BILL BEING PASSED TO ALLOW ONLINE COMPANIES TO SELL PERSONAL INFORMATION WITHOUT CONSENT

If you stupid faggots think Internet privacy still exists, then you need to kick yourselves in the balls. This is nothing but corporations and advertisers bribing politicians to remove the FCC regulations so they can make more shekels.

Even assuming that he's bought/paid for by the Jew, it's worth pointing out that they *won't* have their needs met to any realistic extent if this type of thing passes.

It would be a stupidly stupid move.

These privacy regulations were bought in by Obama in late 2016 while Trump was president-elect. So he will fuck up the Internet by making it how it was just a few months ago?

If they what they say about this bill is true, all your data is already sold.

He's bought and paid for by whomever hired him to run for president and represent their interests. His policies – who gets money, who gets favorable regulation – tell you who those people are and what industries they come from. It's not rocket science.
No, it really wouldn't. He just got most of the country to believe he was genuinely a man of the people. He even managed to convince White nationalists that his tirades against country club racism and Pat Buchanan were "old news" and that despite his entirely jewish immediate family he was a super secret Nazi. So long as his backers/investors get the return on investment they want, it doesn't matter if he gets another term or not.

Okay we should buy the personal information off the politicians and sell them very openly. See how they like it.

People will say privacy is a thing of the past in an attempt to justify taking even more away. I think there are people on /pol now that can't see Trump as anything but a god. Not sure that's even fixable.

Remember some people here are pro-Trump FIRST, and may even work for him, including possible allies. For example, even a few Russians here simply to support him would be a believeable thing. Good luck fixing that, as even a mod could be Trump FIRST, race second… Who knows. Like I said, probably not fixable.

Old people don't understand the internet. They don't seem to understand that anonymity is one of the largest appeals of the Internet.

"Every company everywhere sells it's customer data, why can't ISPs?"

That's all they see.

These rules would have had the opposite effect. It would have hurt ISPs at a time Google is trying to push into market. Google doesn't need this. It has Android, Chrome, and Search. With these rules in place, it gives competitive advantage to Google since their competition's revenue sources would be impacted in a way theirs wouldn't be. Google would be able to further undercut their competitors. It is in nobodies interest to have one company dominate in so many areas.

I've read through all the rules. Most of it is overkill and designed to give more control to government and law enforcement. Republicans are actually doing a good thing by doing away with these rules. The data collection is a minor part, and that isn't an issue if people actually take simple steps to protect their data. I find it odd that people are so fervent about wanting government control of the Internet. It isn't a limited resource, and a sizeable portion of data is Netflix and video streaming.

duplicate

You can always not use google, whereas your ISP has access to everything you do online.

The bill is overkill. The FCC is generally a bad organization. What would be good is a new bill to be enforced by the FTC that ensures privacy, but it seems that instead of replacing it with a better privacy bill, they will simply remove it.

Republican voters want privacy and non-censorship. They don't want government control of the internet anywhere else. The democrats want complete government control. Now, if people feel that complete government control is the only way they can get privacy, then many will support that, and democrats will get the rest of their socialization agenda through via packaging it together with privacy rights.

And the only regulations ever removed regarding the internet are ones about privacy, they NEVER remove ones that create barriers to entry for ISP infrastructure. In a more competitive market with more ISP options, it's more likely that the ISPs themselves would ensure privacy due to customer demand rather than government laws, but anti-competitive regulations leave us with less options - and don't hold your breath for those anti-competitive regulations to be removed by RINOs.

So what happens if one major ISP commits to never selling customer data, period and it can even be verified.

Sounds like they might do some good business. But of course, that would mean these companies are real and actually competing for people's business and the whole thing isn't rigged.

Implementation of the rules were pushed back. Nothing changes by getting rid of them. Republicans could try to pass their own brand of laws, which would give people the ability to request takedowns of personal and private information. Of course, some people won't like that. They have come to the conclusion that data collection is bad, but data that has been collected and made available is OK.

If you want to say you believe that information should be free, then you should allow both the collection and dissemination of data. You should also allow any transformation on that data whether it be encrypting or decrypting it. That way, if you want to protect data, then you can do that. I'm sure I'm in a small minority of people who still think this way.

Heil'd
Hopefully you know of a way to make that happen–we can't rest on our laurels about this sort of thing just because Trump is in power.

Sorry if this is a duplicate thread. I looked for a thread and I didn't see one. At least link to the original thread so it's easier to find, though!
I agree that Trump needs to be made aware of this–I'm just doing what I can.
Maybe Reddit would have been a good place for this, but I don't ever plan on going there.

I know this, of course. But it SHOULDN'T be that way. There's no reason that any (((website))) should be snooping on me and/or selling my info to the highest bidder.
Maybe we just need to make our own internet, as many have suggested in the past. I guess there's TOR (a US Gov't project), I2P, Freenet, and maybe some others that I can't think of off the top of my head. However, what we really need is something that will gain widespread adoption and acceptance.
Sometimes I wonder if the Axis won in WWII, if there might be a whole network of Nationalist countries with their own 'internet' for communications where we wouldn't be afraid of censorship, (((hate crimes))), or corporate snooping and selling private info.

This is actually a good idea, ha ha! Creative solutions to these problems are necessary. Of course, (((they're))) already doing this, so we can be fully justified in exposing the many reasons why this bill mustn't be passed.

Who kicks themselves in the balls, anyway? If I need a ball-kicking, I have plenty of waifus who can take care of me in that regard, thank you very much!

Are you saying that Pat Buchanan got fooled, too?
It's public knowledge that Trump's donors were some of the least-Jewish in history for either party, while Clinton's large donors were nearly ALL Jewish!
We need to actually think and act strategically to further our interests, not just pretend that we're doing so.

OP, you are a double nigger. First, you hid a live link inside a spoiler, you shithead. Leaving landmines for anons to accidentally click is a subhuman decision. Second, you misrepresented what's actually going on. This is undoing Obama's regulatory power grab for the FCC and transferring said power to a more appropriate agency.

The Federal government will shut down companies that provide encrypted email services and refuse to hand over data to authorities. The government has all of the data it wants. Leaks show that intelligence personnel who has access to that information may use it against you for political ends. We are already past the point where people do not have privacy on the Internet unless they take necessary steps to protect themselves. Typically it is data sold is used for marketing purposes. It may be beneficial to know exactly what companies are selling. I do think a privacy policy that covers what is collected, retained, and sold would be good as part of a legislation. Things like that inform people. People should know what is being done with data, and they should be allowed to take steps to protect themselves.

You're underplaying the significance of this access. Our browsing data won't merely be sold to shill us underwear in the correct size, as a Dem argued on the Senate floor.

This change allows NGOs like the Anti-Defamation League and they SPLC to purchase web history, perhaps through front companies/satellites or a middle man broker, for hate-speech profiling. After all, they are companies too. They are fuckers who would gladly inform your employer.

What's to stop Facebook from buying your browsing data? They potentially get access to your sexual preferences, and it wasn't stated if incognito info was part of the package. Medical searches are part of the package; that's horrific. Insurance companies, lawyers working through fronts, etc. What of journalists and detectives, people working for the greater good?

And it's really just more paranoia and helplessness added to our lives. Does anyone think elites won't be immune to these changes? The potential alone causes normies to be more normie, to avoid any "fringe news."

As Assange writes in Cyper Punks, soon there will only be a few outside the surveillance panopticon, scurrying like rats through the opera house.

Shocked Rand Paul is for this:

…and we can buy the information about them too. how would you like a list of all the home addresses of SPLC or ADL? All for sale very soon.

It's just eff, sheesh.
Anyways, I don't care so much which (((agency))) is handling this, I just don't want Google/Facebook/Amazon/etc. to have free reign to build a giant database of consumer info without consent and no fear of prosecution.
Trump seems to act in a way that is 'whatever furthers the business interests in the economy is best', but we have to remember that Capitalism isn't any less Jewish than Communism at the end of the day.
We have to try and change that motivation to 'whatever furthers the interests of the (white) American working class is best'.

This would be a good development.
Competition among VPN's, for instance, has been a very positive thing.

This (selling of private data and building a database of 'politically incorrect' dissidents) is what I'm worried about.
Principled people like Assange are more trustworthy on these issues than partisan politicians.

Okay, so I just read the Bill carefully. Maybe I made some erroneous assumptions earlier, due to paranoia or simply being used to shitty things happening. Basically, what it boils down to is this–the agency regulating ISP's data usage (whoever said that earlier in this thread was right, it turns out)!
So, it looks like it would currently be the FCC, but the bill 'negating' these regulations would possibly move it (back) to the FTC.
Which is better, and why?
I would honestly think that the FCC is better (I would even be stricter, as I think that ANY private information gathered and shared or sold MUST be done so with prior consent), but maybe I just don't know enough.
What regulations will there be on selling of private info under the "technology neutral framework" of the FTC?
As mentioned here:
whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/statement-administration-policy-sjres-34-–-disapproving-federal

Uh oh. You wont be able to accept the prevailing narrative (((they))) are trying to shill here now, in multiple threads. This one got a well-deserved anchor.

Fair enough, but you should take pause to consider why (((they))) are shilling so hard against it, they have unanimous dem support for retaining the current "Obama way", and that it is something Obama initiated. I think that's sufficient evidence for anyone here to have the default position to support the bill. Why else would they be deliberately misrepresenting it so hard? Also, since when did Democrats care about your ISP privacy?

It's nothing but lies. What are (((they))) *really* trying to protect by getting us to oppose this?

The kerfuffle of the privacy rule rollback is a crock of shit. The groups behind it are all Soros and Google funded. EFF gets millions from the Goog. These groups don't care about online privacy, they're using the issue to establish leftist control of the Internet. Every single non-profit supporting this gets big $ from Soros.

Here's what this is about: There are virtually no privacy rules for the most leftist company in history - Google. They track you everywhere you go on the Internet… Then they sell your information to USG. Telcos have to abide by hundreds of rules that don't apply to Google. They understandably want a level playing field. If you're going to have privacy, make it apply to everyone - Google and the telcos.

Oh, and want to see who's been pushing hardest for privacy rules on the telcos? His name is Evan Greer… Prior to joining the Soros funded Fight for the Future, he worked for a convicted terrorist named Terek Mehanna - convicted by the feds for aiding Al Qaeda.

Research it yourselves… This isn't about protecting YOUR privacy, it's about getting rid of Google's competitors so they can censor us even more.

Incorrect. Google has access to everything you do online, even if you're not using Google. They own Doubleclick, the largest advertising network on the Internet. Every site you visit that's in Doubleclick's ad network, and that's virtually all of them, means that you'll be tracked. Doubleclick also tracks you when you go from one site to another.

If you used any of Google's services, Maps, Google Earth, Gmail, Google Play or any of the dozens of other Google-owned services that you may not even know are Google owned, your being tracked by them.

As for your ISP, yes they can track you. But lets say you have Comcast for your home ISP and AT&T for your mobile service, your employer uses yet a third service, and you log in at the Starbucks to use their Wifi service. There is only ONE company tracking everything you do in that circumstance… Google