Billboards Target Lawmakers Who Voted To Let ISPs Sell User Information (theverge.com) 91
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: When Congress voted in March to block FCC privacy rules and let internet service providers sell users' personal data, it was a coup for the telecom industry. Now, the nonprofit, pro-privacy group Fight for the Future is publicizing just how much the industry paid in an attempt to sway those votes. The group unveiled four billboards, targeting Reps. Marsha Blackburn and John Rutherford, as well as Sens. Jeff Flake and Dean Heller. All four billboards, which were paid for through donations, were placed in the lawmakers' districts. "Congress voting to gut Internet privacy was one of the most blatant displays of corruption in recent history," Fight for the Future co-founder Tiffiniy Cheng said in a statement on the project. The billboards accuse the lawmakers of betraying their constituents, and encourage passersby to call their offices.
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Good.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For all the good it will do. Nobody cares, nothing will come out of it. Except new harsher laws that will further restrict what we can do. When is everyone going to realize that the match is over and we lost?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as we see elections being cancelled and those in power never having to relinquish it.
Until then, we take things 4 years at a time (well 2 years at a time if you include midterms.) Anything the current politician can do, the next one can potentially undo. Well unless you're Trump. He's had no luck undoing Obama's progress yet.. but then he's only one quarter into 4 years so there's still lots of time to prop up our corporate oppressors.
Re: (Score:2)
...he's only one quarter into 4 years...
It's been an entire year already?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you know you lost, keep playing and make sure that the other one loses too.
It's the only way to discourage them from playing.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't a thing that a person realizes; it's a thing that a person decides.
The enemy wins by persuading you into believing that you've lost.
Flaw in this tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
The flaw in this tactic is that it requires the person discussed on the billboard to be able to feel shame at the things they do in their official capacity.
Since politics has turned into a spectator sport where people choose what team to support like they were a football franchise, shame and an ability to look down upon the choices made has evaporated.
Re:Flaw in this tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
For one, it relies on the general public valuing their online privacy in the first place, which so-called 'social media' has been indoctrinating them against for a long time now, especially Milennials.
Next, it relies on the general public even understanding the issue from a technical perspective; at best they probably think clearing their browser history is enough to protect them from nosy ISPs.
Finally, it also relies on how they prioritize one issue over another. Does the general public really take the Internet all that seriously, compared to other issues that their elected representatives have a hand in? They may think so-and-so does a great job, for instance, keeping education funded in their state, or keeping crime under control, so they don't really care about this 'internet' thing so much.
Still, it's better that they do something rather than just sit back and do nothing. There's always a chance that people will prove me wrong, and I'd be fine with that in this case. Otherwise, the way things are going, the Internet is going to become unusable. As-is, since this whole issue came up, I've started using Tor for everything, which is not all that great to start with, and am considering migrating away from Comcasts' email and using Proton Mail for everything instead, so that Comcast gets basically nothing from me. However it's not beyond the realm of possibility at this point that jackass corporations like Comcast might change their terms of service some time in the future to make it against their rules to use Tor.
Re: (Score:1)
But the tactic is also showing in simple terms the extent of the republican shill mindset and the depth of the republican swamp.
Congress: The Problem (Score:2)
The Congress of the United States is the greatest threat to the United States.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh dear! What does that say about the people who (re)elect them?
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't really consider the process "election", more like electoral farce. Elections are bought. This is not democracy, but oligarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this isn't only a republican issue, it's also a problem with democrats. And anyone can see the allegiance of politicians who tend to vote for corporate interests over public interest (but finding out which measures are best adapted to gauge the swamp's depth might be a bit more complex).
Re: (Score:1)
For one, it relies on the general public valuing their online privacy in the first place, which so-called 'social media' has been indoctrinating them against for a long time now, especially Milennials.
It isn't so much being indoctrinated against as it is getting brushed under the rug so nonchalantly that only the turbonerds complain about it. Make it personal, and make it real-world. Take out a TV ad with some creepy looking guy in a hoodie skulking around an open window with a kid on a PC and a tense voice over about how your cable company wants to sell your children's internet history. Every video they watch, every website they read, every group they are a part of is all for sale. Maybe do another one
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's why they specifically use the term "your browsing history" rather than something more vague like "your data." People care if their porn habits are being spied on in a way that they don't care about any other information that may be shared against their will.
Though as you noted, a lot of people will probably think they're safe if they just clear their browsing history. Not sure that there's anything can be done about that. You can't force people to stop being ignorant.
That said, saying things
Re: (Score:2)
The internet is the successor to cable tv.
Of course even so-called 'cable TV' is just streaming data, not pure RF signals in the sense that OTA broadcasts are. It's the only way they can jam so many hundreds of shitty channels nobody watches onto the same coax.
Falling for the 'Internet streaming video' meme
That's pretty much what it is; I agree with you. Just shifting the fees from one thing to another. I'll stick with my antenna, CableCos, kthxbye.
Re: (Score:1)
Politics has been a spectator sport ever since voting was instituted.
"The Masses" are idiots, incapable of governing themselves, and equally incapable of wisely choosing their governors.
In America, at least, voters have basically no power at the federal level. The shots are called by a cartel of rich industries, mostly Bankers; who legislate from the shadows using their money. Voting is just a big dog-and-pony show that provides the illusion of choice.
All is not lost; Americans who are truly devoted to a
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, we'll vote the other guy in, that's gonna teach them!"
The mantra we keep repeating at a frequency of 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter to the mouse which cat eats him. Why would it matter to you which politician gets to decide whose cronies get to fleece you?
Re:Flaw in this tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
"None of your business" Darrell Issa when asked how he was going to vote on the healthcare bill. These people are tone deaf and have absolutely no self awareness.
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw in this tactic is that it requires the person discussed on the billboard to be able to feel shame at the things they do in their official capacity.
I don't think that was the goal.
I think the goal is to sway the mind of voters. That doesn't necessarily mean changing a die hard republican into a die hard democrat, but it can be as simple as convincing a tepid republican voter to become more apathetic and just staying home, or convincing a tepid democrat voter to actually go and vote for something they already believe in rather than being lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to feel shame, since, unlike with corporate management, we technically have the ability to replace them if they perform poorly.
Sadly, what you could replace them with isn't any better. It's not like you really have a choice. Democracy turned into having a box of vases, all of them broken beyond repair, but you can freely choose the one you like best.
Marsha Blackburn is in a safe district (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Satan typically couldn't make it through the primary. There's always a filter somewhere. In my Congressional district, the last time an incumbent retired his successor was picked in the Democratic primary.
Electronic adverts listing consumers purchases (Score:5, Insightful)
When I read the title, I thought these billboards would be electronic adverts listing the persons most recent purchases or targeted ads for health problems. I bet if that happened, they would soon push for legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
ISPs will never sell you that info, because it would threaten their ability to sell your info.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, considering how secure the average ISP is, do you really think I'd spend money just to get that information?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they should've included more info (Score:5, Insightful)
Like, perchance, these congressperson's home addresses and phone numbers. Maybe their kids' names and birthdates.
After all, what's sauce for the goose...
Re: (Score:1)
Once available, including a few of the websites these people are known to visit on the billboard should do the trick.
The full picture (Score:1)
Do the billboards also mention that the rules had not been in effect yet, so the vote removed future restrictions and actually changed nothing for how things currently are? I'm all for privacy, but let's stop inflating what this vote actually did. It did not open the spigots for something that had not already been possible/happening.
Re:The full picture (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a bit pedantic. The rule may not have been in play yet, but now it won't be. To use your spigot analogy, the spigot is open, was scheduled to be shut off, and now it won't be.
The end effect is the same -- lawmakers sold us all out to the telecoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Even then your under selling it. The rule was put in place because of a concerning new practice by a few in the industry. It wasn't just a theoretical problem, it was a real problem that needed stopped before a dangerous practice took foothold. Now the green light is on, it will now take legislative action to stop, as they are now forbidden from enforcing any similar rules.
Heller can go to hell....... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dean Heller is one of my Senators and until this, I naively thought he was one of the "good_guys"... Looks like I was wrong... Wonder how much he got for his vote for selling us out? hehe maybe I'll call his office and ask that VERY question... Of course, his staff won't have the answer (or at least won't give it to a *mere* pleeb such as I)...
Re: (Score:2)
He'll be a private citizen before you know it. Heller is one of the GOP congressmen least likely to survive the 2018 election.
Re: (Score:2)
Want to bet that he'll be a corporate-employed citizen after 2018?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're correct. I misspoke. But I stand by the fact that Heller is almost certainly going to lose his reelection bid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Half baked policies and laws that have no real end effect for the user shouldn't be allowed. We already have enough rules without more ineffective ones."
Yup, we need less bad rules and more good ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, AC, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
When someone points their browser at the Mayo Clinic's web site and searches for early signs of breast cancer, their ISP can make inferences about them that Google and Facebook can't.
They don't have to use Facebook. Lots of people don't. They don't have to use google either. They may have a priori knowledge about web sites like WebMD, their local Ford dealer, or their favorite porn site.
"Protection" from Google and Facebook are also important, but no
Re: What a load of garbage. (Score:3)
My first thought was "at least more websites are serving content over HTTPS so all the ISP will get is the domain, not the content", and then I decided to check. It turns out xhamster values your privacy more than both WebMD and Mayo Clinic.
Re:What a load of garbage. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can opt into Google if I consider them trustworthy. If where I live there's only evil choice A for ISP in my area (very common), or even if there's also an evil choice B, I still have no choice. You also ignore the confidence/protection codified law brings. While before the rule there was nothing prohibiting selling user data, there was also nothing giving permission to do so either. Lawyers make much of their money off such ambiguity.
Internet connectivity is no more optional than phone service is optional. This was one of the drivers behind common-carrier status for ISPs. It's illegal to buy/sell phone records without the record holder's permission or a writ from a court. The privacy law was meant to bring ISPs into parity with telcos. Given that Internet communications often include substantially more sensitive data than phone records, that protection was crucial.
Re:What a load of garbage. (Score:5, Insightful)
just favored one set of corporations over another.
In a sense, but there's a very huge difference between Google, etc., and ISPs. While I agree that the all behave terribly, Google, Facebook, etc., are different animals than ISPs are and it's not so crazy that regulations between the two groups should not be identical.
ISPs are like the phone company -- they supply the pipe. Google, Facebook, etc., supply stuff that flows through the pipe, like services that you would call through your telephone.
Pipes should be hands-off and not look at anything you do that isn't required to keep the pipes working well, just like the telephone.
One of the evil things the telecoms keep doing is conflating these two things, as if Facebook and ISPs somehow are engaging in the same sort of business. They're not. Not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs are like the phone company -- they supply the pipe. Google, Facebook, etc., supply stuff that flows through the pipe, like services that you would call through your telephone.
Unless you count Google Fiber or Free Basics.
Dumb Internet Users Abound (Score:2)
Rescinding rules that were never put into effect shouldn't cause internet butthurt, but it does.
It's because all those AOL users were let on. Now they've bred.
Re: (Score:2)
Google, Facebook, etc. are allowed to sell your data?
Google, Facebbook, etc Don't sell your data. They make money off your data. They collate it, package it in an API, then provide 3rd parties the ability to get in the faces of people who match the their requirements. Google and Facebook are valued based on the data they have that no one else does. Their core business is about extracting value out of this data without giving it away.
ISP's core business is selling subscription services to the end user. The ability to sell your data to whoever will pay is just
Re: (Score:2)
It's a start. You have to start at one hole. Else you just lament that there's hundreds of holes without improving the situation in any way.
Better than nothing. (Score:3)
At least we are not just taking it. This gets people talking, and that's a start. Better late than never. Maybe this will open the floodgates. Fingers crossed.
Bugs me when they go after Jeff Flake (Score:3)
It pisses me off to see congressclown Jeff bring down the awesome Jeff Flake the sales represenative.
wont do a thing (Score:3)
the problem is, the people that voted these asswipes in, are the majority. the majority is stupid and apathetic, need proof? see point #1
I've been seening these a lot (Score:2)
I should add (Score:3)
Put their web history on a billboard (Score:3)
That will have an effect
Re:Notice they're all from one party. (Score:4, Insightful)
Doxxing people? Telling someone who their elected representative is is doxxing now? I thought that was public election results.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you high on something? These people allegedly represent me, they are allegedly my employee. How stupid does one has to be to consider it a good thing that some employee essentially gets paid by a competing organization to work against the interests of his employer?
Such an employee should be fired.
Out of a cannon.