Amash and Massie join Rand to support telecoms data selling wo permission

[eleganz]

“Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”



EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION
(It appears Justin Amash voted yes to question preceding, to allow the vote, then Amash voted no on final passage 215-205, Mark Sanford and Tom Mclintock also Nays, both conservative)

Question to allow vote : Massie and Amash voted yes
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll200.xml

Final Passage :
Massie AYE
Amash NAY
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml

Rand abstained but cosponsored:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D



The official White House statement isn't very clear about why this is good either but there is a vague attempt at persuasion.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/statement-administration-policy-sjres-34-–-disapproving-federal


S.J.Res. 34 – Disapproving the Federal Communications Commission’s Rule on Privacy of Customers of Broadband Services
(Sen. Flake, R-AZ, and 24 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s final rule titled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services," 81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016). The rule applies the privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other telecommunications carriers. In particular, the rule requires ISPs to obtain affirmative "opt-in" consent from consumers to use and share certain information, including app usage and web browsing history. It also allows ISPs to use and share other information, including e-mail addresses and service tier information, unless a customer "opts-out." In doing so, the rule departs from the technology-neutral framework for online privacy administered by the Federal Trade Commission. This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor.

If S.J.Res. 34 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law.

[dannno]

If I sell you an apple, should you have to make a prior agreement with me in order to be able to go sell that apple to someone else?

[dannno]

On the other hand, we still have an FCC..

[CPUd]

846935546639388672
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/846935546639388672

[eleganz]

846935546639388672
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/846935546639388672


I went to Amash's Facebook for context but he hasn't updated for a while. I thought he had some pledge saying he explains every single vote he makes. Does he just update when he goes back to his CD or something?

[CPUd]

I went to Amash's Facebook for context but he hasn't updated for a while. I thought he had some pledge saying he explains every single vote he makes. Does he just update when he goes back to his CD or something?

He'll probably post something in the morning, because a lot of folks asking him about it.

[jmdrake]

If I sell you an apple, should you have to make a prior agreement with me in order to be able to go sell that apple to someone else?

Your analogy is false. Here is an accurate analogy. I sell you an apple. Should you have to opt out to keep me from selling my store security footage of you to someone else?

[specsaregood]

Your analogy is false. Here is an accurate analogy. I sell you an apple. Should you have to opt out to keep me from selling my store security footage of you to someone else?

Why wouldn't they have that right? Are you saying they don't currently have that right, I'd be surprised by that.

[Pizzo]

If I sell you an apple, should you have to make a prior agreement with me in order to be able to go sell that apple to someone else?

Do you have a government created monopoly to sell these apples?

[jmdrake]

Why wouldn't they have that right? Are you saying they don't currently have that right, I'd be surprised by that.

I'm not saying they don't. I was simply cleaning up a false analogy. Dannno's analogy would apply to someone who bought internet service from an ISP having the right to put up wireless hospot and sell access to it without the ISPs permission. What's at stake is the ISP reselling information garnered from use of their product. Two entirely different things.

Now at some point a company shouldn't have the right to sell images of you without your permission. Here's a good example. Say if a department store puts cameras in changing rooms to prevent shop lifting. Should they have the automatic right to sell those pictures/videos? I would say no. Maybe you think otherwise?

[dannno]

Do you have a government created monopoly to sell these apples?


On the other hand, we still have an FCC..


I'm not saying they don't. I was simply cleaning up a false analogy. Dannno's analogy would apply to someone who bought internet service from an ISP having the right to put up wireless hospot and sell access to it without the ISPs permission. What's at stake is the ISP reselling information garnered from use of their product. Two entirely different things.

Now at some point a company shouldn't have the right to sell images of you without your permission. Here's a good example. Say if a department store puts cameras in changing rooms to prevent shop lifting. Should they have the automatic right to sell those pictures/videos? I would say no. Maybe you think otherwise?

The point of my two posts is that in a free market, companies would be tripping over themselves to make sure that their customers were happy, and they would use customer agreements that they would be legally bound to, and they would NEVER sell security footage of their customers or something like that because they would go out of business.

Unfortunately these are government monopolies we are talking about, they have no interest in competing for their customers like that because the customers, largely, don't have much choice in the matter if they want that type of product.

[angelatc]

"Should the government ban...."

No.

[Athan]

If I sell you an apple, should you have to make a prior agreement with me in order to be able to go sell that apple to someone else?

More like, if I sell you an apple, say goodbye to your privacy and fourth amendment rights.

[specsaregood]

.
Now at some point a company shouldn't have the right to sell images of you without your permission. Here's a good example. Say if a department store puts cameras in changing rooms to prevent shop lifting. Should they have the automatic right to sell those pictures/videos? I would say no. Maybe you think otherwise?

Good question, I'm glad I'm not a libertarian as I'd probably have to say that the stores do have that right by default.

[TheCount]

How can I go about purchasing the browsing history of Congress and their staffs?

[TheCount]

Now at some point a company shouldn't have the right to sell images of you without your permission. Here's a good example. Say if a department store puts cameras in changing rooms to prevent shop lifting. Should they have the automatic right to sell those pictures/videos? I would say no. Maybe you think otherwise?That's where that 'reasonable expectation of privacy' comes in. A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a changing room or bathroom that they do not have while in the main areas of that store. That, of course, brings up the question: Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy while utilizing their private internet connection in their home? I would say yes.


Is it legal for your phone company to sell recordings of your phone conversations? Should it be?

[ARealConservative]

Your analogy is false. Here is an accurate analogy. I sell you an apple. Should you have to opt out to keep me from selling my store security footage of you to someone else?

your analogy is a lie. I don't know if you bought apples form someone else, if you even stored the apples, or how many apples you consume in total. I just know what you bought from me. I can share to the world that you bought 500 apples from me every Tuesday for 52 weeks.

[TheCount]

The point of my two posts is that in a free market, companies would be tripping over themselves to make sure that their customers were happy, and they would use customer agreements that they would be legally bound to, and they would NEVER sell security footage of their customers or something like that because they would go out of business.

Unfortunately these are government monopolies we are talking about, they have no interest in competing for their customers like that because the customers, largely, don't have much choice in the matter if they want that type of product.

In your other 'if there was a free market, then' argument, you support the concept of government regulation of immigration because there is not a free market.

In this argument, you oppose the concept of government regulation of internet service even though there is not a free market.


Is there a reason why your position is different on the two issues?

[dannno]

In your other 'if there was a free market, then' argument, you support the concept of government regulation of immigration because there is not a free market.

In this argument, you oppose the concept of government regulation of internet service even though there is not a free market.


Is there a reason why your position is different on the two issues?

What do you believe is my position on this issue?

I started off making two contradictory posts, I don't know that I have drawn a conclusion. I did like Justin's tweet.

[CPUd]

Some of you will be better off growing your own apples instead of buying government subsidized apples.

[charrob]

The official White House statement isn't very clear about why this is good either but there is a vague attempt at persuasion:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/statement-administration-policy-sjres-34-–-disapproving-federal


S.J.Res. 34 – Disapproving the Federal Communications Commission’s Rule on Privacy of Customers of Broadband Services
(Sen. Flake, R-AZ, and 24 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s final rule titled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services," 81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016). The rule applies the privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other telecommunications carriers. In particular, the rule requires ISPs to obtain affirmative "opt-in" consent from consumers to use and share certain information, including app usage and web browsing history. It also allows ISPs to use and share other information, including e-mail addresses and service tier information, unless a customer "opts-out." In doing so, the rule departs from the technology-neutral framework for online privacy administered by the Federal Trade Commission. This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor.

If S.J.Res. 34 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law.

According to the following the Federal Trade Commission does not have authority over internet service providers, and so cannot protect privacy of those using ISPs:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBE8buyrZ5Y




The Federal Trade Commission has done a lot of work on privacy over the past couple decades. Unfortunately for us, the Federal Trade Commission does not have any authority to regulate internet service providers. [...] Repeal of the privacy rule will, in addition to giving internet providers the green light to share and sell information without consumers’ consent, might help expand mass surveillance programs, as well. [This is] because of the way that internet providers are required to protect information and not share it without a lawful order from the government, if it's classified as protected information under this rule. With repeal of the rule, that could lead to the expansion of some of these surveillance programs.

[Matt Collins]

Six Reasons FCC Rules Aren’t Needed to Protect Privacy:
https://cei.org/blog/six-reasons-fcc-rules-aren%E2%80%99t-needed-protect-privacy

[kpitcher]

How can I go about purchasing the browsing history of Congress and their staffs?

There is a crowdfunding going on to purchase the browsing history of everyone who voted for the law.
https://www.searchinternethistory.com/

[charrob]

Six Reasons FCC Rules Aren’t Needed to Protect Privacy:
https://cei.org/blog/six-reasons-fcc-rules-aren%E2%80%99t-needed-protect-privacy

From the article:

Similarly, Verizon’s privacy policy restricts the company’s ability to share any information that individually identifies its customers to third parties outside the Verizon family of companies. Although this policy reserves the right to share certain information with third-party firms for advertising purposes, Verizon may do so only on an aggregate basis that does not individually identify any customers.

I guess I don't really understand what ISP's are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do with the current rule that is in place. I have Verizon and, with the current rule in place, whenever i go online to buy anything, sure enough a day or so later when i go into Facebook there are advertisements from various companies that sell the product i went online to buy. When i bought a stadium chair, sure enough the next time i went into Facebook, there were advertisements showing different stadium chairs from various companies. We recently were looking to buy a used Rav4... sure enough the next time i went into Facebook, there were advertisements from used car companies selling used Rav4's.

I would think that would mean Verizon has given my web history to both Facebook as well as to companies that sell the products that I have researched and read about.

Is this what the rule was supposed to prevent?

[specsaregood]

I would think that would mean Verizon has given my web history to both Facebook as well as to companies that sell the products that I have researched and read about.

Is this what the rule was supposed to prevent?

Not, it means you're already being tracked by a number of methods independent of what Verizon will be able to provide later. If anything, the data facebook and the advertisers have will actually be more detailed than what the ISPs have.

[charrob]

Not, it means you're already being tracked by a number of methods independent of what Verizon will be able to provide later. If anything, the data facebook and the advertisers have will actually be more detailed than what the ISPs have.


Sorry, i don't understand. I don't use my last name in Facebook, so how would a used car seller that I've had no contact with know how to place an ad selling the exact car i was researching onto my Facebook page?

[dannno]

Sorry, i don't understand. I don't use my last name in Facebook, so how would a used car seller that I've had no contact with know how to place an ad selling the exact car i was researching onto my Facebook page?

http://cdn3.volusion.com/74gtv.tjme9/v/vspfiles/photos/Delicious%20Dozen-1.jpg

[specsaregood]

Sorry, i don't understand. I don't use my last name in Facebook, so how would a used car seller that I've had no contact with know how to place an ad selling the exact car i was researching onto my Facebook page?

a whole lot of ways, advertisers use cookies, tons off websites use googles visitor trackers stuff for the webmaster tools, google then uses that info to place ads. if any sites you researched cars on had one off those facebook icons, then facebook knows you loaded that site and probably knows what car you were looking at, etc.

so many ways, everything you do online is already being tracked and monitored by the big web companies.

[charrob]

a whole lot of ways, advertisers use cookies, tons off websites use googles visitor trackers stuff for the webmaster tools, google then uses that info to place ads. if any sites you researched cars on had one off those facebook icons, then facebook knows you loaded that site and probably knows what car you were looking at, etc.

so many ways, everything you do online is already being tracked and monitored by the big web companies.


So you are saying the cookies contain my facebook id as well as the product ids of products I'm interested in and it is these cookies that are being sold by websites to other websites? And that these other websites have my facebook id from the cookie so that they can now directly advertise products I've previously looked for on my facebook wall?

Would my facebook id be incorporated into a cookie from a website that contains a facebook icon if I was formally logged out of facebook?

[TheTexan]

The telecoms should have to get permission from the federal government before selling it, after all, its the federal government that owns their customers' data

[freejack]

So you are saying the cookies contain my facebook id as well as the product ids of products I'm interested in and it is these cookies that are being sold by websites to other websites? And that these other websites have my facebook id from the cookie so that they can now directly advertise products I've previously looked for on my facebook wall?

Yes


Would my facebook id be incorporated into a cookie from a website that contains a facebook icon if I was formally logged out of facebook?

Doesn't matter if you're logged out. As long as the cookie is there, all ad networks that the site you visited has agreements with will have access to your usage. Easiest solution you have readily available is to use the incognito or private mode of your browser but then they can still track you via IP address although to a lesser extent.

[charrob]

Yes



Doesn't matter if you're logged out. As long as the cookie is there, all ad networks that the site you visited has agreements with will have access to your usage. Easiest solution you have readily available is to use the incognito or private mode of your browser but then they can still track you via IP address although to a lesser extent.

I understand the first part, but not the second. :o So for example awhile back i went to Amazon and bought a stadium chair. Presumably Amazon put a cookie on my computer containing the product id of the stadium chair i bought. What i'm not following is how Amazon would know what my facebook id is -- especially if i'm logged out of facebook.

[eleganz]

There could be several explanations, and of course why members of the liberty movement in congress chose to take separate actions on this bill.

[freejack]

I understand the first part, but not the second. :o So for example awhile back i went to Amazon and bought a stadium chair. Presumably Amazon put a cookie on my computer containing the product id of the stadium chair i bought. What i'm not following is how Amazon would know what my facebook id is -- especially if i'm logged out of facebook.

It's not your ID, purchases, or browsing history that are being stored in the cookie. It's a token that represents who you are. They use it at as reference to store all kinds of information about you in some remote database. At any given time you will have dozens of these cookies from different ad networks and websites stored in your browser many of whom will share information with one another. The only way to circumvent this is to use a vpn but then you'd have to believe that the vpn company will not sell or compromise your data in any way.

Keep in mind this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a bunch of creative ways you can be tracked, one of which is what brick-and-mortar stores you visit via the GPS built into your phone.

[specsaregood]

I understand the first part, but not the second. :o So for example awhile back i went to Amazon and bought a stadium chair. Presumably Amazon put a cookie on my computer containing the product id of the stadium chair i bought. What i'm not following is how Amazon would know what my facebook id is -- especially if i'm logged out of facebook.

just because you logged out doesn't mean they don't know exactly who you were logged in as.

[Anti Federalist]

Angels dancing on the head of pin.

You have no fucking privacy, in this modern nightmare world, haven't had any in at least twenty years now.

And of course, without privacy, without being free in your own home, on your own property, at the very least, to say and do and think whatever you want, you have no freedom either.

What's so sad and frustrating is watching AmeriKunts fall all over themselves to be first in line to buy the chains they enslave themselves with.

Festoon your home with wireless security cameras that any decent hacker or government goon can tap into? Sure!

Buy every new voice activated gadget that monitors everything in your home? Yay! Sign me up!

Immerse yourself in the Internet of Things tracking every fucking single thing you do? Huzzah! My sail fawn tells me when I need milk!

[devil21]

I'm going to bet that this only legalizes what they've been doing illegally for a long time already. It should be pretty obvious to any avid netizen that nothing has been private about browsing history for a long time.

Besides, NSA has all of it any way.

[charrob]

It's not your ID, purchases, or browsing history that are being stored in the cookie. It's a token that represents who you are. They use it at as reference to store all kinds of information about you in some remote database. At any given time you will have dozens of these cookies from different ad networks and websites stored in your browser many of whom will share information with one another. The only way to circumvent this is to use a vpn but then you'd have to believe that the vpn company will not sell or compromise your data in any way.

So i go to Amazon to buy a stadium chair. Amazon creates a random identifier and puts that identifier in a cookie on my computer. At the same time they create a new record in some remote database using that random identifier as a primary key. Amazon obtains my facebook id (I still don't understand how?) and stores my facebook id into that new record in that remote database. Into that record they also store my Amazon purchases including the stadium chair as well as my name, address, credit card information, etc. that i had to use to buy that stadium chair. Amazon sells this record that's in a remote database to DicksSportingGoods. DicksSportingGoods now has my facebook id as well as all my Amazon purchases and identifying information. DicksSportingGoods can then use my facebook id to advertise stadium chairs that they sell on my facebook wall.

Is this correct?

[charrob]

just because you logged out doesn't mean they don't know exactly who you were logged in as.


But how? Is there someplace on my harddrive they access to get my facebook id?

[Superfluous Man]

Why word the thread title so deceptively?

[specsaregood]

But how? Is there someplace on my harddrive they access to get my facebook id?

Cookies and or ips and who knows what else.

[charrob]

Cookies and or ips and who knows what else.


Thanks. Was just reading the following about this:


Facebook Is Tracking Your Every Move on the Web; Here's How to Stop It
(http://lifehacker.com/5843969/facebook-is-tracking-your-every-move-on-the-web-heres-how-to-stop-it)

If all these companies are keeping our name, address, credit card info, and everything we purchase and read about already in a database file, I don't see how what Verizon and the ISPs could do would be any worse.

[devil21]

But how? Is there someplace on my harddrive they access to get my facebook id?

FB uses a "super cookie", that reportedly is almost impossible to avoid unless you only run private browsing and close and restart the browser constantly.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/09/technology/security/super-cookies/

[eleganz]

Why word the thread title so deceptively?

New information was realized after the title was created.

[jmdrake]

The point of my two posts is that in a free market, companies would be tripping over themselves to make sure that their customers were happy, and they would use customer agreements that they would be legally bound to, and they would NEVER sell security footage of their customers or something like that because they would go out of business.

Unfortunately these are government monopolies we are talking about, they have no interest in competing for their customers like that because the customers, largely, don't have much choice in the matter if they want that type of product.

I'm all for free markets. My point is that you have to compare apples to apples. Company A selling product to consumer B who then resells the product is one thing. company A selling product to consumer B and then selling consumer B's private information to company C is something altogether different. You have to look at correct analogies to come to correct conclusions.

Now, let's look at company A selling consumer B's private information to company C. Sure, consumer B can decide "screw company A" and go with company D. But how is consumer B going to know that his private information is being sold? Surely company A would have a strong incentive to keep that information hidden from the consumer to avoid loss of business while at the same time selling consumer B's information. One way around this would be to require companies to get permission before selling data. Now the ISPs' argument was "Well Facebook gets to sell customer data so why can't we?" But guess what Facebook does when you sign up? It requires you to agree to a privacy policy statement. That statement says how they plan to use your private data. Most people don't read it. Guess what? The ISPs could do the same thing. Most people would just blindly click "yes" and opt in without blinking an eye. You need high speed internet right? So....what were the ISPs really complaining about? What "freedom" has been protected? Oh...and on the flipside I suppose a private watchdog group could try to find out clandestinely which ISPs buy your private information and which don't by trying to buy the information themselves.

Anyway, from how I see it, this is much ado about nothing. If you don't assume your ISP, the NSA, major corporations and even decent hackers have access to much of your private information then you haven't been paying attention to anything Edward Snowden and others have had to say.

[twomp]

I don't know about you guys but I look forward to receiving birthday cards from my favorite porn stars!

[jmdrake]

your analogy is a lie. I don't know if you bought apples form someone else, if you even stored the apples, or how many apples you consume in total. I just know what you bought from me. I can share to the world that you bought 500 apples from me every Tuesday for 52 weeks.

Ummmm....okay. Not sure what your point is but okay. Argue on friend....argue on. My point is simple. Company A selling consumer B's private information to company C is a different scenario from Company A selling something to consumer B who sells it to consumer C.

[jmdrake]

I don't know about you guys but I look forward to receiving birthday cards from my favorite porn stars!

You must either be single or have a very laid back wife. :cool:

[jmdrake]

According to the following the Federal Trade Commission does not have authority over internet service providers, and so cannot protect privacy of those using ISPs:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBE8buyrZ5Y

Interesting video. Question for everyone. Say if the FBI "bought" your browsing history from your ISP. No warrant because the didn't do a wiretap or perform a search. Acceptable or not?

[tsai3904]

Massie's explanation:


Congressman Massie’s Statement on Voting “Yes” on S.J Res. 34:

The Constitution protects an individual’s privacy from the government. It does not authorize the federal government to restrict contracts between individuals who agree to share information (whether by implicit or explicit consent). Even so, some would like the federal government to be involved in private internet service contracts to protect one party from the other.

It is my observation that the free market is currently responding to consumer demand for privacy without FCC intervention. The Obama Administration’s rule that is before Congress today did not exist until five months ago, yet abuse of customer data was not prevalent before the rule. Likewise, this FCC rule has never applied to search engines or social media platforms, yet harmful use of customer information has not been prevalent. In fact, many Internet Service Providers already voluntarily include opt-in clauses in their privacy policies. To summarize, exploiting a customer’s privacy in a way the customer resents is bad for business.

I understand and appreciate the concerns of those who have contacted me in favor of the FCC rule. I share concerns for privacy and have always been an adamant defender of the Fourth Amendment. I see some benefit from the rule. On the balance though, I feel that letting the Federal government regulate Internet activity is more harmful than the good that results from voluntary exchanges between parties in the free market.

https://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie/posts/1534012839956208

[CPUd]

Interesting video. Question for everyone. Say if the FBI "bought" your browsing history from your ISP. No warrant because the didn't do a wiretap or perform a search. Acceptable or not?

If it is not in the service agreement and privacy policy, it is unacceptable. Like you mention in the previous post, they should lose business to providers who don't sell your data, but ISPs are merging with other ISPs and telecoms- if there are only 1-3 options and they all sell your data, you have no choice but to deal with them or not have service.

Most if not all will give your data to law enforcement if they have a warrant. Why would the feds buy your data if they can just get a warrant and get it for free?

[jmdrake]

If it is not in the service agreement and privacy policy, it is unacceptable. Like you mention in the previous post, they should lose business to providers who don't sell your data, but ISPs are merging with other ISPs and telecoms- if there are only 1-3 options and they all sell your data, you have no choice but to deal with them or not have service.

Most if not all will give your data to law enforcement if they have a warrant. Why would the feds buy your data if they can just get a warrant and get it for free?

I'm considering a situation where the FBI lacked probable cause to get a warrant but wanted to go on a fishing expedition. But FISA courts have been quite lax so that's probably not likely.

[charrob]

FB uses a "super cookie", that reportedly is almost impossible to avoid unless you only run private browsing and close and restart the browser constantly.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/09/technology/security/super-cookies/


Thanks. Before tonight i had never heard of private browsing; thanks the article you provided has really good information:


Any respectable Web browser has a "privacy mode," a clean slate without the tiny bits of information (cookies) that identify you to websites. Google Chrome has "incognito." Mozilla's Firefox has "private window." But there's a chink in privacy mode's armor. A software developer in London has discovered a string of code that can carry over from your regular session into private mode, rendering privacy mode somewhat useless. For example, let's say you use a regular browser to shop on Amazon and use Facebook. Then you launch privacy mode to visit a website that deserves more discretion, like a controversial blog. If that blog uses the same ad network as Amazon (AMZN, Tech30) or includes a Facebook (FB, Tech30) "like" button, the advertisers and Facebook now know "Joe the Amazon shopper" and "Joe the Facebook user" is also "Joe the controversial blog reader." There is a workaround, albeit annoying: You can either delete all your cookies before launching privacy mode, or you can dedicate a separate browser for privacy mode use only. [...] Mozilla has issued a fix for the latest version of Firefox. But Google has opted to leave Chrome vulnerable. Google (GOOG) had known about the super cookie issue, but chose to keep Chrome's https-remembering function alive, choosing security over privacy.

I usually use Google Chrome but installed Firefox with the add-on stated from your article (private window). Also from the article i listed above (http://lifehacker.com/5843969/facebook-is-tracking-your-every-move-on-the-web-heres-how-to-stop-it):


Disconnect for Chrome and Firefox is a new plugin from the developer behind Facebook Disconnect, but it doesn't stop with Facebook. Disconnect takes protection to a another level and blocks tracking cookies from Facebook, Google, Twitter, Digg, and Yahoo, and prevents all of those services from obtaining your browsing or search history from third party sites that you may visit.

So installed the Disconnect add-on for the Chrome browser. Will be interesting to see if these add-ons work and if purchases made from sites with the facebook icon still sends all that information from those sites to facebook. Thanks for your response.

[twomp]

If it is not in the service agreement and privacy policy, it is unacceptable. Like you mention in the previous post, they should lose business to providers who don't sell your data, but ISPs are merging with other ISPs and telecoms- if there are only 1-3 options and they all sell your data, you have no choice but to deal with them or not have service.

Most if not all will give your data to law enforcement if they have a warrant. Why would the feds buy your data if they can just get a warrant and get it for free?

Replace "feds" with Mossad, GCHQ, KGB, whatever the acronym for Chinese or Saudi Arabia intelligence then.

[freejack]

If all these companies are keeping our name, address, credit card info, and everything we purchase and read about already in a database file, I don't see how what Verizon and the ISPs could do would be any worse.

They can sell your search history for starters.

[charrob]

Interesting video. Question for everyone. Say if the FBI "bought" your browsing history from your ISP. No warrant because the didn't do a wiretap or perform a search. Acceptable or not?


Thanks. Not acceptable, but it doesn't sound like we have a choice.

[charrob]

They can sell your search history for starters.


Good point. I guess every site visited with a facebook or google icon is already sending information given to that site to facebook and google. And since most sites have those icons, it's almost like our search histories are already pretty much being given to facebook and google. So the add-ons and privacy modes are supposed to stop that. But then you're right: i guess the ISP's are still going to have our search histories even if we are in the privacy modes of the browsers we use?

[timosman]

Good point. I guess every site visited with a facebook or google icon is already sending information given to that site to facebook and google. And since most sites have those icons, it's almost like our search histories are already pretty much being given to facebook and google. So the add-ons and privacy modes are supposed to stop that. But then you're right: i guess the ISP's are still going to have our search histories even if we are in the privacy modes of the browsers we use?

Your question goes encrypted to the search engine so your ISP can not break that. The thing is what if the search engine was put out there by the government? They want you asking stupid questions all the time. Like a growing up kid.:cool:

[CPUd]

Thanks. Not acceptable, but it doesn't sound like we have a choice.

The first big step is awareness. Check out wireshark (https://www.wireshark.org/), it is a tool that you can set up to read all the data going back and forth between your network device and other devices. You can have it running in real time, it will autoscroll like a log, where each line is a packet. If you don't know what they all mean, it's OK. The point is to explore and learn.

One thing you will notice off the bat is whenever you are doing stuff like reading websites, the output will start showing a lot of HTTP packets, which stand out because wireshark can color code packets by protocol, etc. You can also see other machines on the network when they broadcast, and the things your machine broadcasts. The most common broadcasts you should see are using address resolution protocol (ARP), this is when a device sees the MAC address of another device and doesn't know which machine to ask to get its IP address. Even from ARP packets, you can learn some details about the other machines. Assuming everyone is using their real MAC address, you can often identify the type of device (printer, switch, gaming console, desktop NIC, wifi adapter, etc.).

Anything going over HTTP, you can see in plain text. But some apps will encrypt and then use HTTP to communicate, so all you see is the encrypted text. HTTPS is encrypted. In the old days, I have seen IM conversations via wireshark, IM clients today *should* be encrypting that stuff. A VPN tunnel encrypts and goes over a lower layer like TCP, so all the ISP sees is encrypted traffic between you and the VPN. You can use a tool like wireshark to verify stuff like this.

[timosman]

The first big step is awareness. Check out wireshark (https://www.wireshark.org/), it is a tool that you can set up to read all the data going back and forth between your network device and other devices. You can have it running in real time, it will autoscroll like a log, where each line is a packet. If you don't know what they all mean, it's OK. The point is to explore and learn.

One thing you will notice off the bat is whenever you are doing stuff like reading websites, the output will start showing a lot of HTTP packets, which stand out because wireshark can color code packets by protocol, etc. You can also see other machines on the network when they broadcast, and the things your machine broadcasts. The most common broadcasts you should see are using address resolution protocol (ARP), this is when a device sees the MAC address of another device and doesn't know which machine to ask to get its IP address. Even from ARP packets, you can learn some details about the other machines. Assuming everyone is using their real MAC address, you can often identify the type of device (printer, switch, gaming console, desktop NIC, wifi adapter, etc.).
These numbers are assigned to manufactures. Unless you have an info on internal sub-numbering you can not tell some company wireless dildo from their laptop.

[UWDude]

How can I go about purchasing the browsing history of Congress and their staffs?

‘Cards Against Humanity’ Creator Just Pledged To Buy and Publish Congress’s Browser History (http://resistancereport.com/news/cards-humanity-creator-just-pledged-buy-publish-congresss-browser-history/)

[timosman]

Is this Trump staging a coup? :eek:

[nikcers]

Watch at&t buy Time Warner now after they already bought direcTV. At&t already has the patent for the data mining technology. Soon the government will be able to google you. Everyone's IP address is going to be a mini FEDbook- the feds will be able read all of your data just by having it.

[timosman]

Watch at&t buy Time Warner now after they already bought direcTV. At&t already has the patent for the data mining technology. Soon the government will be able to google you. Everyone's IP address is going to be a mini FEDbook- the feds will be able read all of your data just by having it.

We sure make it extremely easy for them by not having any encryption on the site.:D

[Superfluous Man]

But how is consumer B going to know that his private information is being sold? Surely company A would have a strong incentive to keep that information hidden from the consumer to avoid loss of business while at the same time selling consumer B's information. One way around this would be to require companies to get permission before selling data.

I'm ambivalent about this.

But one way to look at it would be to say that the consumer should assume that company A is selling their information, because all the companies are doing it, unless they explicitly stipulate in the contract that they can't. And companies that are willing to make that promise would be the ones being vocal about how they don't sell your information as selling points for themselves.

It's kind of like, if it doesn't say "kosher" on a package of hot dogs, you know they're not kosher.

[jmdrake]

‘Cards Against Humanity’ Creator Just Pledged To Buy and Publish Congress’s Browser History (http://resistancereport.com/news/cards-humanity-creator-just-pledged-buy-publish-congresss-browser-history/)

I wonder how much child porn they'll find?

[jmdrake]

I'm ambivalent about this.

But one way to look at it would be to say that the consumer should assume that company A is selling their information, because all the companies are doing it, unless they explicitly stipulate in the contract that they can't. And companies that are willing to make that promise would be the ones being vocal about how they don't sell your information as selling points for themselves.

It's kind of like, if it doesn't say "kosher" on a package of hot dogs, you know they're not kosher.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Superfluous Man again.

I fully concur.

[nikcers]

At least Rand Paul didn't make the "list" that is going around like he did with the Iran letter. Its quite possible that this will turn internet service upside down and advertisers/corporations will be the consumer. I frankly hope the internet doesn't become this, but At&t already had the software patents to do it, and enough subscribers to sponsor their entire service with ad money. This also creates the incentive for other ISPS to do the same in order to compete. I think most people would rather pay nothing because they hate their internet provider. They probably will even think they are sticking it to them when they pirate, not the companies that will be able to buy your data.

http://i.imgur.com/JwaUqz0.png