The Glade 4.0

Well, I would certainly be interested in learning what aspect of internet communication protocols is dependent on Time Warner, Verizon, Google, Amazon, etc. having the legal right to scrub my emails for key words, keep track of my search history, contact lists, browsing preferences, purchases, etc., and bundle it all up for sale to third parties.

Heh.

_________________
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 can't go anywhere further with this discussion.

The regulations were targeted at ISPs only. That would include Time Warner and Verizon, but not Amazon or Google, so they wouldn't have been affected anyhow. The whole argument AGAINST the regulations was that it favored some companies over others.

This is on top of the fact that you didn't realize these were regulations that didn't yet exist in the first place. It's fairly obvious you didn't know and didn't care what they were supposed to regulate, all you saw was "privacy regulations" and "republicans".

As for internet searches, browsing preferences, and purchases, I don't know why you think you have any legal right to prevent them from doing precisely that. You're transacting business directly with them - they're searching for information and providing it to you - so I don't see why that's any more protected that some coffee shop owner telling someone you like to buy a latte every day.

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

If your internet browsing history is not private, would it be okay for your ISP to publish that information publicly without your permission? If your ISP, for whatever reason, decided to publish your browsing history in the local newspaper for all your neighbors to see, would that be okay (legally)? It's not like you had any expectation of privacy, right?

Legally, yes. Which is part of the problem with scrapping this law.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

That's fine; I agree we're at an impasse. Just one last note is that I never weighed in on these regs specifically, as others were discussing at the front end of the thread. I jumped in later in response to the broader issue of privacy regulations generally.

Technically, yes, this would be perfectly fine from a privacy standpoint.

However, it is absurd as a practical matter, and highlights the silliness of the concerns. No one actually gives a **** about your browsing history. Even advertisers don't; they just want you to pop up in algorithms for products you might like. Part of the reason for the privacy concerns is that people think they actually individually matter to anyone.

It's particularly dumb if you're claiming the government itself is going to do something nefarious. If it is, regulations aren't going to stop it. At that point you may as well go dig a bunker and live off the grid because you're just creating unsolvable problems to win arguments on the internet.

If, on the other hand, you're mature enough to understand that automatic cynical distrust of all things government is no more supportable than naïve trust of the government, then you can believe regulations might prevent improper use of purchased data. disregarding the silly idea that courts would permit an end run around the 4th Amendment that way, if you want to regulate law enforcement, regulate law enforcement. The proper way to stop law enforcement from buying evidence is a regulation stating (generally) "Law enforcement agencies must obtain warrants; they may not purchase evidence", not "ISPs cannot sell information (but **** lol if you have information and aren't an ISP)"

The idea that these regulations were a safeguard against government abuse is like trying to argue you can perform a tonsillectomy by entering the patient through the anus. It might conceivably be possible but You're Doing It Wrong.

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

I understand that, but that's actually part of the problem. We started off discussing the non-implementation of these regulations specifically; going off onto all kinds of other hypothetical scenarios just confuses both sides and ends in talking past each other.

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

Lol! I disagree with you on the substance of this thread, DE, but that was a great line.

Really? I bet Private Investigators, Background Check companies, stalkers love this

I hear Hitler really liked highway building. Must be a terrible idea. I bet stalkers and PIs also like having a camera in their smartphone. Obviously also a bad idea.

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

I'm still waiting on your justification for why we SHOULD allow them to sell the data. You're spending a lot of time saying "this isn't so bad." -- I have yet to see why it's GOOD.

Yes, just because something can be misused doesn't NECESSARILY mean its a bad thing, but please show me where the good outweighs the bad here?

Your ridiculous Hitler analogy falls apart because Highways, phones etc have demonstrable value. So stop with the absurd false analogy. You're better than this.

You do realize that we're still talking about regulations that only stopped SOME companies from selling information?

I don't need to. This is an additional government regulation. So far the problems it supposedly solves are nonexistent, even though they would exist under the status quo.

but since you want one - companies that provide services while making money in other places keeps my cost down. I don't want internet searches to become a microtransaction.



I haven't been shown any bad for this to outweigh. These regulations solved a nonexistent problem. The good is that we're limiting government interference in the market that did nothing but pander to people who don't know what the ****.



That's not a false analogy. You said that "stalkers would like this". The analogy pointed out that "bad people might like something" is not a legitimate argument against it. So stop switching your own position.

In a free society, the burden isn't on people to show that some positive societal good is required to not proscribe conduct. This is a reason to avoid these regulations all by itself - it shits all over the regulation-loving types, and on the hypocrite that hates regulation until it pokes their personal paranoia.

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

ah. So you're operating from the premise that "regulation is evil"

Me, I value privacy more than freedom from regulation on corporations. Corps don't have any rights that are being infringed upon in my value set. But Thank you for helping us identify that you value corporate entities over individual rights.

No, I'm operating from the premise that regulation must be shown to be good. Benign but unnecessary regulation is still negative, without going into the theatrics of calling it "evil."



Your rights are not the issue here. This thread was started because of a specific set of regulations - regulations that would have prevented one type of corporation from disseminating your information while permitting others to do the same. The sole differentiation is what type of corporation would be doing it. This solves no problem; it only discriminates between types of corporations.

Furthermore, every individual piece of data you send over the internet is not privileged, or a privacy matter. Certain types are, but it is unreasonable and indeed silly to think that the contents of each and every frame are subject to some sort of privacy obligations.

Thank you, however, for your self-righteous virtue signaling. What we definitely need more of in this country is people making up their own rights, then demanding the government protect them, while assuming no responsibility themselves.

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

Government regulation is evil.

End of line.

_________________
"...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

He could not even buy Dinner at a at Hank's Steakhouse in Henderson.

He is the political equivalent of the person who puts out after being brought to the McDonald's and asked to order off the value menu...

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut