotions about this - privacy gives liberals and other
> traitors a place to hide.
>

So, we'll count Hugh as one the people against the 4th Amendment.

Emperor Wonko the Sane

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 11:37:55 AM3/29/17
to
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
If these FCC rules were so important, why did Obama wait until the last days of his administration to implement them. My guess is the headline does not reflect the bill very well.

Doug

xyzzy

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 12:23:16 PM3/29/17
to
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 11:15:35 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:55:26 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
> <theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html
> >>
> >> It'll be corporate interests over individual rights every time. As God himself intended.
> >>
> >> Cheers.
> >
> >Pretty clear which party represents its constituents and which represents its donors: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml
>
> I have mixed emotions about this - privacy gives liberals and other
> traitors a place to hide.

Since tech companies tend to be liberal, I'm glad to see your open mindedness in giving them this power.

xyzzy

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 12:26:57 PM3/29/17
to
Because that's how long it took the Obama admin's FCC to get around GOP obstruction of this rule.

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 12:44:33 PM3/29/17
to
What part of "mixed emotions" don't you understand?

I think the majority of people are so worried about privacy because
they are guilty or ashamed of something. Sellers of illegal drugs,
pedophiles, terrorists and the like benefit more form strict
enforcement of privacy rules than decent, law-abiding citizens. I'm
sorry you are unable to comprehend that.

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 12:46:50 PM3/29/17
to
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:23:14 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I thought you were intelligent enough to comprehend "mixed emotions".
Please excuse my error.

Some dued

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 2:25:46 PM3/29/17
to
I thought you fought, er, served for freedom but it looks like you crave an authoritarian state.

darkst...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 3:29:29 PM3/29/17
to
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:25:23 AM UTC-7, JGibson wrote:

> So, we'll count Hugh as one the people against the 4th Amendment.

Only Amendment that racist shithead is for is the 2nd.

Mike

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 3:57:03 PM3/29/17
to
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:29:26 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com
wrote:
Does the little boy feel like a big boy now?

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 4:10:20 PM3/29/17
to
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:25:42 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
<theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I thought you fought, er, served for freedom but it looks like you crave an authoritarian state.

You need to have your eyes checked.

Freedom worked very well before terrorists, mass murders and
infringement of some people 's rights being endorsed by liberals.

I prefer severe punishment to restriction. I prefer anything to
nothing.

You need to change youe alias to Toy Top - you spin a lot.

GrtArtiste

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 4:15:54 PM3/29/17
to
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But FYI...I don't give much
credence to those who claim they know what God intended.

GrtArtiste

Emperor Wonko the Sane

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 5:34:25 PM3/29/17
to
How convenient. I'm sure the articles headline is like the ones screaming that Trump wants to kill meals-on-wheels when the reality is that his budget only affects a small portion of federal support for meals-on-wheels, and even that is indirectly.

With all this chicken little screaming, when Trump really does do something bad (or already has), no one will notice.

Doug

dotsla...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 6:27:27 PM3/29/17
to
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 4:34:25 PM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 11:26:57 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-4, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html
> > > >
> > > > It'll be corporate interests over individual rights every time. As God himself intended.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers.
> > >
> > > If these FCC rules were so important, why did Obama wait until the last days of his administration to implement them. My guess is the headline does not reflect the bill very well.

Why guess? It's available all over the place:

http://www.google.com

Super straightforward. But, if you know enough to call out the "FCC rules" and the particulars around when they were implemented, you already know the details. Hilariously dishonest for you to pretend otherwise.

> >
> > Because that's how long it took the Obama admin's FCC to get around GOP obstruction of this rule.
>
> How convenient. I'm sure the articles headline is like the ones screaming that Trump wants to kill meals-on-wheels when the reality is that his budget only affects a small portion of federal support for meals-on-wheels, and even that is indirectly.
>

No. It's not like that at all. More pretending. More dishonesty.

> With all this chicken little screaming, when Trump really does do something bad (or already has), no one will notice.
>
> Doug

Cheers.

Futbol Phan

unread,
Mar 29, 2017, 11:27:12 PM3/29/17
to
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 4:34:25 PM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 11:26:57 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-4, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html
> > > >
> > > > It'll be corporate interests over individual rights every time. As God himself intended.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers.
> > >
> > > If these FCC rules were so important, why did Obama wait until the last days of his administration to implement them. My guess is the headline does not reflect the bill very well.
> >
> > Because that's how long it took the Obama admin's FCC to get around GOP obstruction of this rule.
>
> How convenient. I'm sure the articles headline is like the ones screaming that Trump wants to kill meals-on-wheels when the reality is that his budget only affects a small portion of federal support for meals-on-wheels, and even that is indirectly.


So why is it that a man whose reputation is largely based on image would choose to slap in the face all the ne'er-do-wells who voted for him based on his 'promise' to help them? Given that the Fed contribution is so trivial, why create the stir? What is his motive?

Emperor Wonko the Sane

unread,
Mar 30, 2017, 11:04:31 AM3/30/17
to
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 5:27:27 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 4:34:25 PM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 11:26:57 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 11:37:55 AM UTC-4, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html
> > > > >
> > > > > It'll be corporate interests over individual rights every time. As God himself intended.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers.
> > > >
> > > > If these FCC rules were so important, why did Obama wait until the last days of his administration to implement them. My guess is the headline does not reflect the bill very well.
>
> Why guess? It's available all over the place:
>
> http://www.google.com
>
> Super straightforward. But, if you know enough to call out the "FCC rules" and the particulars around when they were implemented, you already know the details. Hilariously dishonest for you to pretend otherwise.

Gee, you were right. It didn't take long to learn that the FCC rules were bullshit meant to keep the ISPs out of Google and Facebook's turf and provide little or no protection to consumers.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/325708-senate-was-right-to-block-fccs-broadband-privacy-rules
http://tinyurl.com/md5dfya

Doug

xyzzy

unread,
Mar 30, 2017, 11:23:06 AM3/30/17
to
Dude, quoting an op-ed written by a lobbyist does not make you informed.

The key thing he's missing is that you can easily avoid Google and Facebook collecting your data. Simply log out of your google account before browsing, and don't go through Facebook. Or don't create accounts with them in the first place.

OTOH your ISP controls your basic pipe and you can't avoid them knowing where you are going.

Some dued

unread,
Mar 30, 2017, 11:59:14 AM3/30/17
to
We have all kinds of ways to avoid Facebook and Google. You have to get to the Internet somehow though, and that is via your ISP, there is effectively NO way to avoid your ISP from tracking what you do, other than VPN'ing to some other ISP which doesn't fix the issue.

RoddyMcCorley

unread,
Mar 30, 2017, 12:58:45 PM3/30/17
to
Every dollar not spent is critical to the promised tax cuts. The thugs
have already gotten screwed with the failure to repeal the ACA, so now
they have to scrap every program that appeals to progressives and true
"Christians."

--
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul
with evil.

Pennsylvania - Tá sé difriúil anseo.

Emperor Wonko the Sane

unread,
Mar 30, 2017, 4:58:32 PM3/30/17
to
The article pointed out the technical reasons why, for the most part, you can. Is he wrong?

Doug

dotsla...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 30, 2017, 6:03:59 PM3/30/17
to
Yes, he's technically wrong. Outside of using something like tor, or a vpn, or a proxy of some sort, your isp still knows endpoints, even if the content is encrypted.

The entire article is like - hey, but less people are using a "traditional" isp - gots inet on your phone after all - so, really, why should you care if they sell your browsing history?

Or - hey, Google knows all kinds of shit about you, likely way more than your cable provider - so why do you care if your cable provider sells your browsing history?

It's all bs - not one point he makes is directed at the question "why should we make it legal for my inet provider to sell my browsing history?" - it's all "hey man you leave lots of data around that people are already selling so why not?"

But I guess that's what you have to do when you're attempting to defend crap ideas like this one. How about we go in the other direction and go after all these other folks selling my info instead? Strengthen those fcc rules, don't remove them.

Oh, I know why - because there's no high paid lobbyists pushing to restore more privacy - cuz that data is a commodity, and there's money to be made, corporate interests to be looked after, and my oh my we have just the party in place to look after those corporate interests, yes we do.

Anyhow, somehow, obamas fault. How dare he wait so long to do the right thing! How dare he work on rules that protect us normal folks! Doesn't he know charter is just barely making ends meet, all while sitting on this treasure trove that the evil dems just refuse to let them exploit?!!

Cheers.
0 new messages