Goodbye internet privacy:

Goodbye internet privacy: privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/03/today-senators-will-vote-allow-isps-sell-internet-history-end-fcc-online-privacy-rules

A bill has passed the Senate to allow ISPs to store your browsing data. I'm sure the NSA has no interest in this data at all.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
archive.fo/jpx0e
ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/digital-single-market_en
ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digitising-european-industry
washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/28/the-house-just-voted-to-wipe-out-the-fccs-landmark-internet-privacy-protections/
archive.is/Kr2pf
archive.is/LmATZ
archive.is/mcyWG
archive.is/9JA6L
federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services
archive.fo/tjQCN
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222
archive.fo/FDyB7
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

This isn't a nail on the coffin of piracy, it isn't even a pile of dirt being shoveled onto it, it's a match stick that's being used to light a candle for the grave.

No worries man.
Trump will save u... oh, wait.

I'm becoming dyslexic or something, I swear I double checked that twice because I knew I'd make that exact wording error.

Every tool invented for freedom eventually becomes the cudgel of tyranny... Why bother anymore...

Whelp, that's fucking it. Using Tor from now on.

...

I don't know why we aren't making a bigger fuss about this. It's unacceptable.


Except the government was previously stopping shit like this from happening because it was illegal.
Eat a dick.

Because it's what Holla Forums wanted when they didn't want the FCC and "muh obamanet".

Unless you roll back common carrier status, the FTC has no jurisdiction over ISPs, and they can do whatever they want.

And, unless that happens, it will take another act of congress to restore these protections.

Most likely we'll get the worst of both worlds, muzzling of the FTC and rolling back of common carrier status to information provider status.

Don't worry though, goy, it's just business as usual. Go back to sleep.

>>>/reddit/

And Holla Forums is fucking retarded.

Thank you for actually providing some info

This makes it sound like tit cuts both ways, because losing common carrier would make them liable for the content posted on their networks, leading to voluntary censorship. Is this correct?

Holy shit please tell me you don't believe this for a second

explain again why net neutrality is bad.

End yourself newfag, that was a thing already all the way back in '03 on motherfucking halfchan.

You can't seriously be against keeping ISPs from crippling your traffic to all but a handful of services they control unless you cough up extra money.
You're either ignorant or deluded.

Because it was happening before? What planet do you live on?

It's something that had been made illegal. Just because it was happening before doesn't mean we want it to happen again. This is what the government is supposed to be for, and if it isn't doing that, then this government is simply tyranny, and so are the incestuous corporations that control it.

No, that's actually covered by another act of congress. ISPs are NOT LIABLE for the content. It's why the US is still number one when it comes to freeze peach on the internet. You can thank Ron Wyden for that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

Also referenced in the footer of this site.

Pick one

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Reminder that anyone who is against this is a dirty kike against the God Emperor.

...

proofs?

Why do you believe you have Internet privacy? The Internet was not designed for privacy so if you wanted it, you have always needed the proper tools.

...

Well it was easier to remain private in the 90's, when you could disable cookies and javascript, and browse most sites with Lynx.
You might as well say nobody has any right to privacy outside in public area, but that's not the same thing as having hundreds of drones with cameras surround you at all times as soon as you step outside your front door. Clearly the laws would have been made differently if the situation was as bad as it is today. Society doesn't work when the people are subjugated and oppressed like this. The US founding fathers recognized this, which is whey they wrote the Constitution the way they did. Were they still alive today, they'd probably say we're long overdue for a revolution.

>Time: Time to Rethink Privacy: Stopping Digital Terrorism in a Digital Age
>Washington Post: "Does Privacy Exist: Changing Digital Rights in a Digital Landscape"
>NY Times: "The Case for Surveillance: Most Americans 'OK' With Targeted Surveillance in New Gallup Poll"
>CNN: "How Privacy Threatens Minorities and Lets Pedophiles Spy on Your Children"
Surveillance is normalized now to such an extent that most Americans didn't even bat an eyelid after the Vault 7 leaks. As a Limited Hangout, Snowden proved to be the most successful asset of the NSA since their inception.

My point is that by its very nature, the Internet is inherently chatty. The Internet is inherently designed to mass replicate your traffic whenever you request it. What this means is that nodes that are sitting in the middle of your path have always been able to record the traffic that passes through. You cannot have the "reliability" of the Internet without this property. And this brings me back to my point: the Internet was not designed for privacy. If you want Internet privacy, you need to use the tools of Internet privacy.

...

That's a false dichotomy. Notice how you're the only one that mentioned Shillary. We can agree that Trump is shit while also agreeing that he was the lesser shit. In either case, we shouldn't be focused on either of them. We should focus on congress, which are the ones that actually make the laws. Read a civics book, nigger.

It's anti-freedom and anti-consumer and only benefits big telecoms that are already well established so it also keeps the current near monopoly situation we have with the current telecoms.

If you don't like how an ISP works switch to another one. That's how the free market works, sweetie.

Hilarious.

Nothing works, don't do anything, give up! Submit!

Fucking literal ISPs banking on payday to sell your data in this thread.

the ISP can do whatever it wants with your data. there's nothing wrong with that. it's your fault for not protecting yourself. the *real* problem is when such protections are made illegal.
if ISPs are legally allowed to spy on you that's one more argument against faggots who try to make laws against anonymity
sage because OP is a faggot

By dismantling domestic privacy laws, the US will lose control of the global internet
archive.fo/jpx0e
Really recommend reading this. The author makes it sound positive in the long term - for people outside of Burgerland.

To fellow Tor users: I didn't use the wayback machine to archive because it functions exactly the same as the source and is therefore totally useless in overcoming analytics.

Thanks Free Market™. Now all we have to do is get rid of net neutrality and the evil government jews can't spy on us anymore, just the evil corporation jews!

Holla Forums strikes again

Net neutrality is a free market idea, you need net neutrality for the market to regulate competition. Furthermore, there would be nothing better than for Twatter and Tracebook to be premium so that people are not forced to use it anymore, now they have an excuse. Their power is precisely in being offered "for free", so that people can be slaves "for free". Why do you want people to be slaves, user?

Imagine if your telecom company sold your info on all the numbers you call. But hey, it's my fault for not protecting myself using a phone anonymization(TM) service.

I don't see any problem here.
You voluntarily™ signed a voluntary contract to a private corporation and private corporations should be free to do whatever they want without intervention, that includes selling your data for profits.
If you don't agree with it then you are free to just don't have internet at all, simple like that. Or you can wait until some benevolent guy come from the heavens and create a competitor ISP that claims to not collect your data, it shouldn't take long since everybody knows making a new corp is something very easy, cheap and simple.

You're just a cia nigger looking for excuses, that's all. You'll clap and cheer every time the state removes any legal protection the customer has, and then try to replicate the same in the 3D world with cameras, microphones, drones, and every other possible means. I can smell your attitude from the other side of the world and it stinks.

That's a strawman argument my cia shill.

Yes, and now they're letting your ISP get in on it for profit. Are you stupid?

...

>>>/opsec/4

Post tips if you have any of your own.

It totally works, do it, keep using it! You'll be safe!

Fucking literal kikes thinking everyone on Holla Forums doesnt know what they're talking about

Kill yourself faggot

No, you're the shill who's ignoring the fact that there were legal protections in place and you want them gone so ISPs and feds can do wtf they want without ever facing possible repercussions. Your excuse of "Internet is chatty" doesn't mean jack. Phone line is chatty too, because it's routed similarly, but it's supposed to be private, and until they used "muh terrorist" laws to subvert this, the law required them to get warrant signed by a judge on a case-by-case basis. But now the floodgates are open, so they can do wtf they want, and shills like you want to find excuses for that.

You missed the point which is why you've committed a strawman. By its very nature, the Internet is inherently chatty. This is not an excuse for anything, this is a matter of fact. Forget about the laws of any land because the laws of one country do not apply to other countries. Let's say that you live in America and American companies are forbidden to record your Internet traffic. Fantastic, but those laws mean nothing to China who is very capable of recording American traffic. This is the point that I've been making: the Internet was NEVER designed for privacy so SOMEBODY (it doesn't matter who this is this somebody) is physically able to record traffic passing through their network. This is a undeniable fact that takes zero account of whatever legislation exists.

I'm not arguing for the government to spy on people and this is your strawman argument.

Well, it technically can't be, this goes for any communication whatsoever. You can only use imperfect secondary tricks to obfuscate it and/or use external means (such as law) to prevent or regulate whatever. Like the other user said: communication is by definition "chatty".
The only way to defeat this is to fight a specific communications technology itself which increasingly seems impossible. The explicit point of networked communication from the very beginning was precisely that it can't be easily sabotaged unlike a linear one where you just cut off one of the points along the line.

There was a webm that showed how this was standard, but I lost it. This whole stupid Reddit spacing meme is just meant to try and get us to fight amongst ourselfs.

Back to your containment board

This is why your bored is so shit and has to rely on stickies to even be coherent

...

Let's be honest, all commercial VPN providers are celebrating the loss of privacy because it turns privacy into a paid service and not something one has by default.

WAHHHH THE GUBBERMITNT KNOWS I MASTURBATE TO ANIME MUH PRIVACY


Kill yourself Holla Forums

Hello makise

WAHHHH THIS CONCERNS ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL MUH PRIVACY

You're just projecting your own apolitical retardation.

That's a weird thing to say. Everything has already happened from the very start. Everybody has been enslaved by social network hegemons through collective and mutual enforcement which wouldn't happen if people had to pay extra. I'm not saying "net non-neutrality" is itself good, but it would work against Silicon Valley which is the most powerful actor in all of this.

Yes, I'm sure killing small sites in an evergrowing centralized net would prevent social media from existing. Net Neutrality isn't the problem.

You're literally arguing "we need to tax the rich more" only it applies to consumers and the legal loopholes allowing companies to form monopolies still exist.

Again, the biggest "victim" of this would be Facebook and Youtube. You're not looking at this sufficiently cynically but want some ideal solution instead.

You are one huge retard.

Retard, they have the money to pay for fast lanes. Sites like the one you're posting on right now don't. Enjoy posting epic maymays on facebook, dipshit.

I still don't see how this works for the benefit of Silicon Valley or the Internet itself in the long run. People would simply stop using the Internet so much.

Social networks like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. also thrive on external content. If not all users have access to external content then it makes those social networks half-broken.

What I'm saying is saying that this is the death of privacy is fucking stupid since privacy has been dead ever since the dawn of the Internet. Both government and corporations have been spying on you since day 1.

How does net neutrality prevent companies from fucking over customers? Comcast is still Comcast after net neutrality with it's terrible and overpriced service, terrible customer service, monopolies in specific markets, etc. How isn't that fucking over customers?
Except the giant telecoms have become more and more giant and smaller telecoms can't compete with them or even get into markets that big telecoms have a chokehold on. Not to mention net neutrality prevents smaller telecoms from having a chance to strike up deals with content providers to provide higher bandwidth allocation to their websites.

Prove that this would happen.
Legal loopholes that don't exist.

No, it isn't.
If you're "regulating competition" it isn't a free market idea, dumbass.

If the market itself regulates economy than that is the definition of neoliberalism. More correctly put: the market regulates society itself through competition. Net neutrality allows companies to compete "freely" on the Internet market without ISPs intervening. Just to clarifiy, I'm not for neoliberalism, but one has to understand the ideology one's criticizing. Neoliberalism isn't the same thing as classical economic liberalism from the 19th century, it is smart enough to recognize that you need to establish some kind of framework and infrastructure for the market to come fully into existence and do its supposed job.

Holla Forums is indeed imkampfy and the narrative he chooses to allow.

Phones have always been subject to wiretapping, even if it's just a straight copper wire from you to your friend. But there were laws in place that made it illegal for feds and other law enforcement to do this without a warrant. Without those laws, it becomes an arms race, and it's not possible to win it against an opponent with unlimited buget who also has control of your hardware.
Anyway now the floodgates are open, and they're just grabbing everything legally. And not only anything you say or write can be used against you in court (they'll have your entire history to comb through to find things to nab you with, if you become a "problem" for someone important), but your info can also be traded over and over for cash. Maybe at some point it'll even become common for employers to run your phone/Internet history through a check like they do with credit cards.
The fact that people don't want the legal protection and argue against privacy rights is troubling.

What makes you so sure encryption doesn't work? That just sounds like nonsense to me. Especially given how much government bitch and whine about citizens having access to encrypted communications. The gov in the UK is trying to use the recent attack on the bridge in London to regulate apps like WhatsApp because it let's people communicate and encrypts it for them.

The Internet isn't a market it is a service.

has the vulnerability that polizi can intercept keystrokes before they get encrypted.
The UK gov is full of shit.
Encryption works if/when it's properly implemented. Even milspec crypto is breakable if some nigger can see your keystrokes FFS.

Well no shit if your phone is keylogged it's not gonna do you any good, but they seem to have an issue with not being able to catch WhatsApp messages in their standard wide-sweep dragnet approach to surveillance.

until vpns are outlawed

That's so cute :)

and you believe them when they say that

Only if you live under a rock ever since the Internet appeared. Not only is it a market but one of the biggest memes currently, at least in EU, is that all companies should also become Internet companies, and net-neutrality is at the core of this, the EU calls this project "digital single market".
ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/digital-single-market_en
ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digitising-european-industry

Oh boy, sounds like 1999 all over again. But maybe EU will crash and burn first.

'AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA'

You can't make this shit up

Rev up dat I2P
GOOD LUCK SELLING TERABYETS OF ENCRYPTED TRASH

How much does a full page ad in like that in the NYT cost? Can I shill for IPFS/Tox/I2P/Tomb/Aktie in a news paper?

i took ownership of /i2p/, so if you're serious shill for me a little

we're gonna make the internet great again

depends on which section, date, colour etc but apparently around 150k

no thanks

not when they agree to not compete

Found this on /n/, proving my post.

Goddamnit those motherfuckers are fast. This is just like when Paul Ryan snuck CISPA in the 2016 federal budget bill. They've learned not to dawdle anymore and give the public a chance to react.

There is an implementation in C++, though I feel like that's out of the pan and into the fire.

washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/28/the-house-just-voted-to-wipe-out-the-fccs-landmark-internet-privacy-protections/

Shit.

...

Call me a cynic, but the regulations that this bill repealed were drafted in October 2016, and only passed FCC vote in December 2016. That tells me that these privacy regulations were just a a last minute measure to make the ISP's come out against it as they were already selling this data under the Democrats control and would use this to make everyone shit their pants because the Republicans were going to let the ISP's sell their info.

And everyone here took the bait.

The timing of them has more to do with the timing of SCOTUS throwing out what little protections there are in the most infuriatingly BS-laden judgement ever (franchise agreements don't exist, goy!) and the Verizon super cookie debacle coming to light, not so much Obummer leaving office.

The timing more than likely just has to do with the rate the government moves at. While I haven't looked into this in particular, most actions like this are known about well in advance (for example, the new NSA related rules that Obama passed at the end of his term where it was in the news almost a year earlier that it would be happening and was being worked on since the end of the Bush administration).

Not exactly. They were regulated under the FTC before. The regulations in question were in response to the FTC not having this jurisdiction.

So, basically, the republicans created a sort of legal limbo situation that can only be fixed by either 1) repealing net neutrality entirely, and making ISPs information service providers, or 2) another act of congress entirely to restore these protections.

You do not know what you are talking about. Stop pretending you do.

You act like anywhere else in the world this doesn't happen
It happens in Europe too, your EU laws don't protect you. Also quit reddit spacing.

The EU is also a cucked freedom hating, statist organization. Who gives a shit what they think?

So, we're going to need to prepare for ISPs to fuck us harder than ever before since there's going to be very little potential for consequences?

Yeah, basically.
Pajeet Pai is a Verizon lobbyist and Republicans suck the dick of telecoms till they're dry, it's no surprise. That's what was going to happen once the election was decided.

Dumb newfag.

You failed to mention that the ftc was stripped of that power once net neutrality was passed in 2015.

Just because some retard in 2003 double spaced posts doesn't mean it was accepted. It's poor formatting for an imageboard, period, and the only reason people do it today is because of reddit's stupid post formatting. Get over it, you lose.

It's perfectly acceptable. The government Is a special moral authority. Anarcokiddies are kidding themselves, we are lucky to lick the boots of our overlords.

archive.is/Kr2pf

This was already reality in Canada, right?

Time to stop using services that don't support VPN.

protip:
google is an ISP and it has been selling your search and browsing history anyways

this just enables more competition on the market

You're delusional. This was a good rule and only cucks would argue that this isn't a way to keep getting fucked.

kys

You mean the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They're the ones that ruled against the FTC in FTC v. AT&T Mobility.

archive.is/LmATZ
archive.is/mcyWG
archive.is/9JA6L

You would have to be naive or stupid to believe that any sort of federalized government acts in your interests.

They've already been doing this. Have you not looked at the Wikileak docs?

Still an outrage though but it's honestly stuff that we already have. It's just that they can sell your shit to advertisers like they most likely already do provided you use jewgle anything.

No, you fucking moron, it's just the way it works. Common carriers are regulated under the COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 (and amendments). Non common carriers are covered under the FTC ACT (15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(2), 44)

In short, the "power grab" excuse is just bullshit. Common carriers have always been the FCC's jurisdiction.

This is just ISP dicksucking. Plain and simple. There's no way you can spin this to be anything other than letting ISPs fuck you in the ass.

Yeah, but this is defeating a rule that would have made it illegal to do this. This is like when congress tried to defeat anti-corruption rules. These people are sellouts of the lowest kind.

There's already a rule that makes this illegal, it's called the fucking 5th Amendment. Guess what: the fucking government doesn't give a shit about rules or laws.

4th and 5th, rather.

who taught you geography user? ronald reagan?

What does the fifth amendment have to do with corporations? You sound like a moron. In fact, what does the fifth amendment have to do with evidence gathered from your actions, "fruit of the poisonous tree" or not.
Please stop posting.

NSA is slurping up all american traffic, so his stats are meaningless. Maybe those stats made for good lies to pacify americans before Snowden/Assange dropped the bomb.

Who are you quoting?

user here mentioned the wikileak docs, which involved government spying tools. Learn how to ready replies, newfag.

See

Fucking faggot.

im quoting the person i replied to you tard. dont play coy.

everytime someone says "lol americucks getting shafted, good thing im not an americuck!" butthurt replies automatically assumes that person is from a country belonging to the european union, which is full of niggers.

keep thinking 'murrica and 'yurop are the only 2 "countries" on earth, you dumbfuck SJW/redneck. i'll just be over here in *unnamed barren wasteland* enjoying all my internet privacy, which you don't have.

STAND THE FUCK UP AND REMOVE ALL THOSE WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS BULLSHIT

Tennessee!!!! WTF?!?!! Replace that vile witch!!!!!!!

This was bound to happen sometime.

The internet was founded by DARPA for christ sake.

I'm surprised its taken this long. The only solution is to find another way to mass communicate without government intervention.

Any mass communication will require infrastructure which will be impossible without some sort of governing entity, whether a state or a conglomerate of corporations.
The only solution is to destroy all mass communications.

lmao

So what he's trying to say is that Netherlands and Italy has 100 governments and French and German have 30 to 50 governments?

...

Americans can be so funny

We live in a free market. Prove me wrong.

Didn't realize that Holla Forums was full of retards. Go read the one paragraph bill. You know what, you lazy fucks won't do that. I'll just drop it right here.
Look up the document in question and read how they are justifying implementing the regulations. I should probably link it for your convenience:
federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services
archive.fo/tjQCN
The privacy portion is being regulated based off Section 222 of the 1996 Communcations Act. Search engines are difficult to use, so here you go:
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222
archive.fo/FDyB7
That law is not affected by this. In fact, it hasn't ever applied to Internet communications or ISPs. Democrats would not be able to pass these regulations as a bill, so they used the FCC to reclassify Internet communcations to fall under their oversight. Half of the regulations provide more government and law enforcement oversight of the Internet. What Republicans are doing are responding to the power grab by the FCC, by ignoring their rules. We have laws like CAN-SPAM and HIPAA to regulate far more specific parts of Internet communication. Like those, if laws are applied to the Internet, it ought to go through elected officials rather than being dictated by the FCC. Surely, anons can agree that an oligarchical approach is not best when it comes to regulation of the Internet.

And where the fuck were you 2016-11-08?
It's your fault assholes.

You grew it, you chew it.

Literally who? Didn't he die like 100s of years ago? Why would his opinion matter

The thread was talking about marketers and such, not the NSA.

Matching dub trips confirms somebody needs to draw Bittersweet Candy Bowl yiff

Shouldn't you be running the country or something Donald?