(OT) President Trump delivers final blow to Web browsing privacy rules

[John Corliss]

"On Monday, President Donald Trump signed a repeal of online privacy
rules that would have limited the ability of ISPs to share or sell
customers' browsing history for advertising purposes. Trump's action
follows the Senate and House voting to eliminate the rules issued by the
Federal Communications Commission during Barack Obama's presidency.

'President Trump has signed away the only rules that guarantee Americans
a choice in whether or not their sensitive Internet information is sold
or given away," said Chris Lewis, VP of consumer advocacy group Public
Knowledge. Trump's action also "eliminates the requirement that
broadband providers notify their customers of any hacking or security
breaches.'"

Full article is here:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/trumps-signature-makes-it-official-isp-privacy-rules-are-dead/

or:

http://tinyurl.com/k9a2cce

So... now how about one of you devout republicans out there explain to
me why this is a *good* thing.

--
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts originating from Google Groups and recommend you do likewise. I
also block (can't see & won't reply to) posts from the nym-shifting
troll calling itself "»Q«".

[John Corliss]

John Corliss wrote:
> "On Monday, President Donald Trump signed a repeal of online privacy
> rules that would have limited the ability of ISPs to share or sell
> customers' browsing history for advertising purposes. Trump's action
> follows the Senate and House voting to eliminate the rules issued by the
> Federal Communications Commission during Barack Obama's presidency.
>
> 'President Trump has signed away the only rules that guarantee Americans
> a choice in whether or not their sensitive Internet information is sold
> or given away," said Chris Lewis, VP of consumer advocacy group Public
> Knowledge. Trump's action also "eliminates the requirement that
> broadband providers notify their customers of any hacking or security
> breaches.'"
>
> Full article is here:
>
> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/trumps-signature-makes-it-official-isp-privacy-rules-are-dead/
>
> or:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/k9a2cce
>
> So... now how about one of you devout republicans out there explain to
> me why this is a *good* thing.

http://imgur.com/a/QRORh

[John Corliss]

John Corliss wrote:
> "On Monday, President Donald Trump signed a repeal of online privacy
> rules that would have limited the ability of ISPs to share or sell
> customers' browsing history for advertising purposes. Trump's action
> follows the Senate and House voting to eliminate the rules issued by the
> Federal Communications Commission during Barack Obama's presidency.
>
> 'President Trump has signed away the only rules that guarantee Americans
> a choice in whether or not their sensitive Internet information is sold
> or given away," said Chris Lewis, VP of consumer advocacy group Public
> Knowledge. Trump's action also "eliminates the requirement that
> broadband providers notify their customers of any hacking or security
> breaches.'"
>
> Full article is here:
>
> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/trumps-signature-makes-it-official-isp-privacy-rules-are-dead/
>
> or:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/k9a2cce
>
> So... now how about one of you devout republicans out there explain to
> me why this is a *good* thing.

I dunno. Thinking about this a little more, I believe that it should be
law that ISPs make it possible for customers to opt out of being
data-mined by those same ISPs.

[burfordTjustice]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 03:05:42 -0700
John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "On Monday, President Donald Trump signed a repeal of online privacy
> rules that would have limited the ability of ISPs to share or sell
> customers' browsing history for advertising purposes.

You are free to change ISPs or do you just want someone else to carry
the water?

[Jack Meoff]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:obvr0c$le0$1...@dont-email.me:

> So... now how about one of you devout republicans out there explain to
> me why this is a *good* thing.
>

Let's say someone likes browsing for laptops. The ISP sells that info to
laptop sellers. The ISP earns $$ and it helps keep the ISP in business.
More choice there. The person browsing (me) gets adverts for laptops,
which I'm interested in, instead of women's underwear that I'm not
interested in.

Bottom line: if I must encounter adverts, I would rather they be focused on
my interests.

Of course I would rather not see ANY adverts, but that's not possible.
Especially on tablet devices like my Kindle that don't have (and won't
allow) effective ad-blockers. On my PCs I run AdBlockPlus and see very few
ads. But that's just not possible on tablets.

[Bill Day]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 14:49:55 +0200, Yrrah <Yrra...@acf.invalid>
wrote:

>John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>:

>
>> "On Monday, President Donald Trump signed a repeal of online privacy
>> rules that would have limited the ability of ISPs to share or sell
>> customers' browsing history for advertising purposes. Trump's action
>> follows the Senate and House voting to eliminate the rules issued by the
>> Federal Communications Commission during Barack Obama's presidency.
>>
>> 'President Trump has signed away the only rules that guarantee Americans
>> a choice in whether or not their sensitive Internet information is sold
>> or given away," said Chris Lewis, VP of consumer advocacy group Public
>> Knowledge. Trump's action also "eliminates the requirement that
>> broadband providers notify their customers of any hacking or security
>> breaches.'"
>

>Donald Dumb, president of the Disunited Totalitarian Republic of
>Trumpistan, is a narcistic idiot and a dangerous psychopath and his
>Republican supporters in Congress are a bunch of corrupt cowards and
>criminals.
>
>Yrrah
Couldn't have said it better nyself...................well, I could,
but I tend to take 4-5 paragraphs to get everything in. That will do
quite well for a summary... :>)
--
remove nonsense for reply

[JJ]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 03:05:42 -0700, John Corliss wrote:
>
> So... now how about one of you devout republicans out there explain to
> me why this is a *good* thing.

Does U.S. government system changes back and forth between democracy and
republic depeding which side won the election?

[Shadow]

On 04 Apr 2017 12:24:06 GMT, Jack Meoff <Jack...@worldly.net> wrote:

>> So... now how about one of you devout republicans out there explain to
>> me why this is a *good* thing.
>>
>
>Let's say someone likes browsing for laptops. The ISP sells that info to
>laptop sellers. The ISP earns $$ and it helps keep the ISP in business.
>More choice there. The person browsing (me) gets adverts for

..............
the most expensive

>laptops,

That sums it up nicely. Search providers are now allowed to
monetize your personal data (which is up for sale), IOW, redirect you
to places they get a cut of the sale, and hide the cheap offers that
don't give them anything on page 100.
Google already does this in Brazil. I have to wade through
hundreds of "recommended" offers before I find exactly the same item
at half the price.
It's easy enough to verify. In a few months time, search
repeatedly for "motherboards". Then choose a model and see where the
cheapest offer is. It wont be on the first 10 pages of search results.
The ISPs/Search providers will sell your data to whoever wants
to make money from you.
Item + cut + price of data = more expensive.
No such thing as a free lunch.
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[Flasherly]

On 04 Apr 2017 12:24:06 GMT, Jack Meoff <Jack...@worldly.net> wrote:

>The ISP earns $$ and it helps keep the ISP in business.
>More choice there.

They do want to keep more of your money, that's true. So, how can
they accomplish that wonderful feat, you ask? Because they're the
only one people have, which is true. Which safely brings us full
circle to the transparent conclusion that people have no choice about
what their ISP does.

[David B.]

On 4/4/2017 4:38 PM, Shadow wrote:
> No such thing as a free lunch.

Correct! :-)

[Spamblk]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:obvr0c$le0$1...@dont-email.me>:

> So... now how about one of you devout republicans out there explain to
> me why this is a *good* thing.

That's one idea. Another idea might be for some devout democrat explaining why
these rules had not already been enacted under Obama.

[Spamblk]

Yrrah <Yrra...@acf.invalid> wrote in
<news:fr47ecp3db6bs78jq...@net.com>:

>
> Donald Dumb, president of the Disunited Totalitarian Republic of
> Trumpistan, is a narcistic idiot and a dangerous psychopath and his
> Republican supporters in Congress are a bunch of corrupt cowards and
> criminals.
>
> Yrrah

Wow. All was so good and wonderful until that nasty Trump got elected huh? The
American people were not having their communications hoovered up until then. They
were never lied to. Never spied on. Never misled. Then Trump got elected.
Suddenly and out of nowhere privacy was abolished. Almost a miracle it could have
happened so quickly. And by the way, pigs can fly.

[JJ]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:30 +0200, Yrrah wrote:
>
> A republic can't be a democracy? Perhaps in the "constitutional
> federal republic" of Trumpistan. But what will they think of that in
> the Republic of Finland, the federal Republic of Austria, the French
> Republic ("Vive la République!"), the Italian Republic, the Federal
> Republic of Germany, Greece (aka the Hellenic Republic), the Republic
> of Ireland, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, etc.? ;-)

I don't think both the US government and the majority of the citizens care
about it.

[Nil]

On 04 Apr 2017, Spamblk <Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote in
alt.comp.freeware:

> Wow. All was so good and wonderful until that nasty Trump got
> elected huh? The American people were not having their
> communications hoovered up until then. They were never lied to.
> Never spied on. Never misled. Then Trump got elected. Suddenly and
> out of nowhere privacy was abolished. Almost a miracle it could
> have happened so quickly. And by the way, pigs can fly.

Privacy violations were never before the law of the land and were never
openly encouraged and supported by the government.

[Shadow]

Probably better if a republican explains why they were
cancelled, using an obscure law that was used last time in the Bush
administration.
It's vey BAD form to cancel things that protect the people
that voted for you.
I thought the Trumpet had more noble promises to keep... he
seems to have forgotten ALL of them.

[Spamblk]

Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote in <news:d2h8echrev0di5uf7...@4ax.com>:

> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 00:01:14 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
> <Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:obvr0c$le0$1...@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> So... now how about one of you devout republicans out there explain to
>>> me why this is a *good* thing.
>>
>>That's one idea. Another idea might be for some devout democrat explaining why
>>these rules had not already been enacted under Obama.
>
>
> Probably better if a republican explains why they were
> cancelled, using an obscure law that was used last time in the Bush
> administration.

According to reports, Verizon was one ISP caught in 2012 using browsing data to
generate targeted ads. Obama, in his wisdom or unwisdom did not see to it that
rules were brought in to outlaw this. Unless I am mistaken he never tried. Had
he tried, but was vetoed, he and his supporters can now hold their heads up
high.

If you download and use a recent Firefox or Google Chrome browsing data from
the Omnibox is sent to a search provider by default setup. Neither Glugle nor
Fakekook are or were bound by those rules. The claim by one senator that Glugle
only monitors your browsing when in Glughoul can be disposed of by
demonstrating that it's hard to find any web page anywhere that will not send
your browser ID, IP address and ISP port number to some kind of Glugle resource
or another.

So, Fair question: why were these rules not already in force? Why were these
rules also not framed in such a way as to directly restrict the activity of the
world's most powerful search engine and datamining malignancy. Who sensibly
gives half a F**k about rules that apply to an ISP but not to a search engine
morphed into a data capture monstrosity given freedom to capture the world's
information and store it indefinitely in data centers built for the purpose.

> It's vey BAD form to cancel things that protect the people
> that voted for you.

There were proposed rules due to come into effect Dec 4, 2017. Why were these
rules not already brought into effect? Obama was POTUS for eight years. Was
that not enough?

> I thought the Trumpet had more noble promises to keep... he
> seems to have forgotten ALL of them.

Trump actually made specific promises. Hillary hardly made any other than to
promote another war in Syria like her one in Libya. I do not believe for a
minute that rules to outlaw ISPs selling browsing history would have been
brought in under her watch. She did not get $225,000 for a single Wall Street
speech on the back of sincere pledges to protect the browsing history of every
citizen in the nation.

She would have done as she did with the bankruptcy bill. Oppose when out of
office, support when in.

Three candidates might have made a difference: Jill Stein, Gary Johnson or
Bernie Sanders. Bernie was screwed over during the primaries by the DNC, the
Clinton News Network and others. The other two got 5% of the vote between them.
The last eight years and more were a privacy disaster. People prepared to sell
their privacy to the acceptable face of Obama do not deserve privacy under
Trump.


They who can give up their essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty or safety.

> []'s

[Shadow]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 02:35:50 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
<Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:

>There were proposed rules due to come into effect Dec 4, 2017. Why were these
>rules not already brought into effect? Obama was POTUS for eight years. Was
>that not enough?

Apparently not. Bush had exactly the same time and instead
spent it looking for "weapons of mass destruction", outright genocide,
causing mass unemployment, crashing the economy and writing the
"Treason Act" that Obama inherited. The "Treason Act" did away with
all privacy and gave the TLAs dictatorial powers.
You are missing the FACT that the ISP law protected privacy,
and yet the Trumpet vetoed it. Breaking numerous promised he made
during his campaign.
It's silly to say the Trumpet did a "GOOD THING" because
"someone should have written it sooner rather than later".

[Shadow]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 17:16:48 +0200, Yrrah <Yrra...@acf.invalid>
wrote:

>Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net>:

>
>> > Wow. All was so good and wonderful until that nasty Trump got
>> > elected huh? The American people were not having their
>> > communications hoovered up until then. They were never lied to.
>> > Never spied on. Never misled. Then Trump got elected. Suddenly and
>> > out of nowhere privacy was abolished. Almost a miracle it could
>> > have happened so quickly. And by the way, pigs can fly.
>
>> Privacy violations were never before the law of the land and were never
>> openly encouraged and supported by the government.
>

>(...) Here is the absolute solid reality of what this decision to
>scrap the FCC rules means:
> ISPs were previously able to do what they can do now, ie, sell
>their customers' private data.
> But they were previously at risk of being investigated by the FTC
>and then, later, the FCC.
> If they had been found to have broken data privacy rules, they
>faced huge fines and most likely the requirement to get prior approval
>from the FTC/FCC before doing anything similar in future.
> Now, however, there is no backstop. The FTC does not have
>jurisdiction. And nor does the FCC. The ISPs currently exist in a
>regulatory-free world.(...)"
>Article:
><https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/04/fcc_privacy_rules_myths/>
>
>Most corporations, incl. ISPs and e.g. financial institutions (!),
>love a "regulatory-free world", it's a CEO's wet dream.
>

And a citizen's nightmare ...

[John Corliss]

Spamblk wrote:

> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>> So... now how about one of you devout republicans out there explain to
>> me why this is a *good* thing.
>
> That's one idea. Another idea might be for some devout democrat explaining why
> these rules had not already been enacted under Obama.

Yes, one has to wonder that.

[Spamblk]

Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote in <news:1qk9ecdtfqa4638je...@4ax.com>:

> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 02:35:50 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
> <Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:
>
>>There were proposed rules due to come into effect Dec 4, 2017. Why were these
>>rules not already brought into effect? Obama was POTUS for eight years. Was
>>that not enough?
>
> Apparently not. Bush had exactly the same time and instead
> spent it looking for "weapons of mass destruction", outright genocide,
> causing mass unemployment, crashing the economy and writing the
> "Treason Act" that Obama inherited.

Obama such a good guy. Er no. Agreed the overthrow of the secular
regime in Libya and for what? General Wesley Clark revealed to
democracynow the Bush plan to change the regimes in places such
as Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria etc. Obama inherited the plan. He
did not read his history. Kennedy inherited the Bay of Pigs
fiasco. It did not go well. Obama+Hillary inherited the change
the regime of Libya plan. It did not go down too well either.

> The "Treason Act" did away with
> all privacy and gave the TLAs dictatorial powers.

You mean the way Obama's administration went after whistleblowers
like no other? The daily attacks against "traitor" Snowden and
the methods used to persuade a plane from Russia thought to be
carrying the "wanted fugitive" to land in Europe?

> You are missing the FACT that the ISP law protected privacy,
> and yet the Trumpet vetoed it. Breaking numerous promised he made
> during his campaign.

You're missing the FACT that the law was not brought into effect under
Obama. You're missing the FACT the ISP law was opposed by Comcast and
other media organizations that worked hard to get Hillary elected and
failed. Democrat supporting donors opposed these rules. Perhaps
this is more likely a reason Obama did not get off his lazy ass
and make sure these rules were brought into effect before he
left office.

> It's silly to say the Trumpet did a "GOOD THING" because
> "someone should have written it sooner rather than later".

Except I never, ever implied or attempted to imply nor deploy
innuendo or any linguistic subterfuge to suggest any thing of
the sort. What I have stated though is that the ISP stories
smack of hyperbole and faux-outrage. The greater threat
to privacy comes not from the ISPs but from the deep state
and its related datamining search engine whose analytics,
resources and APIs infect nearly every web page on the Internet.

And I'm saddened by your line, Shadow because the campaign
by the Hillary media is already morphing into an impeach Trump
campaign something like the one against Dilma. Maybe you might
want to be concerned with this? You would want the Hillary media
to change the Presidency of the United States? Think about it.
This is the lot that worked to steer the Republicans to either
Ted Cruz or Donald J Trump because they thought those were the
only two candidates Hillary could beat, they had few scruples
then - even less now:

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called
for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more
established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp
insisted that Trump and other extremists should be "elevated" to
"leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take
them seriously."

The strategy backfired royally.



> []'s

[Spamblk]

Yrrah <Yrra...@acf.invalid> wrote in <news:1rbaeclp48fau3act...@net.com>:

> John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>:

>
>> > That's one idea. Another idea might be for some devout democrat explaining why
>> > these rules had not already been enacted under Obama.
>
>> Yes, one has to wonder that.
>

> democrat or Democrat?

One wonders. democrat with a small d seems about right.

> Anyway:

> "(...) Here is the absolute solid reality of what this decision to
> scrap the FCC rules means:
> ISPs were previously able to do what they can do now, ie, sell
> their customers' private data.

Oh my. So the rules - the rules opposed by Hillary donors - were not
yet in effect. Thanks for pointing this out at long last.

> But they were previously at risk of being investigated by the FTC
> and then, later, the FCC.
> If they had been found to have broken data privacy rules, they
> faced huge fines and most likely the requirement to get prior approval
> from the FTC/FCC before doing anything similar in future.

This happened to Verizon after they were caught doing it? And there
is the case of the Lenovo laptops, pre-installed with "Superfish".
Ah, but they had to. https makes it more difficult for an ISP to
see the indiviual web pages visited. Thanks to Superfish's root
certificate that matter could be dealt with. So Lenovo were
given "huge fines", under Obama, after they were caught were they?
Oooh!

> Now, however, there is no backstop. The FTC does not have
> jurisdiction. And nor does the FCC. The ISPs currently exist in a
> regulatory-free world.(...)"

Dearie me. Just like Gloogfool, Tw@tter and Fakekook.

Article:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/327250-broadband-alarmists-should-stop-misrepresenting-fccs-privacy

> Article:
> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/04/fcc_privacy_rules_myths/>
>
> Donald Dumb's "regulatory-free world" is a CEO's wet dream.
>
> Yrrah
>

[Shadow]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 23:58:35 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk

#FAKENEWS

> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/04/fcc_privacy_rules_myths/>

The article explains why in great detail. Read it carefully.

Both Trump and Clinton and don't represent the citizen. If
Trump is impeached, it will probably be a GOOD thing, you'll have a
chance to vote for someone decent. Like Dilma. Or Lula.
Not Clinton.....
[]'s

PS Dilma vetoed the right wing project to spy on Internet users here.
It will have to go through congress and the senate again to become
law. Then we will only be able to login to our ISPs with telemetry,
and a personal smartcard.

[Flasherly]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 22:23:10 -0300, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

>Then we will only be able to login to our ISPs with telemetry,
>and a personal smartcard.

Then the ISPs can kiss their revenue bye bye, at least for my monthly
bill. I've increasingly backed off, over the years, from personal
pathways and contacts by which I can be concretely watched, or known,
on the Internet, a limited and insular association for safety and
privacy purposes. So I'm not paying for that crap, at a premium for
services essentially to view advertising;- free, elective interaction
with Internet ISPs is the solution if they're moving wholesale to the
temple steps to be whoremongers with a hand in your pocket for
promising the world. Cultural entrainment in our age largely sucks,
leaving telephony -- a direct and unlimited means of communication,
within reason and moderation, the questionable residual -- to a WWW
future in a reflection of covert motifs and mercantile mongering. Much
of that is already established in commercial formations from urbanized
distribution and access to WWW broadcast points, as will it be
expanded, eventually, into an high likelihood and coming omnipresent
entity. Rape in billing while trying to cram a boiler room down
potential customers' throats would appear to have limited future
potential for the ISP business campaign agenda. Or maybe not;-
monetary intransigence and a capitalist often share a common character
trait, known for most any form of shit that delivers an immediately
tangible profit.

[John Corliss]

Yrrah wrote:

> John Corliss wrote:
>
>>> That's one idea. Another idea might be for some devout democrat explaining why
>>> these rules had not already been enacted under Obama.
>
>> Yes, one has to wonder that.
>

> democrat or Democrat?

I can't tell if you're calling me a democrat or not, but it sure looks
like you are. IF so, that's a pitfall people on either side of the fence
often fall into: "If you're not one of us, you must be a member of the
opposition."

I can see how Nazi Germany came into being because of just this kind of
thinking.

As for my real political views, this image sums it up nicely for me:

http://imgur.com/a/dRmss

> Anyway:
> "(...) Here is the absolute solid reality of what this decision to
> scrap the FCC rules means:
> ISPs were previously able to do what they can do now, ie, sell
> their customers' private data.

> But they were previously at risk of being investigated by the FTC
> and then, later, the FCC.
> If they had been found to have broken data privacy rules, they
> faced huge fines and most likely the requirement to get prior approval
> from the FTC/FCC before doing anything similar in future.

> Now, however, there is no backstop. The FTC does not have
> jurisdiction. And nor does the FCC. The ISPs currently exist in a
> regulatory-free world.(...)"

> Article:
> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/04/fcc_privacy_rules_myths/>
>
> Donald Dumb's "regulatory-free world" is a CEO's wet dream.

[John Corliss]

John Corliss wrote:
> Yrrah wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>>>> That's one idea. Another idea might be for some devout democrat explaining why
>>>> these rules had not already been enacted under Obama.
>>
>>> Yes, one has to wonder that.
>>
>> democrat or Democrat?
>
> I can't tell if you're calling me a democrat or not, but it sure looks
> like you are. IF so, that's a pitfall people on either side of the fence
> often fall into: "If you're not one of us, you must be a member of the
> opposition."
>
> I can see how Nazi Germany came into being because of just this kind of
> thinking.
>
> As for my real political views, this image sums it up nicely for me:
>
> http://imgur.com/a/dRmss

As I say to all my friend and relative whenever they start calling me a
member of the party opposing the one they're in, " I prefer to do my
thinking for myself rather than subscribe to a packaged set of values
and beliefs."

>> Anyway:
>> "(...) Here is the absolute solid reality of what this decision to
>> scrap the FCC rules means:
>> ISPs were previously able to do what they can do now, ie, sell
>> their customers' private data.
>> But they were previously at risk of being investigated by the FTC
>> and then, later, the FCC.
>> If they had been found to have broken data privacy rules, they
>> faced huge fines and most likely the requirement to get prior approval
>> from the FTC/FCC before doing anything similar in future.
>> Now, however, there is no backstop. The FTC does not have
>> jurisdiction. And nor does the FCC. The ISPs currently exist in a
>> regulatory-free world.(...)"
>> Article:
>> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/04/fcc_privacy_rules_myths/>
>>
>> Donald Dumb's "regulatory-free world" is a CEO's wet dream.

Personally, I think American politics is a fucking circus and high
theater. I don't think the president has been anything other than a
cartoonish figurehead for many, many years.

[John Corliss]

John Corliss wrote:
> Yrrah wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>>>> That's one idea. Another idea might be for some devout democrat explaining why
>>>> these rules had not already been enacted under Obama.
>>
>>> Yes, one has to wonder that.
>>
>> democrat or Democrat?

Okay, now I see the capitalization thing you did. I never capitalize
"republican" or "democrat" because I don't have a lot of respect for
people who are registered members of either party.

[Shadow]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 22:05:29 -0400, Flasherly <Flas...@live.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 22:23:10 -0300, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
>
>>Then we will only be able to login to our ISPs with telemetry,
>>and a personal smartcard.
>
>Then the ISPs can kiss their revenue bye bye, at least for my monthly
>bill.

I don't think you use Brazilian ISPs or lanhouses, Flash ...
check your GPS.
[]'s

[Diesel]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:oc54ui$84a$1...@dont-email.me Thu,
06 Apr 2017 10:26:03 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

[snip]

> As for my real political views, this image sums it up nicely for
> me:
>
> http://imgur.com/a/dRmss

Very well stated!



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

[Spamblk]

Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote in <news:nj5bect39lfd0e3sf...@4ax.com>:

> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 23:58:35 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
> <Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:
>
>>

<SNIP>

>>You're missing the FACT that the law was not brought into effect under
>>Obama. You're missing the FACT the ISP law was opposed by Comcast and
>>other media organizations that worked hard to get Hillary elected and
>>failed. Democrat supporting donors opposed these rules. Perhaps
>>this is more likely a reason Obama did not get off his lazy ass
>>and make sure these rules were brought into effect before he
>>left office.
>
> #FAKENEWS

>> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/04/fcc_privacy_rules_myths/>
>
> The article explains why in great detail. Read it carefully.

I have already read this utter nonsense:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-industry-using-convince-congress-repeal-fccs-privacy-rules

Fact: Google doesnt see everything you do on the
Internet (neither does Facebook, for that matter, or
any other online platform)they only see the traffic
you send to them. And you can always choose to use a
different website if you want to avoid Googles
tracking. None of that is true about your ISP.

Pretty disgraceful for the eff to distribute this garbage,
either it arises from sheer stupidity or a downright lie.

There is hardly a page on the 'Net that does not link up
to a Glugle/Fakekook/Twit-sh1tter tracker. Certainly for news
sites which I read a lot so I rely on several blocking
layers including content modification and IP address
blocking to keep Bl**dy Glugle off my browsing. A browser
by default setting typically sends the referer to a Glugle
resource as it loads and composes a web page. The referer
is telling Glugle what page referred it to its tracker.

In addition, Yrrah the shill gave the game away big time:

<news:1rbaeclp48fau3act...@net.com>

ISPs were previously able to do what they can do now,
ie, sell their customers' private data. But they were
previously at risk of being investigated by the FTC and
then, later, the FCC. If they had been found to have
broken data privacy rules, they faced huge fines and
most likely the requirement to get prior approval from
the FTC/FCC before doing anything similar in future.

The key thing to note in this wording in my mind is the
claim that ISPs were quote "at risk of being investigated".

Put another way Yrrah is NOT telling us that any WERE investigated
And, he is NOT telling us that any quote "huge fines" were imposed
under the Obama administration probably because none were.

So republicans (let's use the small r - John was right to have used it)
took away no existing rights. And I am still of the opinion that Hillary
would have found a way more subtle than Trump to see to it that
the wishes of Time Warner, Comcast and Soro$ were carried out.

So the purpose of the ISP stories in the Hillary media were more
about anti-Trump than any defense of privacy. Any such related
content in a freeware Newsgroup is totally off-topic.

<SNIP>

>>
>>http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
>>
>> The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called
>> for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more
>> established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp
>> insisted that Trump and other extremists should be "elevated" to
>> "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take
>> them seriously."
>>
>> The strategy backfired royally.
>
> Both Trump and Clinton and don't represent the citizen. If
> Trump is impeached, it will probably be a GOOD thing, you'll have a
> chance to vote for someone decent. Like Dilma. Or Lula.
> Not Clinton.....

Incorrect. There is no Progressive or Libertarian candidate in
sight. Their combined vote is 5% or 1 out of 20 American voters.

One of the best comments I heard Obama make is when he mused that
Trump would find out the limitations of the Office of the
Presidency. He was right. The real power is with the deep state
and it's media. General Flynn, Sessions, Bannon already finding
out. If Trump learns to do as he is told, he will not be impeached.
If he is impeached, his replacement will be someone that will do
as they are told.

> []'s
>
> PS Dilma vetoed the right wing project to spy on Internet users here.
> It will have to go through congress and the senate again to become
> law. Then we will only be able to login to our ISPs with telemetry,
> and a personal smartcard.

Yes I was somewhat surprised that the PT was unable to muster
the 1/3rd Senate vote needed to block impeachment. I suspected that
big money drives Brazil's politics much as it does in other
countries.

[Shadow]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:55:11 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk

<Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:

>
>Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote in <news:nj5bect39lfd0e3sf...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 23:58:35 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
>> <Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
><SNIP>
>>>You're missing the FACT that the law was not brought into effect under
>>>Obama. You're missing the FACT the ISP law was opposed by Comcast and
>>>other media organizations that worked hard to get Hillary elected and
>>>failed. Democrat supporting donors opposed these rules. Perhaps
>>>this is more likely a reason Obama did not get off his lazy ass
>>>and make sure these rules were brought into effect before he
>>>left office.
>>
>> #FAKENEWS
>
>>> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/04/fcc_privacy_rules_myths/>
>>
>> The article explains why in great detail. Read it carefully.

Hum, you didn't read it.

>
>I have already read this utter nonsense:
>
>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-industry-using-convince-congress-repeal-fccs-privacy-rules

Yes, nonsense, so why quote it ?

>
> Fact: Google doesnt see everything you do on the
> Internet (neither does Facebook, for that matter, or
> any other online platform)they only see the traffic
> you send to them. And you can always choose to use a
> different website if you want to avoid Googles
> tracking. None of that is true about your ISP.

So I can choose to turn off remote Google Analytics etc cross
referencing whatever sites I visit and building a profile on me ?

Where's the "off" button ? Nonsense.

>
>Pretty disgraceful for the eff to distribute this garbage,
>either it arises from sheer stupidity or a downright lie.

Where's the "off" button ?

>
>There is hardly a page on the 'Net that does not link up
>to a Glugle/Fakekook/Twit-sh1tter tracker. Certainly for news
>sites which I read a lot so I rely on several blocking
>layers including content modification and IP address
>blocking to keep Bl**dy Glugle off my browsing. A browser
>by default setting typically sends the referer to a Glugle
>resource as it loads and composes a web page. The referer
>is telling Glugle what page referred it to its tracker.

???
Referers have NOTHING to do with Google tracking. They are
site-to-site and generate revenue. I don't know where you got that
text from, but it's faulty.
Google, Facebook etc don't track you via referers, never have.
The only ones that have ALL the data are the ISPs and their owners.
The article you quoted is NOT the one that shows what REALLY
happened.
>
>In addition, Yrrah gave the game away big time:

????? He quoted an article, that is very well written and explains
clearly what the American people lost.

>
><news:1rbaeclp48fau3act...@net.com>
>
> ISPs were previously able to do what they can do now,
> ie, sell their customers' private data. But they were
> previously at risk of being investigated by the FTC and
> then, later, the FCC. If they had been found to have
> broken data privacy rules, they faced huge fines and
> most likely the requirement to get prior approval from
> the FTC/FCC before doing anything similar in future.

Yep, FACT.

>
>The key thing to note in this wording in my mind is the
>claim that ISPs were quote "at risk of being investigated".

Yes. Correct.

>
>Put another way Yrrah is NOT telling us that any WERE investigated

No, he was telling you that if anyone objected or took them to
court, they COULD be investigated, so they DID NOT sell very personal
user data during the previous administration. The fallout and
publicity would have been very BAD for business.
Now they can, and you can't do anything about it. That, in a
nutshell, is what changed.

>>
>> PS Dilma vetoed the right wing project to spy on Internet users here.
>> It will have to go through congress and the senate again to become
>> law. Then we will only be able to login to our ISPs with telemetry,
>> and a personal smartcard.
>
>Yes I was somewhat surprised that the PT was unable to muster
>the 1/3rd Senate vote needed to block impeachment. I suspected that
>big money drives Brazil's politics much as it does in other
>countries.

The urns were made by Soros, and auditing the software was
forbidden by the Justice department (for the first time ever) Although
the PT had 60% of the Presidential vote (80% according to the Oxfam
research), they only got under 10% for congress and the senate.
Obviously, the results were jinxed. You don't support a
president and vote for someone that opposes his politics.
Think, the Trumpet winning and congress and senate 90%
Democrats. How likely is that ?
The coup was planned by the US. All the major players traveled
to and from Washington during the coup, even the "homeless guys" that
were so popular on our US owned TV and newspapers. OMG, even the
"terrorists" that exploded bombs and killed people and were then
released without trial, they traveled to Washington.
We are not smart enough to do a 9/11. The coup was obvious to
anyone capable of thought.
[]'s

[Spamblk]

Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote in <news:g15fecd8mcc9qvcbb...@4ax.com>:

> On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:55:11 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
> <Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote in <news:nj5bect39lfd0e3sf...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 23:58:35 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
>>> <Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>

<SNIP>

>>

>> Fact: Google doesnt see everything you do on the
>> Internet (neither does Facebook, for that matter, or
>> any other online platform)they only see the traffic
>> you send to them. And you can always choose to use a
>> different website if you want to avoid Googles
>> tracking. None of that is true about your ISP.
>
> So I can choose to turn off remote Google Analytics etc cross
> referencing whatever sites I visit and building a profile on me ?
>
> Where's the "off" button ? Nonsense.

(???) The argument to repeal the FCC's proposed rules was supported
by the claim that it would be unfair to apply one rule to the ISPs
and another to the web's major trackers. For the reasons given
I do not buy the argument that the WWW major players particularly
Google can by bypassed that easily.

>>
>>Pretty disgraceful for the eff to distribute this garbage,
>>either it arises from sheer stupidity or a downright lie.
>
> Where's the "off" button ?

What off button?

>>
>>There is hardly a page on the 'Net that does not link up
>>to a Glugle/Fakekook/Twit-sh1tter tracker. Certainly for news
>>sites which I read a lot so I rely on several blocking
>>layers including content modification and IP address
>>blocking to keep Bl**dy Glugle off my browsing. A browser
>>by default setting typically sends the referer to a Glugle
>>resource as it loads and composes a web page. The referer
>>is telling Glugle what page referred it to its tracker.
>
> ???
> Referers have NOTHING to do with Google tracking. They are
> site-to-site and generate revenue. I don't know where you got that
> text from, but it's faulty.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22929717/does-google-analytics-use-the-referer-field-on-request-header

http://www.terminusapp.com/blog/get-accurate-traffic-reports/

> Google, Facebook etc don't track you via referers, never have.

What I wrote is that a typical browser calls third party
resources with a referer that by default setup sends the url of the
page making request. You have not disputed this in any way.

> The only ones that have ALL the data are the ISPs and their owners.

Really? A TCP packet passes through network hops which also sees
what the ISP sees. If you control the backbone networks and fiber
optic data channels, you can more or less can see what any ISP sees
by joining the dots.

> The article you quoted is NOT the one that shows what REALLY
> happened.

The article I previously quoted from Arstechnica states the
new rules were not due to come into effect until Dec 4, 2017 and
that claim is not disputed. Arstechnica is a reputable site
and its claims were spot on.

>>
>>In addition, Yrrah gave the game away big time:
>
> ????? He quoted an article, that is very well written and explains
> clearly what the American people lost.
>>
>><news:1rbaeclp48fau3act...@net.com>
>>
>> ISPs were previously able to do what they can do now,
>> ie, sell their customers' private data. But they were
>> previously at risk of being investigated by the FTC and
>> then, later, the FCC. If they had been found to have
>> broken data privacy rules, they faced huge fines and
>> most likely the requirement to get prior approval from
>> the FTC/FCC before doing anything similar in future.
>
> Yep, FACT.

Being "at risk" does not describe any event. Yrrah did not
describe any event such as the FCC actually fining an ISP for
using browsing history to target ads.

>>
>>The key thing to note in this wording in my mind is the
>>claim that ISPs were quote "at risk of being investigated".
>
> Yes. Correct.
>>
>>Put another way Yrrah is NOT telling us that any WERE investigated
>
> No, he was telling you that if anyone objected or took them to
> court, they COULD be investigated,

I COULD win the lottery. You COULD win the lottery. Null argument.
I'm not interested if they COULD be investigated, I am interested
if they WERE investigated.

> so they DID NOT sell very personal
> user data during the previous administration.

No evidence cited. Anyway to prove either-way is tantamount to
proving a negative. You might be aware of how difficult it is
to prove a negative. There is no easy way to prove the
assertion that "they [ISPs] DID NOT sell very personal user
data during the previous administration". In my opinion,
you cannot prove that assertion.

> The fallout and
> publicity would have been very BAD for business.

The fallout over Superfish's spy root certificate is what
persuaded Lenovo to desist. Nothing to do with any FCC rules
actual or proposed therefore your words do not constitute any
challenge to my lines of argument IMO.

> Now they can, and you can't do anything about it. That, in a
> nutshell, is what changed.

"Now they can" bad argument unless you are calling into question
my assertion that the rules were not due to come into effect
as Arstechnica and other sites have stated until Dec 4 2017.
None of the lines of text you have written can I find a
challenge to that assertion. Your logic about ISPs being
restrained not because they WERE investigated, but rather
"COULD be investigated" belongs more in the realms of
probabilty theory and speculation.

Moreover as you alluded, the ISPs can be restrained by behavior
that is (your quote) "very BAD for business". They can still
be restrained by bad publicity whetever the FCC rules are.
Provided, of course, users have a choice. Pro privacy US states
have the power to make sure that users do have the choice
to vote with their feet when it comes to choosing an ISP.


<SNIP>

> Obviously, the results were jinxed. You don't support a
> president and vote for someone that opposes his politics.
> Think, the Trumpet winning and congress and senate 90%
> Democrats. How likely is that ?

The difference between the Trumpet as you call him and Hillary
was that Hillary had the intervene in Syria establishment
behind her and overwelming support from the media. Little
similarity to Dilma too. Obama referred to the limitations of
his office. Trump is learning. He will not be impeached if
he does as he is told. He is being told that the US is the
world's policeman and he gets to keep his job provided
he signs up to all of the job specification. It looks like
he will get to keep his job if recent events are any guide.

In my opinion the Hillary tactic of Pied Piper to persuade
the republicans to put Trump or Cruz up against her as she
thought she could beat them suggests that instead of whining
about Trump now, #neverTrump voters might be better making
sure that in 2018 and 2020 there are candidates with a few
more scruples.