Someone Built a Tool To Get Congress' Browser History (vice.com) 68
A software engineer in North Carolina has created a new plugin that lets website administrators monitor when someone accesses their site from an IP address associated with the federal government. It was created in part to protest a measure signed by President Trump in April that allows internet service providers to sell sensitive information about your online habits without needing your consent. Motherboard reports: A new tool created by Matt Feld, the founder of several nonprofits including Speak Together, could help the public get a sense of what elected officials are up to online. Feld, a software engineer working in North Carolina, created Speak Together to share "technical projects that could be used to reduce the opaqueness between government and people," he told Motherboard over the phone. "It was born out of just me trying to get involved and finding the process to be confusing." The tool lets website administrators track whether members of Congress, the Senate, White House staff, or Federal Communications Commission (FCC) staff are looking at their site. If you use Feld's plug-in, you'll be able to see whether someone inside government is reading your blog. You won't be able to tell if President Trump viewed a web page, but you will be able to see that it was someone using an IP address associated with the White House. The tool works similarly to existing projects like CongressEdits, an automated Twitter account that tweets whenever a Wikipedia page is edited from IP addresses associated with Congress.
Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
I just hope he will donate that tool free of charge to pornhub if they give him the data they collect.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
porn hub is a business, they aren't in the habit of burning their best customers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"porn hub is a business, they aren't in the habit of burning their best customers."
If that were true there'd be a lot less malware on their page.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is a product a customer?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
And there is no reason any free market leaning, not to mention Libertarian leaning, Republican who would have the slightest problem with this. As a matter of fact they would argue that this is the free market in action (note to socialist Free Market means not government directed).
So, your snarky message completely misses the point. Not to mention that SoCons are (at most 25% of Republicans) and there influence is waning in key areas such as gay marriage
Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that Trump is not a SoCon right?
He is very big on "security" though -
"We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.” - Trump, Nov 2015
"We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people." - Trump, Dec 2015
Re:Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... (Score:5, Insightful)
NeoCons (ex Socialists who became Conservative in the 1970s - and their intellectual descendants) who, as we all know, are big interventionists.
George W Bush and Dick Chaney are ex-Socialists? Never heard that one before!
Trump is for security against Islamofascism.
Lets not forget as well as hating privacy he also hates freedom of speech -
"I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."
I hope he's not into nation building and other such things (so far no indication of that).
Indeed, in fact he's very into nation destroying [independent.co.uk] right now.
Trump is for the US following existing law regarding immigration.
What I'm talking about affects American Citizens, not immigrants.
He's not an ideologue for either free trade
He refused to label China a currency manipulator, refused to withdraw from NAFTA, hasn't reviewed "foreign trade practices that hurt American workers", so his anti-globalization stance has been luke-warm at best.
or interventionism
Stepping up bombing campaigns counts as intervention.
You mock him with the Bill Gates quote. I hope you, like me, equally mock AntiFa and SJW
They're not the president, they don't control the house, they don't control the senate. Trump and the Republicans do, so when they say they want to do something that attacks freedom of speech, privacy or liberty, you should actually take notice because they have the actual political power to enact it.
Re: (Score:3)
This quote from Wikipedia is pretty good:
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism.[2] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[3][4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.[5][6] They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.[7][8] C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973),[9] though in doing so they may draw upon meaning that Strauss himself did not endorse.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly it seems some of the original figures of neoconservatism came from right-leaning socialism, but it was the conservative Republican party that brought their ideas to the forefront of government, along with neoliberalism.
Re: (Score:3)
1. foreign interventionism.
2. the rejection of social issues.
3. the general thought that the success of international trade (multi-national companies) is good for world peace and the world economy.
Paleo Conservatives were
1. isolationists
2. thought social issues were of primary importance
3. were more for main street economy and jobs in the US (as opposed to multi-national companies) and were for tariffs.
The quintessential PaleoCo
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is for security against Islamofascism.
Oh, and don't forget he did a multi-billion dollar arms deal with the one of the world's biggest exporters of Islamofascism extremism, Saudi Arabia...
Re: (Score:2)
Instead we have progressives defending Sharia law. WTF?
I guess what counts about the arms sale is - how much of this can be used against the US and its allies (precious little). Will the arm s
Re: (Score:2)
Instead we have progressives defending Sharia law. WTF?
Do you not consider the government banning individuals from entering into lawful (as in it breaks no existing law) private contracts between themselves to be a massive overreach of government? Don't conservatives support small government with minimal intrusion into the private lives of citizens?
Many rules in Sharia are already illegal, and no progressives are asking for them to be made legal. However many things in Sharia are mundane things that, if not labeled as "Sharia", you would never know even came fr
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody gives a damn about Muslims not eating pork, or fasting during Ramadan. What people care about is the Koran deals with how others ought to behave. The fact that you can find things in the old testament is less important than how people behave. Ask how your atheist friends would be treated under Sharia, your gay friends. Look at the polling among Muslims regarding blasphemy laws, It's frighte
Re: (Score:2)
The Bible says how others ought to behave. The Torah says how others ought to behave. Many of the things they say are illegal. Many of the things Sharia says are illegal. Many are not.
The point, which you've avoided answering, is to put a blanket ban on how individuals enter into contracts with one-another is completely unconservative.
The fact that you can find things in the old testament is less important than how people behave. Ask how your atheist friends would be treated under Sharia, your gay friends. Look at the polling among Muslims regarding blasphemy laws, It's frightening.
And you're falsely equating banning Sharia with enacting every Sharia as law. Many Sharia laws are already illegal, can you find any progressives that want to make those laws
Re: (Score:1)
Jews and Christians aren't promoting stoning of adulterers.
There is plenty of evidence (see the debates on youtube between atheists and Muslims, between Christian apologists and Muslim apologists and hear the questions. Watch the videos muslim speakers (with 1000s in attendance) saying that every iota, every jot must be followed and se
Re: (Score:2)
You're still avoiding the question, which is should the government prevent individuals from entering into legal contracts between each other just because they came from Sharia. It's a very simple yes or no question.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said I think we - as citizens - need to actively convince show proponents of Sharia Law that blasphemy laws have no place here. The prayer in public squares have no place here. That no prayer rooms are required from employers; that the full face must be shown when walking down the street; that sharia courts cannot be used in place of civil courts (and yes they exist ).
And much, much more.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I didn't even realize that was the question you were asking. No. Of course not.
Ok then, so you stand shoulder to shoulder with progressives "defending Sharia law" [americanlookout.com].
That being said I think we - as citizens - need to actively convince show proponents of Sharia Law that blasphemy laws have no place here
But again, that's just equating "defending Sharia law" with "wanting to implement all Sharia law", which isn't the same. It's a strawman. How many instances can you find of progressives specifically asking for blasphemy laws? Probably not many..?
The prayer in public squares have no place here.
How would that work? You gonna start arresting people for saying "please god" in public now?
that the full face must be shown when walking down the street
Again this one is hard to actually implement. Should this guy [alicdn.com] be arrested? Is this [alamy.com] now ill
Re: (Score:2)
that's just equating "defending Sharia law" with "wanting to implement all Sharia law", which isn't the same
And where do you draw the line? I have heard progressives outraged at Christians and Conservatives but, for far worse statements said by imams and Muslim speakers I've heard ....... from progressives.
Saying "Please God" is one thing. Taking over a public square or street is another.
It's one thing to wear a balaclava to keep yourself warm or to protect yourself from wind. It's another to keep yourself covered for political reasons (the KKK, AntiFa); and custom has not been accepted as an end-all-b
Re: (Score:2)
And where do you draw the line?
It's very simple really, let Muslims do among themselves whatever legal activity they like. For all this talk of progressives defending Sharia and how bad Sharia is, what's actually bad is allowing the government the massive overreach of arbitrarily banning otherwise lawful activity.
I have heard progressives outraged at Christians and Conservatives but, for far worse statements said by imams and Muslim speakers I've heard ....... from progressives.
Right now Christians Conservatives control the house, the senate, the presidency, and any number of states. Muslims have almost no political power. These Christians Conservatives are perceived to be having a negative effect on p
Re: (Score:2)
Why no outrage about FGM? We have new cases coming out. Not a peep;
Why no outrage at "kill gays". We have tons of video.
Why no outrage at the misogyny? Look at all the outrage of Trump BSing in a lockerroom (pu$$ygrabbing) and yet
Why no outrage at Muslims saying we want the caliphate here (US and England). We have tons of video.
Show some motherf**king outrage at this sh!t. The fact that progressives say sh!t makes
Re: (Score:2)
OK. I agree delineating the law in the edge cases is near impossible.
Well exactly, you're defending Sharia in so much as it's full of perfectly legal rules that cannot be made illegal in a fair way.
Why no outrage about FGM? We have new cases coming out. Not a peep; .... nothing.
Why no outrage at "kill gays". We have tons of video.
Why no outrage at the misogyny? Look at all the outrage of Trump BSing in a lockerroom (pu$$ygrabbing) and yet
Why no outrage at Muslims saying we want the caliphate here (US and England). We have tons of video.
There's already a lot of outrage about all of those things, have you ever heard progressives *supporting* one of those things? Just because right now most progressives are directing outrage at different things doesn't mean anything. Why be outraged at things there is already mainstream outrage about? Especially if Conservatives are trying to use that outrage as an excuse to take a
Re: (Score:2)
The second thing is that nobody is for medical malpractice. There may be differences in opinion in how to deal with it. I would reduce the use of financial reward and increase the use of remove licenses and (in extreme cases) jail. - Let's leave that point aside. The key point is that we all agree medical malpractice is a bad thing.
However proponents of Sharia Law promote (in my opinion) many bad things
Kill at
Re: Gitmo in 3, 2, 1... (Score:2)
In one area, he's absolutely not wrong. We do have a lot of foolish people.
One step (Score:2)
Now all we need is a tool to signal every time somebody from the Congress uses TOR.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
That joke feels like it's recycled from a decade ago. Are we going to get refurbished Bush-jokes now?
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
That joke feels like it's recycled from a decade ago.
Trump is getting the same national security briefings that Ronald Reagan got in the final years of his administration.
Are we going to get refurbished Bush-jokes now?
Who knew that George W. was an intellectual?
Re: (Score:3)
Trump's national security briefings include little text, many pictures and a box of crayons.
Still sounds more useful than Trump's circle jerk Cabinet meetings where all the Cabinet members prostrate themselves and praise him like they are a bunch of North Koreans seeing Kim Jong Un
Re: (Score:2)
Still sounds more useful than Trump's circle jerk Cabinet meetings where all the Cabinet members prostrate themselves and praise him like they are a bunch of North Koreans seeing Kim Jong Un
The same group of people who wanted a tank-and-missile display at the inauguration like they do in Russia and North Korea.
So is slashdot officially an anti-trump site now? (Score:1)
I mean, I didn't vote for the guy, but that's all the news there is here now
Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
This does not have anything to do with Congress' browser histories.
This tool makes it easier to determine if Congress visits YOUR WEBSITE ONLY.
This info is in the summary, but come on SlashDot, there is no need for the clickbait headlines.
Better late than never. (Score:1)
A Swedish version of this called Creeper [gnuheter.com] has existed since 2007.
Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
This is good. The website end has always been able to store visitor information and do whatever the hell it wants with it. So, this guy writes a tool that uses the #1 privacy invasion in the world today to protest letting ISPs store which IP addresses clients on your home network connect to, which doesn't even crack the top 100, thanks to SSL and browsers pushing auto-SSL.
Just for comparison, Facebook knows who you are, where you live, what and where you like to eat, who your friends are, what your politics are, what websites you visit, what products you purchase, and everything else about you. What does you ISP know about you? They know that you spend a lot of time on Facebook.
Oh, but Zuckerberg is a progressive and Trump is a Republican. Everyone get your pitchforks and torches so we can go protest the second one.
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
I can avoid using Facebook.
I cannot avoid using my ISP.
Re:Hilarious (Score:4, Interesting)
I can avoid using Facebook.
I cannot avoid using my ISP.
You can use a VPN to hide your traffic from your ISP. They would only know when and how much your location makes connections. VPN technology is pretty easy to setup and is generally good for security.
On the other hand, to block Facebook, you would have to null route their hostnames. That can become a chore. Even if you don't intend to visit Facebook, unless they are null routed somehow, simply surfing most popular sites will connect you to Facebook. And that's just one site. There's tons of other trackers on the web, and most people couldn't even name a few of them. Yes, there are tools to restrict these, but they aren't as effective as a simple VPN.
Re: (Score:1)
That just makes you VPN provider your ISP in the same sense.
Re:Hilarious (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump is a Republican.
Trump may be many things be he isn't a Republican. The Republican Party was a convenient tool for him to use for his own ends; but in the end he only cares about what is best for Trump, the Republican Party or anyone else be damned. If destroying the Republican Party enables him to get the adulation he so desperately craves he'll be the first to toss on gasoline and light a match.
Re: (Score:2)
Just for comparison, Facebook knows who you are, where you live, what and where you like to eat, who your friends are, what your politics are, what websites you visit, what products you purchase, and everything else about you.
I can safely say that facebook knows very little about me. Everything they know about me is either from harvested public records or something someone else has written. Being uncool has been very easy and saved me a lot of money on electronics that spy on you.
What does you ISP know about you?
Far more than they should.
Re: (Score:2)
Orgasmatron stated:
Just for comparison, Facebook knows who you are, where you live, what and where you like to eat, who your friends are, what your politics are, what websites you visit, what products you purchase, and everything else about you.
Yeah, about that: if you use NoScript, you can use the following user script in its Application Boundary Enforcer (NoScript/Options/Advanced/ABE) subsection to block Facebook scripts from operating on other websites:
Site .facebook.com .fbcdn.net
.facebook.com .fbcdn.net
Accept from
Deny INCLUSION(SCRIPT, OBJ, SUBDOC)
That, plus denying third-party cookies should do a reasonable job of keeping Mr. Zuckerberg's nose out of your non-Facebook browsing.
in Sweden, 'creeper' has been around for ages. (Score:4, Informative)
So here's an existing system tracking Media and government access in Sweden:
https://mediacreeper.com/index
http://gnuheter.com/creeper/senaste
Basically, you put the 'creeper' tag on your home page, and it logs accesses from netblocks known to be used by media and gov't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet that works fine until the media adds "mediacreeper.com" to their ad-block blacklist, or block it on their corporate proxies.
Yeah, right. (Score:1)
Proving the bill changed very little (Score:2)
I'm not saying that it isn't bad for ISPs to sell info. I'm not in favor of the big ISPs, but I believe they are what they are because of government intervention, and not in spite of it. Also, this legislation doesn't explicitly
A tool? (Score:2)
"Plugin" FOR WHAT ??? (Score:2)
TFA doesn't say... Then again, IT reporting is difficult stuff.
Inject some ads in their content.. (Score:1)
cool (Score:2)
So you can find out what elected officials get up to online... or what regular people do when they slack off at work, if their work happens to be a government agency.
What about the logs??? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.speaktogether.org/blog/we-built-a-tool-that-gets-congress-browser-history [speaktogether.org]