Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government The Internet Politics

Activist Starts a Campaign To Buy and Publish Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law (searchinternethistory.com) 325

On Tuesday, Congress sent proposed legislation to President Trump that wipes away landmark online privacy protections. In a party-line vote, House Republicans freed Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast of protections approved just last year that had sought to limit what companies could do with information such as customer browsing habits, app usage history, location data and Social Security numbers. Now call it a poetic justice, online privacy activist Adam McElhaney has launched an initiative called Search Internet History, with an objective of raising funds to buy browsing history of each politician and official who voted in favor of S.J.Res 34. On the site, he has also put up a poll asking people whose internet history they would like to see first.

Update: The campaign, which was seeking $10,000, has already raised over $55,000.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Activist Starts a Campaign To Buy and Publish Browsing Histories of Politicians Who Passed Anti-Privacy Law

Comments Filter:
  • Swift Justice!!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:22PM (#54135949)

    Please make sure to purchase , but not publicize their children's information also. .... How this is legal is beyond me....

    • Especially considering health info and HIPAA. It's illegal to publish any medical information that can be linked back to an individual, even indirectly.
      • Re:Swift Justice!!!! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:09PM (#54136491)

        Especially considering health info and HIPAA. It's illegal to publish any medical information that can be linked back to an individual, even indirectly.

        That depends. HIPPA regulates what certain entities must do to protect health information, but does not have a blanket prohibition on publishing it. Specifically from the HHS website:

        The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information and applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and those health care providers that conduct certain health care transactions electronically. The Rule requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of personal health information, and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization. The Rule also gives patients rights over their health information, including rights to examine and obtain a copy of their health records, and to request corrections.

      • Usually I just get a letter "We lost your data, sorry".

    • by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @03:17PM (#54137123)

      Please make sure to purchase , but not publicize their children's information also. .... How this is legal is beyond me....

      How this is legal is one question.

      How anyone thought it was a good idea is another. I can't see how ANYONE thought it would be a good idea to allow cable companies to sell this information. Anyone who voted in favor of this is scum of the earth.

      I'm am absolutely not a Democrat- but I will paint this vote the only way I can possibly see it being painted. This was a purely partisan issue. This was cutting the nose off to spite the face. This measure was brought in by a Democrat president so it was removed purely to be contrary and partisan.

      There is NO logical explanation for this vote- I applaud the Republicans who didn't vote for this for thinking with their heads and not just following the party politics. That shows integrity: Voting against your party for something that is obviously wrong but is a show of party strength, picking the right choice rather than the party choice.

  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:23PM (#54135963)
    Every politician, all the time, with the results updated in real time. This is the only way the rest of us will ever see our privacy respected.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:27PM (#54136003)

      just like every other law congress passes, it doesn't apply to them.

      they'll justify it because of terrorism. you're all idiots.

      • by gnick ( 1211984 )

        just like every other law congress passes, it doesn't apply to them.

        That's probably true. Just because their ISPs can sell their information doesn't mean they will. I'm not necessarily saying they won't bite the hand that fed them, but I don't think it's likely.

        • just like every other law congress passes, it doesn't apply to them.

          Just because their ISPs can sell their information doesn't mean they will.

          Oh you sweet summer child.

          • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

            just like every other law congress passes, it doesn't apply to them.

            Just because their ISPs can sell their information doesn't mean they will.

            Oh you sweet summer child.

            I think his point was that they will absolutely sell YOUR private information. But their own Congressman's? A little less likely. It's easier to pass regulations if you get "special treatment."

      • by amiga3D ( 567632 )

        A realist I see.

    • While we're at it, let's run their connections through a "family safe" filter and flag any "inappropriate" content in a colorful, bold way. I'd imagine with information like that we could successfully alienate every constituent group in no time at all for the vast majority of folks in Congress, and nothing will get them to kill this legislation faster than recognizing that it's career suicide.

      • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:14PM (#54136549)

        I'd imagine with information like that we could successfully alienate every constituent group

        It won't alienate me. I couldn't care less what my congressperson Googles. I also don't care what TV shows he watches, how many interns he screws, which email server he uses, or how many pussies he grabs. Here is a complete, exhaustive list of the things I DO care about:

        1. His voting record

        • Then wouldn't you say that the fact that his information appears on this list at all should be sufficient to alienate you? After all, they're talking about doing it to those who voted in favor of it.

    • Yes. We need a kickstarter and some peeps to get to work on this pronto. I have nothing else to do and this sounds fun.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:55PM (#54136353)

      Not directly related but something similar perhaps, 2012 in Canada:
      https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/02/15/ministers_tawdry_divorce_details_published_to_protest_bill.html

    • privacy is for the ruling class. I can guarantee there's exception processing in place for anyone who makes over a certain amount of money. They have personal assistants who make more than you and will see to it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:24PM (#54135985)

    https://www.gofundme.com/buycongressdata

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It should be clear by now that fake facts are just as good as real facts, maybe better if they support xenophobic nationalism.

  • I Fucking LOVE IT (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:28PM (#54136015)

    God damn politicians need a taste of their own medicine.

  • My prediction (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:29PM (#54136033)
    Many ultra-conservative, bible preaching Congress members found to frequently visit porn sites most likely LGBT ones.
    • The most rabidly-conservative Pentecostals in Oklahoma nearly always set off my gaydar like no one else (and we're not even talking the youth pastors). Flamboyant, openly-gay types seem downright straight in comparison...
    • Re:My prediction (Score:5, Insightful)

      by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:56PM (#54136355)

      My prediction - the telecoms companies won't be willing to sell the data, because it's worth more to them to keep it, and not have the Obama era law reinstated.

      • To many ISPs, privacy is a product. Or, rather, privacy is something they would proclaim long and loud whenever some RIAA/MPAA flack tried to subpoena records.

        Now some ISPs (*cough*Comcast*cough*) would happily whore out your info for a buck.

        That first sentence brings me to a question: Would some IP cartel resort to buying lists, then using it to chase after users who visit certain torrent sites a little too often, or correlate IP addys with names, billing addresses, visits to torrent sites, etc? Wouldn't t

      • The ISPs are whores. They'll do anything for money. The ISPs, just like Pilate, will wash their hands of it to soothe their alleged conscience so they can sleep at night. Or more likely so that the law makers cannot come after the ISPs. "Hey, we were just selling data as the law allows. The law didn't specify that rich and/or self-important people were exempt."
  • Activist... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:31PM (#54136051)

    Is about to find out just how limiting the ability to get information is even if they pay for it. Even in industries where there's no data protection laws why would an ISP sell this?

    A baker sells a variety of bread to suit tastes, they don't sell you a specific bread made from your own recipe, and they don't sell you their recipes or equipment either.

  • by SteWhite ( 212909 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:31PM (#54136057)

    Back when the UK passed the Snoopers Charter (the one that lets everyone and their dog access your full internet history), those clever politicians made just one important exemption - they themselves wouldn't be subject to the law.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/l... [independent.co.uk]

    I'd be surprised if the US hasn't done the same thing, but then the UK *is* a world leader in surveillance of their own citizens.

    • the UK *is* a world leader in surveillance of their own citizens

      Despite not exactly new, and also a bit debatable (I'd argue China or NK come to mind), I always find it perplexing that the country that output Nineteen Eighty-Four is a top contender to this particular title. I'd say the self-exemption goes to show how hard they must have thought this through, and explain their deep background on possible loopholes of being a lawmaker in a Big Brother state.

    • That's standard. Pretty much every law that's passed has a clause at the end exempting Congress from having to obey the law.

      This is a bit different though. The browsing history of Congresscritters while in Congress may be exempted. But their home Internet connection falls under a local ISP's purvey, so their history could be harvested under the new law.
  • How? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:31PM (#54136061)

    Just because a company CAN sell something does not mean they will.

    I think it will be pretty interesting to see what they can actually end up buying.

    • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:41PM (#54136175) Homepage Journal

      Just because a company CAN sell something does not mean they will.

      I think it will be pretty interesting to see what they can actually end up buying.

      One thing that got lost in all the wailing and moaning is that protecting privacy is the purview of the FTC, not the FCC.

      The law got axed because it was a standout overreach of a specific government agency, only affected a certain segment, and was done badly.

      What *should* have happened is the FTC should pass a low saying that *every* corporation has to protect customer privacy.

      Everyone got so distracted with "muh rites!" and completely lost track of whether it was a good law or not.

      • by uncqual ( 836337 )

        The FTC can't "pass" a "law".

        Perhaps you meant: "If it is within their regulatory authority to do so, the FTC should enact regulations requiring that *every* corporation must protect customer privacy."

        (Although, I don't know why such a requirement would be limited to corporations -- I don't see why unincorporated businesses should get a pass).

      • Just because a company CAN sell something does not mean they will.

        I think it will be pretty interesting to see what they can actually end up buying.

        One thing that got lost in all the wailing and moaning is that protecting privacy is the purview of the FTC, not the FCC.

        The law got axed because it was a standout overreach of a specific government agency, only affected a certain segment, and was done badly.

        What *should* have happened is the FTC should pass a low [sic] saying that *every* corporation has to protect customer privacy.

        Everyone got so distracted with "muh rites!" and completely lost track of whether it was a good law or not.

        I've got news for you: the FTC doesn't pass laws.

        Perhaps you were thinking of regulations?

      • by dszd0g ( 127522 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:11PM (#54136519) Homepage

        The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in AT&T v. FTC that the FTC has no authority over common carriers. This FCC rule that Republicans got rid of filled the gap from that court decision. After that court decision a bill was introduced to give the FTC that authority to reverse the court decision, but most Republicans voted against the bill and it failed.

        So Republicans argument is:
        FCC shouldn't regulate privacy because that is the FTC's job.
        FTC shouldn't regulate common carriers because that is the FCC's job.

        So who regulates common carrier's privacy? Now, it's no one.

        In addition, congress only gave the FTC the authority to pass actual regulations if there "unfair or deceptive acts" and they can prove the regulation prevents harm. Some Republicans argue there is no harm from companies spying on you because you save money or get services for free. Some also argue that seeing ads tailored to you is in your benefit.

        This bill wasn't about doing what was right though. It was all about money. ISPs and mobile providers stand to make a lot of money by invading our privacy. They had no problem paying off politicians to pass this bill:

        http://www.theverge.com/2017/3... [theverge.com]

    • Just because a company CAN sell something does not mean they will.

      And get it in the neck from stockholders because they're not maximizing all potential revenue streams? Nah, easier to make extra cash.
    • Some might abstain from selling customer data. But there are lots of politicians and lots of ISPs. Surely *some* family values congressmen will get disgraced as perverts. We may also catch some of them googling stuff like "How to launder money" or "How to discreetly ask for a bribe" buried deep in all the internet porn searches.
    • If they can get the bulk 'anonymized' data, there's a high chance they'll be able to identify the individuals. Anonymized data is such a joke that it rarely hides the identity. For example, if you have cell phone GPS data, the name of the owner and the phone number can be hidden, but if it starts and ends at the same place every day, then you can figure out who it is.

      In browsing habits, you might look for people who surf to the congressional mail server web page. You might search URL query strings for em
    • The problem is most ISPs in the U.S. are government-granted monopolies. So there is no competition, no alternative ISP for people to switch to if they're upset that their ISP has decided to sell their browsing history. And without the pressure of outraged customers switching to a competitor, there's no reason other than principle for a company not to sell the data.
  • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:32PM (#54136069) Journal
    Great idea. If the ISPs refuse to sell the information for some half-assed reason then there'll be fireworks.
  • One: Companies CAN sell your data. They're not mandated to do so... and they'd be stupid to screw those who can control them with legislation.

    Two: If they're stupid enough, or you get the data through a middleman, they will simply find a law to charge you with for doing it. And if they can't do that, they'll draft such a law THEN charge you.

    Best case, one or two of them is mildly embarrassed before you have a new home with very secure doors and windows.

    • Re:Two problems (Score:5, Informative)

      by uncqual ( 836337 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:57PM (#54136361)

      And if they can't do that, they'll draft such a law THEN charge you.

      First, just drafting a law doesn't make it law -- they would have to pass the law through the usual channels.

      Second, the US Constitution prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 9: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.") and States from passing ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 10: "No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law [...]).

      • Second, the US Constitution prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 9: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.") and States from passing ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 10: "No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law [...]).

        The US Constitution!?!?

        THAT old rag!?!?

        Since when has the US Federal Government given more than lip-service to anything in it when it impeded their political/ideological agendas?

        There's everything from NSA domestic surveillance to 'asset forfeiture' laws. The government always finds a work-around for Constitutional limits to their authority.

        There is no more Rule of Law in the US, only Rule of Men (corrupt, power-hungry men).

        Strat

  • I know this law has been passed but surely the law doesn't let them sell personally indentifiable information like names, SSNs, and addresses? Does it?
    • Re:How much detail? (Score:5, Informative)

      by dszd0g ( 127522 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:30PM (#54136707) Homepage

      That's exactly what they can sell.

      During the debate Nancy Pelosi actually put up a sign with a few things this bill allows selling:

      "Republicans want this information to be sold without your permission"

      • The websites you visit
      • The apps you use
      • Your search history
      • The content of your emails
      • Your health & financial data

      Financial information includes your name, address, SSN, and phone number. This will also be attached to your browsing history and other data. A lot of ISPs and mobile providers require SSN when you sign up, they claim so that they can run a credit check. Now, it's also so that they can sell it.

      It also sounds like they can also sell the contents of voice calls and SMS too if they want.

      Using encryption doesn't really protect you either.
      1) It doesn't prevent metadata.
      2) Some carriers plan on using spyware on your cell phones so that they even have access to encrypted data. This would also prevent VPNs from being of any use.

      A Democrat (I forget who) before this was passed even read about Verizon's patent for a cable box with thermographic camera, microphone, and motion sensor. It includes a "cuddle detector" so that it can show ads for condoms when it detects people "cuddling" in front of the TV.

      Microsoft applied for a patent for cable box and console technology that will detect how many people are in the room and allow copyright owners to block content if too many people are in the room. For example, if you buy a PPV fight and invite too many people over it will refuse to play.

      Comcast applied for a patent for a cable box which detects who is in a room and personalizes ads based on the person or people in the room.

  • In the wake of the Kelo vs. City of New London case, where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that municipalities can forcibly buy out your land under eminent domain just to do a redevelopment of some kind, some guy went public that he wanted to buy out Justice David Souter's house and raze it and build a bed and breakfast on it. I was greatly pleased with this idea as I'm still pretty angry about the verdict, but this just ended up being 100% talk and nothing even came close to being done. No development was ever actually done on the land acquired. It's currently a vacant lot. So you can thank the Supreme Court for the idea that if anybody in your local government has a grievance against you, they can get a bogus developer to come up with a phony plan to redevelop your land, force you to sell it to them, tear down your house and then do absolutely nothing with the property and it's all 100% legal.

    To be honest with you, I would expect the Congresscritters involved to complain a lot about this plan and wouldn't be surprised if they pass legislation to make it illegal to harvest their data and only theirs. But most voters don't care about anything but whether there is an R or a D by a candidate's name and I wouldn't expect any browsing revelations to matter in the next election, nor would Congress even protecting themselves from such matter. If the past election taught us anything, it's that for 80% or more of the voters, no matter what they say, they really don't care about anything except party affiliation of the candidates.
    • by uncqual ( 836337 )

      Fortunately, it appears Gorsuch is also very critical of Kelo. According to CNN [cnn.com], in an email to a couple of friends at the time, Gorsuch praised Thomas' rather scathing dissent (interestingly, Scalia joined only in O'Connor's dissent, not Thomas').

      It's interesting that Trump nominated Gorsuch. Trump seems to think Kelo was a "great" (or maybe "beautiful" or maybe just "pussy grabbing worthy" - I don't recall his exact words) decision. I'd guess that Trump wasn't aware of Gorsuch's views on Kelo before nomin

      • Gorsuch is a corporatocratic dreamboat in most of his decisions, so it's completely understandable that someone - especially Trump - could've missed one decision that deviates from the norm.

  • by computational super ( 740265 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @01:44PM (#54136203)

    "The lesson here is that it is insufficient to protect ourselves with laws; we need to protect ourselves with mathematics. Encryption is too important to be left solely to governments." -- Bruce Schneier

  • by LordNicholas ( 2174126 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:00PM (#54136403)
    This is a cute idea, but I don't think much will come of it. ISPs won't be selling individual browsing histories- despite whatever changes to the laws happen, the liability would be staggering and most buyers would be looking for data in a bulk, automated way that scales. As an advertiser, one individual's complete browsing history is completely useless to me; there's no market for that data that ISN'T to publicly shame people or otherwise spy on people. While I suppose private investigators and law enforcement might be a niche market for this sort of thing, I just don't it happening in a significant way.

    What you'd actually be buying are audience segments against IP addresses and possibly device IDs, which could then in turn be matched up to other data sets. Ie, if I'm Coscto, I might be trying to identify "Devices that have recently shopped at Walmart.com". Once I have that, I might be able to match some percentage (maybe 10-40%) of those devices to some other kind of data set (for example, to add demographic data). That's just two data points- not nearly enough to identify anyone- and I've already likely narrowed my starting set of devices down to 10-20% of what the ISP provided me.

    It IS possible to ultimately drill down into this kind of data far enough that you can be pretty sure you've found the history for an individual person- in theory anyway. But the amount of time/effort/luck involved to get there makes this impractical to do at scale (i.e., for all the Congress-critters) or to keep up to date manually as cookies expire/are deleted, IP addresses change, people upgrade their phones every 1-2 years... it takes full time teams of people to do this at a very basic level.

    Plus there's the whole "That wasn't me, damn neighbors stealing my wifi" defense for anything nefarious.

    Source: I work in programmatic audience targeting for a Fortune 100. (I promise we're not evil, we just want to sell you stuff you might actually want)
    • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:13PM (#54136535) Journal

      Source: I work in programmatic audience targeting for a Fortune 100. (I promise we're not evil, we just want to sell you stuff you might actually want)

      "Programmatic audience targeting" for a Fortune 100... evil-wise that sounds like it would be somewhere between clubbing baby seals and the guys who voted in favour of this bill.

      • It's rare that someone sees what they do as wrong, they always have some justification to make it OK to themselves.

        Yes, GP is someone who is using data mining for targeted advertising (and probably for tuning said advertising to make it more effective) with the goal of taking time you don't want to spend to sell you things you otherwise wouldn't buy.

    • by dszd0g ( 127522 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @03:04PM (#54137025) Homepage

      If you want a real life example, SAP currently works with mobile providers to sell customer data points to businesses when you walk in the door with its "Consumer Insight 365" product.

      Basically, when your cell phone goes through the door the business is provided with information like:

      Your Name
      Your Address
      Your Phone Number
      Your E-mail Address
      Your Age
      Your Gender
      Your Household Income
      What products you have recently been searching for
      Your marital status
      Your sexual orientation
      Your religion
      Your interests
      How long you spent in the store
      Where you came from (previous 10 locations)

      And a whole ton more information. I haven't actually been able to find a complete list of what they provide. The above list is based on marketing slides for the product. The SAP data obviously comes from multiple sources, not just mobile providers.

      Mobile providers are currently making an estimated $24 billion a year selling their part of the information. That is what they stood to lose if the FCC regulation had gone into effect.

  • by ugen ( 93902 )

    According to the bill, selling of search history requires "explicit user opt-in". I am not sure how providers will obfuscate the "opt-in" checkbox for the rest of us, but for members of congress that "opt in" will not be granted - I can assure you of that. So, nothing to buy.

    • A 5$ one-time reduction on their bill for checking the opt-in of this fabulous promotion !!!

    • Re:Opt-in (Score:5, Informative)

      by WheezyJoe ( 1168567 ) <`moc.eticxe' `ta' `ggef'> on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:22PM (#54136635)

      Umm... the "explicit user opt-in" was what was just KILLED by Congress.

      From ArsTechnica [arstechnica.com]:

      The rules issued by the FCC last year would have required home Internet and mobile broadband providers to get consumers' opt-in consent before selling or sharing Web browsing history, app usage history, and other private information with advertisers and other companies. But lawmakers used their authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to pass a joint resolution ensuring that the rules "shall have no force or effect" and that the FCC cannot issue similar regulations in the future.

      Republicans argue that the Federal Trade Commission should regulate ISPs' privacy practices instead of the FCC. But the resolution passed today eliminates the FCC's privacy rules without any immediate action to return jurisdiction to the FTC, which is prohibited from regulating common carriers such as ISPs and phone companies.

      If Trump signs the resolution to eliminate privacy rules, ISPs won't have to seek customer approval before sharing their browsing histories and other private information with advertisers.

  • by clovis ( 4684 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:06PM (#54136467)

    It's wishful thinking and pathetic to hope that we'll catch them going to porn sites. Sure there's guys like Anthony Weiner, but the fact is that almost all these guys know better than to do anything like that on the Internet, and they're not that interested in porn anyway because they're grownups and have better things to do with their time.

    I still think exposure maybe will work.
    One way these things are done is that you go after the family, friends, and business associates of the politician.

    When Congressman Bob is on the board of directors of Acme Corp, and the browsing history of everyone else on the board gets published as "Congressman Bob's associates at Acme Corp was looking at from his home computer for 3 hours last Tuesday. Also, here's the bank sites and online stock brokerage that they been accessing, and these two have treasury direct accounts.
    Bob is going to get a phone call to fix this, and it'll be coming from the people he really wants to please.

    Do you remember a time before when medical records were considered private, and the law punished anyone sharing your record?
    I do. No one in government ever gave a shit about the we peons' medical records privacy.
    That whole privacy thing came about in the late 1960's when a candidate got the idea that during an election you could expose your opponents medical record and let the world know that Congressman Bob had gotten a prescription for valium, and thus was mentally unstable. Also, Congressman Bob had a heart bypass operation and was likely to die at any moment, and in any case certainly didn't have the stamina to serve as congressman. Then many others started doing started doing it until the plug was pulled by the newly discovered need for privacy, by Congress.

    If I were an ISP, I would maintain a VIP list and cull those records from anything I sell, so you would never see anyone in higher levels of government, big-name entertainers and so on. I might even offer it as a paid service to opt-out for some extra gravy.

  • by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:11PM (#54136515)
    the browsing history for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan first. Let's see if they're actually working or fucking off. I think they're fucking off.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:13PM (#54136543)

    This was NOT a party line vote. The following Republicans voted NO and should be congratulated for standing with the People, not the ISP $$$.
    If five more Republicans had switched to a NO vote, the resolution would NOT HAVE PASSED!
    A thank you phone call to their offices today will be noted and WILL make a difference in future efforts to enact comprehensive privacy legislation.

    Brooks, Mo AL 5th
    McClintock, Tom CA 4th
    Coffman, Mike CO 6th
    Yoder, Kevin KS 3rd
    Graves, Garret LA 6th
    Amash, Justin MI 3rd
    Zeldin, Lee NY 1st
    Faso, John NY 19th
    Stefanik, Elise NY 21st
    Jones, Walter NC 3rd
    Davidson, Warren OH 8th
    Sanford, Mark SC 1st
    Duncan, John TN 2nd
    Herrera Beutler, Jaime WA 3rd
    Reichert, David WA 8th

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202

    FACTS MATTER

    • by Nemyst ( 1383049 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @04:00PM (#54137499) Homepage
      215 Republicans voted yes. 0 Democrats voted yes. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely a party line vote, regardless of the 15 exceptions out of 230. Yes, it's nice some Republicans apparently have the ability to think, but it's too little. Much too little.
    • by habig ( 12787 )
      While I agree that those voting against the bill should be congratulated, one name jumped out at me:

      Sanford, Mark SC 1st

      ... a gold-plated example of familiy-values guy who would hate to have his own browsing history of questions like "is the Appalachian Trail in Argentina?" exposed. I suppose that this at least means he learned something.

  • Who's browser history would I want to see up for sale? Adam McElhaney's, of course.
  • by moeinvt ( 851793 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:18PM (#54136593)

    Others have already suggested why this might not work, but if government perceives even the slightest possibility that their browsing histories might become public, they will just add an amendment to the bill making it illegal for THEIR data to be sold.

  • If you're an ISP, you just won't sell this information to a buyer (even if they were to sell individual browsing history, which is totally unlikely given it's relative lack of utility to advertisers) to accomplish two things:

    1) you're a well behaved ISP
    2) not make an enemy of the lawmakers

    Any attempt at buying lawmakers browsing histories is only going to reinforce the argument of the ISP industry that they behave sans regulation when they politely decline to do so.

  • Random people can't buy the information, and trusted companies can only buy it in bulk,
    and it's going to cost a lot more money than this guy could ever raise, anyway.
    And even if all that weren't the case: the expose web site would be shut down as an
    allegedly illegal operation, probably the operators arrested, and of course civil actions.

    What will be necessary to make the point is for some Verizon employee to be compromised,
    or their data center to be compromised, and the information to be leaked.
    Then some g

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @03:45PM (#54137365) Journal
    Seriously, we need to get the address, family info , and SSN as well.
    That will make these GOP rethink what they are doing.

    And if at all possible, lets find out what businesses these GOP own and interact with. It could an interesting source of money for them.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @04:00PM (#54137505) Journal
    This is the rep that is pushing this; Marsha Blackburn. [wikipedia.org]
    And here is the Senator pushing this; [senate.gov]

    Anybody who is represented by these ppl should let them know that the internet is waiting to know all about them AND THEIR FAMILY, including kids and grandkids.

Lack of skill dictates economy of style. - Joey Ramone

Working...