The Glade 4.0

That's as much (or more) of an issue with social media than it is anything else, though.

I don't recommend anyone with the slightest concern for privacy ever use facebook, instagram, or post anything identifying on twitter.

_________________
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 the same as opening your mail



Note that in the last case, the article specifically says that the FCC penalized Verizon - under existing rules, not the repealed rules, so whether tracking cookies will be permitted is questionable at best.

This is akin to looking at the outside of people's mail and then making inferences based on the envelopes - which isn't the same as actually opening it up. Despite the claim that someone could, for example, infer your health problems from a search for certain diseases, only an idiot would do that. A person could have a relative with that disease, a school project, quite a few other reasons.

Furthermore, it isn't like anyone's going to sit there pouring over your individual records and making inferences from it; there's far too much data. Some computer is going to provide you advertising targeted at you, just like now.

Once again, we are talking about maintaining the status quo. If you think not having these regulations allows these behaviors, you necessarily must believe they are going on now, so what the **** are you doing on the internet if you're so concerned?

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

There's only about 10,000 FBI agents. It takes a lot more than an FBI agent with a grudge to get a conviction - namely, time and energy.

You can walk right into an FBI office, admit pirating for personal use tons of music and movies, with no rights read or any understanding whatsoever of immunity and not only walk out without getting arrested but walk out with a passing polygraph and an intact job offer as a Special Agent. You can admit to quite a few other things too. The FBI is well aware that stuff happens. There wouldn't be an FBI if they were as vindictive as you seem to believe because no one would be able to pass the background check to work there.

I know because I did precisely that. Had I had better grades in college, I'd be a special agent right now. Of course, then I wouldn't be here to correct this sort of thing either.

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

There's laws against opening mail. There are no laws against looking at the outside of mail, and you don't have any privacy in the addressing and delivery of your mail. There are laws against recording your phone conversations; there's no law against recording what numbers you dialed.

No one has yet demonstrated that ISPs presently can sell your personal financial information you use to pay them, nor the contents of your internet communications. All they can do is sell the same information that search engines can - the claim is that this puts both on an equal footing. If someone's going to make the claim that they can (and do) already sell things like your credit card number, you're going to have to demonstrate that because there was never any claim that ISPs could sell any and all information they might have, just the same ones search engine companies can.

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

Except that they aren't and can't be because they don't work the same way. Mail has no such thing as a search engine.

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

I'm not saying email is analogous to letter-mail. I'm saying every TCP/IP data packet you send or receive is analogous to letter-mail.

_________________
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're being deliberately obtuse, DE. The issues involved are obviously similar.

This isn't quite accurate, it's accurate if the connection is encrypted, but a lot of Internet traffic isn't. If you're simply browsing an unencrypted website the ISP can see all data you send to that website and all data the website sends to you. They're perfectly free to examine the contents of, for example, cookies the website sends you to save whatever preferences and settings you made on that website. If you buy something via mail order someone looking at your physical packages alone can only see who you bought the item from, not what's actually contained in the package. Your ISP, on the other hand, can easily see what was in the shopping cart of the website you visited and determine exactly what you purchased.

Also, "too much data" is not a real thing when it comes to stuff like this, CPU cycles are very cheap and you can basically assume that any automatable data mining is already happening. Is it not far fetched to assume that the ISPs won't statistically analyze all the available data and use it to come up with an "Internet score" akin to a credit score that they will then sell to third parties who will then use it to determine if they want to hire you, extend you insurance/loans/credit, etc.

I am having a hard time with this whole thread. Apparently a few of you are obtuse, or have other issues regarding reading comprehension. What follows is as simple as I can explain.

Anyone living in the United States that has an ISP, which includes most of the posters here, has already provided said ISP with personal information. Any law protecting us from ISPs using personal information is many, many years too late. Unless a law is passed against using said information AND you change ISPs once said law gets passed.

_________________
"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

That assumes (a) that information has already been sold and (b) there can be no further harm from continuing to sell your data. Even if both of those were true (the former is not necessarily true and the latter is certainly not true), that is not a good reason to prevent it from continuing to happen in the future.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

Please, I would like all of you to shoot your computers. Oh, and phones, smart TVs, game consoles, and anything else you may have that can run web browser software. Do it for me.

_________________

I understand that, Kairtane. I'm talking about the larger issue of how we should regulate the privacy of people's personal information and online activity going forward, not just whether/how this particular proposed regulation impacts things. I'm saying that as technology changes, laws and regulations have to address that change and the impacts it has. At the moment, the technology has outpaced the relevant legislation.

It is a reading comprehension issue. Your post in no way addresses the one you quoted. As has been said many times in this thread, They already have the information and could have sold it at any time, up to and including right this minute. NOTHING has changed.

Further, I'm happier if my information is in the hands of the private sector. The US Government has already allowed personal information about me and everyone I knew prior to my 17th birthday to be stolen.

_________________
"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

Nobody is saying anything different. This is totally irrelevant to every argument being made here.





Yes, something has changed. New regulations were to go into effect that would prevent them from selling this information. Data your ISP had was going to have to be treated the same way that data the post office had. That's no longer going to be the case in the USA.




I don't understand this attitude. Because one bad guy already had your information, you're quite happy that same bad guy is going to ensure your information can continue to be sold to hundreds of other bad guys.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Is Elmo playing a new game?

_________________
The Dude abides.

Star Citizen 2.6?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If you don't think Google doesn't know exactly who you are, where you live and who you hang out with then I have a bridge you can buy in New York.

Retailers have been able to identify YOU for over 20 years with just your zip code and name (even if there are 500 other Jackie's in your zip code):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamtanner ... 2628f3786f

Google stopped relying on cookies years ago:
http://www.webpronews.com/google-intere ... g-2011-06/

Most big websites now use ID Targeting (Why you see the same Amazon ads on your phone that you saw on your laptop) which is just an incremental step from cookies:
https://www.clickz.com/reaching-people- ... ing/30892/

Google gives so few **** to give that they even tell you straight up in plain English they do this:
https://privacy.google.com/your-data.html

_________________

No, they're not. All I see is people arbitrarily proclaiming they're similar because they want them to be. Internet communication behaves like postal or phone communications only in the most general sense. It's a useful analogy to get the point across to new students of how encapsulation works, conceptually, but that doesn't make the issues similar because you don't use the Internet in the same way you use mail or the telephone.

Furthermore, I see someone who is a network engineer telling us all we basically have no idea what we're talking about and then you saying "well, they're obviously similar." I think the most likely conclusion is that you know so little about how the internet actually works that it just seems obvious to you. I'm no expert on the technical aspects of the internet, but I am taking a class from Cisco, and I can open my textbook right now and see all kinds of ways that internet communications behave completely differently than a letter in an envelope.

The fact is that there is no baseline reason why there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy in communicating over the internet. There may be in many individual types of communication which take additional measures to create that reasonable expectation, but it doesn't exist as a baseline.

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

In other words, something was going to change and didn't. So nothing will change.

There is no good reason why ISP information should be treated as if they were the post office. Any time you perform a web search, your search provider already gets the data in the search string, and the associated sender information in order to get the search results back to the appropriate device. they have this information. Then when you click the link for the pizza you want to order, the pizza place also gets the information it needs to process your order for 2 large Supremes and a 2-liter of Coke, and all the associated addressing information to tell you it will be ready in 25 minutes.

There's no reason either should consider this privileged information. The specific data on the credit card you used to pay for the pizza might be, but that's already protected by a whole host of other laws; no one is saying anyone should be able to sell your credit card information to other people and let them charge it without your consent. There's protocols in place to protect the transaction from interception, but the fact that you conducted the transaction isn't inherently private. Some transactions might be (such as medical ones) but in that case the issue is protection of medical information, and is covered under those laws, not the fact that you did it on the internet.

Nothing is stopping the pizza shop or Google from selling the information saying "X and Y combination of MAC and IP addresses search for pizza", so why should an ISP pretend you sent a letter, when you clearly didn't? This isn't actually accomplishing anything in terms of privacy. "But Canada has it!" doesn't mean anything; Canada has all kinds of fantasies about things the government should be doing.

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

You haven't demonstrated that. Not all information you send over the internet is "personal" or subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This started out with a freakout that new, alarming forms of intrusion would start taking place, until it was pointed out that these would be new regulations and nothing is stopping those alarming things from happening now, and yet they aren't. No one has yet pointed to an actual problem this is supposed to solve, other than to make people feel better because they wrongly assumed that these regulations already existed. Despite the existence of similar regulations in Canada (I am sure a side by side examination of the texts would reveal significant differences), no one has pointed to any evidence of problems that exist in the U.S. but not in Canada, just a general allegation that "well, it's just super duper that us Canadians have them alongside our hate speech laws, social programs, and failure to meet our NATO spending obligations."

What is going on is that you have people assuming that because some internet communications are expected to be private, that therefore all are, and that a public activity in a public place is private simply because we've created the technological means for one to do so in their underwear from their easy chair.

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

Google doesn't have my postal code.



Not really relevant.



Of course they do, which further goes toward obscuring identity. Each of my google accounts actually gets different ads, google doesn't associate them together.



This is the interesting one:




Google has my name, only because I chose to give it to them.
Google has my email address, but only because it's on their server.
Google does not have my birthday, because **** them.
Google has my gender, but I don't give a ****.
Google does not have my phone number, because **** them.
Google does not even necessarily have my country (I have an account I registered through a VPN, listing the USA as country of residence, in order to access the google play store in America, which occasionally has different apps.)

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

It's not a technical question. What matters is the service that is being provided, not the mechanical means by which it occurs. For the last 100 years (longer with the mails), society has expected and required third-parties who are in the business of transmitting otherwise private communications between people to maintain that privacy. We required it of mail carriers. We required it of telegraph operators. We required it of phone companies. It is not a stretch to now require it of ISPs and other online service providers. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is so directly consistent with past practice, that the burden of persuasion should be on those who oppose extending privacy requirements to ISPs, etc. to justify why this particular iteration of communication technology should be different than the prior ones.

"I did not give google this information" != "Google does not have this information"

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

The mechanical means matter immensely. They dictate what is realistic and reasonable.


You are begging the question. I am saying that not all internet communications are private communications. It is irrelevant what the requirements of private communications are; I haven't contested that in those instances that specifically ARE private that these requirements should be ignored. That isn't in question.


Yes it is. The nature of what you are doing on the internet is not always the same as sending a letter, phone call, or telegram. Those are distinct communications between a sender and a receiver. There is a "session" of sorts (I am not referring to the OSI session layer here, just using it as a general term), such as the call or the telegram sending, or the sending of the letter, and a communication that exists distinctly within it.

Internet communications are not like that. Examination of the communicated information - the information inside the letter or call or telegram - is necessary for the internet to perform its functions in many cases. I already pointed this out - if you search for "pizza", that search term is inside a frame, or frames, that is encapsulated by headers and a trailer. That information has to be stripped off to process the packet and get you your search results. In order for the internet to be useful at all, what information you send has to be linked to who sent it. You don't, on the phone or the mail, send any sort of broadcast. You have no equivalent to a WAN or a LAN. In fact, it's not even possible to publicly expose your information on those forms of communication in the way you can on the internet. There's no equivalent of Facebook where you can go expose every detail of your life and then wonder why people know how to exploit them. It simply cannot be done, and this means the nature of the internet is different in ways that calling them "technical" or "mechanical" trivialize to the point of absurdity.

Furthermore, the entire idea of the internet is that it's not a distinct organization, but a collaborative worldwide effort. Your ISP is not Fedex. They're just an organization on the internet; they just do different stuff on the internet than you do.

Furthermore, the communications information required to get the actual frames from point A to point B is not secret or private at all, and claiming it is, is idiotic. There is no reason whatsoever this should be privileged or considered private, any more than the number on the front of your house is.



You don't get to say that. You're the one making the claim that it's a private communication, and that it's similar. The burden necessarily falls on you. Just because it seems similar to lay people doesn't mean that it actually is similar, it means that lay people think it's similar because they don't think through all of the ramifications. The internet is, in very general terms, an amalgamation of a communications system and a public square or public place. It is foolish and inconsistent with reality to pretend one or the other ought to govern exclusively. (and even that analogy is probably not entirely accurate.)

On top of that, you've already been given some, and you haven't addressed them, except to repeat your assertion that it's the same as older forms of communication. I wish shuyung would tell us where we're **** up, because I don't expect any counter to really make any sense. I can open my Cisco book and understand that you're wrong, but I'm far from proficient enough to explain why in my own words.

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