The Glade 4.0

This was a rule that hadn't gone into affect yet. So, effectively, there will be no change.

Point is, there should be.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This isn't how it works. The information actually belongs to the ISP, not to you. That's why they can sell it. It's private information about you, but you don't own it. It is not "public information." You can't sell information that's already in public because... it's public. It'd be like trying to sell a story that Donald Trump get elected President. It has no value because it's freely available. It is also not "protected" or otherwise confidential information.

The fact that the information a company holds about you isn't subject to a confidentiality agreement does not mean that it's no longer subject to normal search and seizure laws. It doesn't "become fair game"; there's no such legal doctrine as "fair game"; this is just a meaningless imagining. The government still needs to get it either through voluntary surrender or compulsory process if they want to use it in court.

This is like if, for example, the police want credit card records from you, as a store owner, to see if I made a purchase their at a certain time. The information is about me, but it isn't my information. It's yours. It also isn't "public"; anyone can't just walk in and look at your credit card receipts. You could, however, sell records of who came to your store to anyone who wanted to buy them and mail out advertising.

Now, if the cops want to prove I was at Taly's Sex and Porn Emporium on Election Day, 2016, they can either ask you to give them the receipts voluntarily or they can subpoena them or execute a search warrant. The records are not somehow immune from those requirements just because there's no law against you selling them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And yet, you didn't understand this making your initial post. You also haven't explained why there should be. We've all been using the internet just fine so far, for the last 17 or 18 years. Why should there be? Because someone might make some money? Who gives a ****?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because that protection has always existed here. It's rather insane that it doesn't, there.





Why should privacy exist at all? We don't need privacy! Who gives a **** about privacy?

Nothing about turning human beings into just another commodity and ensuring that regardless of reason, other people, whether civilian or government, can legally acquire confidential information about us for the right price, strikes you as draconian?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So what? Protection from what, exactly? Internet advertising? Canada's doing it? You also have hate speech laws and other bullshit up there; I'm not too interested in adopting Canadian social laws.

There's nothing "insane" about it not existing at all. "Insane" is just a cute way of saying "it's utterly trivial but it bothers me personally so I'll use loaded words to claim it's a huge issue."




You're sending information across someone else's hardware - a lot of someone elses - using someone else's software, which billions of people have access to, such as Chinese and Russian hackers.

This isn't a privacy issue.

If you want to worry about privacy, how about the fact that Microsoft puts spyware into the OS of anyone with Windows 10 and disguises it as a female talking to them? That strikes me as much more of a privacy issue - I own my computer. I don't own the internet.



This isn't confidential information. It's been the case already for 2 decades or so; it's hardly draconian for the government to not start regulating it all of a sudden. It isn't turning "people into commodities" to target ads that they mostly just won't click on. I care about people getting "turned into commodities" when they get thrown in the back of a semi truck, drugged, and then repeatedly **** up the *** for a pimp. I don't give a **** if you're "turned into a commodity" because someone advertises some leggings to you in the sidebar of Tangled Web or some ****.

This is the epitome of a First World Problem, and really, the overwrought language makes it sound like you really don't have an actual reason beyond maybe being under the mistaken impression that anyone is actually interested in you? No actual person is ever going to give a **** about looking at your information; it's going to get fed into some algorithm to advertise leggings, underwear, sex toys and ASUS laptops to you when you're downloading mods for your games or whatever.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So when life insurance companies start cancelling policies for people searching for information on cancer; when divorce lawyers pull out your porn viewing history in court; when companies start sending you threatening cease and desist letters for watching YouTube videos with copyrighted songs in them; when companies start suing you for posting an anonymous bad review of their products; when companies don't bother protecting your information because they have no legal obligation to do so, leaving it exposed for any hacker to get their hands on... The list goes on and on, and that's without invoking the ease with which law enforcement can buy your information for use in court rather than subpoena it... You've got no issued with any of that?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

We get it, Talya, you have protection against your ISP selling you information and we don't. We're okay with that or we wouldn't be here arguing with you about it.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

Strange as it may seem I don't take issue with boogeyman fantasy scenarios. I don't know how many time I need to say this - all this does is maintain the status quo. This would have already happened if it was going to - but it hasn't, and it's so wildly unrealistic as to be laughable.

Seriously, you just repeated this nonsense about law enforcement purchasing people's information even though I just explained why this wouldn't work. You didn't come up with anything even remotely resembling an argument, and in fact you haven't this entire thread.

This is what emotion-driven argument looks like. I think maybe I support having these protections for U.S. citizens only, and letting U.S. internet companies sell information freely on non U.S. citzens freely.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I would bet it has happened already.

Your US citizens idea...That would be odd. ISPs only really have sensitive information on their own customers. Green card holders living in America would see their data sold by the ISP they choose, but citizens would be safe. How would the ISP know which of their customers was a citizen and which was there on a green card or long term Visa?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

You'd be wrong. This would be a massive shift in jurisprudence; it would get top billing in every press outles if there were such an obvious and easy way for the government to make an end run around the 4th Amendment. Also, I'd personally know about it because I'd either be doing it myself or working with people doing it.



How sure are you about that? I hear some Democrats are mighty disappointed to find out some people got hold of their emails rather easily.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Also, given that regulations tend to end up like this, I doubt very much that this regulation was some simple document saying simply "yeah you can't sell people's information without their consent." Most likely it was some several hundred page monstrosity and this was just one popular element inside it that the press focused on in order to gin up outrage.

(lol 34 million possible combinations)

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Things have changed, though. It's only recently that the sheer amount of information out there, the ease of access to it, the power of the data mining software, etc. has all combined to make this such an issue. It's like traffic laws and aviation regulations. When cars first became a thing, we really didn't need much in the way of speed limits and traffic regs, because there weren't many cars on the roads and they weren't that powerful. Ditto for planes - as they became more ubiquitous and more powerful, the laws and regulations governing their use had to expand and adapt. I think we're at that point now when it comes to the commodification of personal data and the privacy laws governing it.

It's simple. You don't want your information used? Don't use the **** internet.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

I wish I could even begin to estimate how many of the people lighting torches and sharpening pitchforks are Google users.

_________________

It's actually nothing like that at all. These laws having nothing to do with the physical ability of traffic to travel across the internet.

These regulations specifically target ISPs, not anyone else, and more importantly, no "issue" has been identified other than the outrage over the regulations themselves. There is nothing about the point we are at to make us think that we specifically need these regulations, or that they combat any particular problem.

Instead, they're just popular because they cater to ideas about privacy in the real world. People think that because they use the internet from their personal computer, often in their own home, that therefore it's private and confidential. It's not. It's a public place. Claiming that it is, is like claiming that people aren't allowed to observe what you do in a public place just because they aren't allowed to stick their hands in your pockets or lift your shirt up.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So, you're all totally cool with Fed Ex, UPS, etc. opening all of your mail and selling the information they glean from it to whatever third party they want? And Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc. should all be allowed to record your phone calls, data mine the contents and sell that information too, yes? You think all the relevant laws and regulations that were put into effect to prevent that stuff should be repealed, right? I mean, if you want to keep your privacy, it's simple, don't use the **** phone and don't send any **** mail.

All Americans are felons. All it takes is an FBI agent with a grudge to put any one of us in jail.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

...said the frog, with an unconcerned shrug, as the water around him began to bubble.

There are laws against anyone opening mail destined for another, so that argument is null. There are also laws against providers recording calls, another null argument. Who is talking about repealing anything? This is simply stopping what would have prevented ISPs using your data.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

Or live in a country not the USA.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Again, there's a difference between metadata and personal data.

Google does not necessarily have any way to personally identify you. My google account has no credit card, no physical address, no full name, no phone number, no credit information, etc. Google will certainly use my search habits to refine their search engine, to sell trends and metadata to marketing companies, and even to customize ads shown to me on their sites. What they cannot do is associate anything about me personally to that information.

If my ISP had the right to sell my information, they could include all of that information in their sale, which opens a whole can of worms regarding privacy. (Fortunately, my ISP - a major Canadian communication provider - is also one of the larger internet privacy lobbyists in the country.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yes, but my point is that those only laws exist because, as privately-owned mail and phone companies grew and became integral forms of communication in our society, laws were passed to protect the privacy of people using those forms of communication. Now, a new form of communication has arisen and become integral to our society, and so the laws have to adapt to cover that form of communication if we want to preserve the kind privacy our communications have had up to this point.

That's actually an excellent point. Internet communication privacy is directly analogous to snail mail privacy and telephone communication privacy. The regulations that were scrapped were designed to put them on equal footing.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Well, don't be so sure. Check out this impressively simple bit of social media sleuthing:


This is related to my earlier reference to data-mining software. This was one person spending a few hours casually connecting the dots, and she was able to pretty definitively figure out which of the millions of "anonymous" Twitter accounts was Comey based on just a few initial clues that Comey didn't even realize were clues. With the sheer amount of information out there and the power of modern data-mining tools, anonymous and/or private communication is damn near impossible these days, particularly if we continue to allow companies to collect and monetize that information. Maybe there's no putting the genie back in the bottle, and maybe the cost of prohibiting it (e.g., shifting the Net closer to a pay-for-play model) outweighs the benefit, but it's definitely a discussion we should be having, which is why I find the dismissive "I'm too cool to care about this" attitude of some people so misplaced.