I'm no fan of Trump (I'm not a burger, calm down) but I never expected him to sign the privacy the bill. Any explanations why he did it? When it comes to freedoms, US is supposed to be a role model, so shit like this worries the rest of us.
billboard.com
archive.is
Other urls found in this thread:
i suspect it'll take a few days out to work out the kinks here, sage
It's to deregulate the internet which will increase competition. What Obama did was reclassify as the internet as telecommunications to enforce net neutrality. Trump basically undid that. As for internet providers selling your info, it's not something website services don't already do. For marketing purposes it isn't really nefarious.
Only leftists believe in the "infallible hero", shill. Chances are a politician isn't going to agree with out tiny extremist community 100% of the time.
This
Vid related.
Trump signed it because he didn't read it. He was told "is good for country. u be popular" and couldn't resist that.
Holla Forums needs to deport themselves to reddit.
...
The only pro-Trump part of Reddit is r/the_donald though.
And /r/the_donald is an embarrassment. It's civcuck Zionist trash. It's actively bluepilling people who could have potentially been woken up to the Jewish Question.
But all these efforts overlook an important detail: As odious as it will be for Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs to sell their subscribers’ browsing data to advertising clients that want to zero in on customers, the law still prevents them from selling data that can be pegged to specific individuals. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 largely prohibits the sharing of “individually identifiable” information and, while the Wiretap Act, passed in 1968, prevents most instances of divulging a person’s electronic communications without consent–meaning it’s illegal to buy a congressperson’s search history.
So Comcast will be allowed to do the same shit Facebook, google, Twitter, apple, Amazon, etc etc already do.
How is it fair that Company A is allowed to do a thing and Company B isn't when they are both in the same business?
Neither of them should be allowed to do it, you stupid libkike.
Don't like it then don't do business with them.
Go start your own MUH FREEDOMS isp.
You're fooling no one but other shills, retard.
A long time ago this seemed to be true to me because we had a free isp here locally that you could dial into and had a big ad that was alway on your screen.
But now not so certain you can easily do this.
No shit, because you can't.
To keep the laws regarding ISP ownership of their property the same as it has been forever.
Private property rights exist and were upheld in this law. The data is being transmitted across your ISPs network. They own the data. It is their property.
Just as Google and Facebook can collect data when someone connects to their network, so can an ISP. Interestingly, ISPs have no real history of selling user data while Google and Facebook have turned it into a multibillion dollar business, and the FCC sought to prevent ISPs from getting in on the business they've expressed no interest in. Even more interesting, it is companies like Google and Facebook which would be harmed by additional competition who opposed Republicans blocking the regulation.
User information is being collected. User information is being sold. ISPs are about the only party not participating in this business and entrenched interests want to use force of law to keep it that way.
This isn't about the freedom of users. The so-called "right to privacy" only applies against government and only when the Supreme Court thinks it should because it is an invented right. The government already compels ISPs to collect and retain data for potential law enforcement investigations. The websites users connect to already collect and sell user data.
Users have no stake in this debate. This is about the freedom of one business to compete against another if they so choose. The supporters of the regulation want to protect certain business interests from increased competition.
A sincere "privacy" regulation would prevent all selling of personal information shared across networks without express permission being granted, but that would lead to the immediate bankruptcy of Google, Facebook, and thousands of other websites with rampant cronyism in Washington DC. That would never happen, even if you want it to. Using government to create and enforce anti-competitive laws is not the solution.
Because the previous ruling body wasn't up to snuff, and every other bit of the internet already sells your data.
So what are you suggesting then?
IMO this bill is ok because it's breaking a monopoly that google/fb/etc previously held. That said, I'd prefer to see a new bill that bans the practice outright for both social media AND ISPs. That way it can't be spun as "denying competition".
And this here is the crux of the matter:
Whenever you get onto the internet you are giving up part of your freedom. You can try to circumvent this the best you can, but if someone wants to know what you are doing, there will always be a way. When you go on to any website, you're leaving information. When you use an ISP, you are leaving information.
If you are that concerned, go with an ISP where you can make a legally binding contract that they will not sell your data. And unfortunately I don't know if any do offer that. Whatever the case, the courts can issue warrants to seize digital information, just as they can physical information. That's part of living in a society with those kind of laws.
Is this a good thing? No. But it is the way that things are.
Not entirely correct. More correct to say it's preventing a monopoly that Google/FB/etc. want to hold and for which they sought the regulations from the FCC in the first place. The regulations never went into effect and never will, thanks to Republicans in Congress.
As addressed in my post, that would bankrupt thousands of businesses with strong ties in Washington DC. Whether you like it as a solution or not, and no matter how much you may despise some of those businesses, it's just not realistic.
My solution is no regulation beyond those which already exist, as addressed in . So long as Google/FB/etc. can collect and sell information not "individually identifiable" which crosses their network, everyone should be able to and it should be widely understood that this occurs and is legal.
If specific websites or ISPs want to advertise that they won't sell user information in an attempt to increase market share, good. Some websites already do this. ISPs don't advertise it, but to my knowledge none of them currently sell user information to advertisers. If such offers prove fruitless and selling user information proves more economically viable, then we only have ourselves as consumers to blame.
You write like a kike shill hired by some social media company. It's painfully obvious holy shit.
No, ISPs don't own the data. They transport it. They use the country's limited infrastructure. It's not a free market. Not everyone can start an ISP.
Because Trump is not your friend, he's just the enemy of your enemy, which doesn't mean he won't fuck you over in the end.
We do support Trump, because he empowers our nationalist agenda and saws distrust to the MSM and the career politicians, in which he serves our goals.
But in supporting Trump don't forget that he's not Hitler and never will be and our goals are completely asymmetrical and opposite. Once we defeat the golems and come close to confronting the Jew personally the Trump will have to go.
Apparently it was a rule King Nigger implemented to extend the FCC's reach.
That's because he is a shill.
You can't blame the monkey in chief for this, you fucking kike. Trump fucked up, admit it or suffer the consequences of being a hypocrite.
Are you saying Obama was in the right then?
So the prior situation with only certain companies doing it was better?
It's really a moot point though, as the EULA that everyone signs already was giving them the right to do this data collection and sales.
Maybe, but no doubt Trump is jew-wise and if Kushner rubs him the wrong way we may see a major pivot.
Pay attention to these.
This bill keeps things the same as they have been for years. It prevents an Obama-era change from taking effect.
Yes, yes; go suck a kike cock.
They are both in the wrong, the nigger sold out to the social media, Trump sold out to the telecom. Doesn't surprise me, since the telecom corps were major campaign contributors.
I mean, I'm not saying either is a great solution, but come the fuck on.
Can't expect much from a Twitter user.
The blackpills are having a field day over this.
He didn't undo it, he just pushed the ball to the telecom. Undoing it would be calling Obama's bill unconstitutional and repealing it.
As I said, don't create false idols. Trump is just a temporary ally, he's neither one of us nor he is our leader.
I'm not FFS I just said the exact same thing in another thread. I mean shit, I'm not personally going to be happy until there's laws making it so illegal to sell consumer information to private or public that it puts a severe fear of god into Facebook, Goggle, and these other fuckers. But you can bet none of that's going to go through.
The point is, this is better than what was previously there, even if it is not the best situation.
Hahahahahaahahahahahaahahahaah the promised chan will have IQ tests I hope, so trash like this doesn't show up.
Reread this a few times
It sure is better, but he's being pushed around by the same swamp he has sworn to drain.
There is one thing a nationalist can't be, and that thing is being weak. You can a monster, racist, literally Hitler, but not weak.
And Trump has been showing weakness lately.
No shit, he's like seventy. It's a testament to modern medicine, diets, and his own good genetic constitution that he isn't dead. The presidency is infamous for sapping away at everyone who gets into the Oval Office. While he'll probably make some positive changes, he'll be a shell by the time we get to the end.
Someone is going to have to fill that void and finish the job.
I wish Holla Forums would make another board already.
Social media companies oppose what the Republicans did and I support it. You could at least accuse me of being a kike shill for ISPs to match the interests expressed.
Even better, instead of accusing me of being a shill, you could address the points made if you disagree with them. Shills seem to mostly write formed responses which you see repeated everywhere almost to the letter.
lol
US politicians are bought and owned, with few (if any) exceptions.
And obviously, it's working out in his favor, because now he can do whatever he wants, act on whatever whims enter his head, and he'll have a crowd of adulating sycophants telling him that he's the savior of mankind. It feeds his ego, and ego is often a much greater motivator than money.
Tell Codemonkey that he should have given us our board back sooner then.
Nice reveal /leftypol. never change. Maybe if you fags could attract more than 10 unique ids a month you wouldn't be booting up with /furry/ and /mlp/
Whenever i see that picture all i hear is
IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES GUILLOTINE
Same reason politicians do anything. Telecoms have a lot of money.
Plus, it's bad for Google since ISPs might become competitors (Google has a lot of the average user's data, but the ISP has everything save what's encrypted). And Google is (or was) against Trump.
Assuming you mean privacy instead of freedom (because this is a privacy, not freedom, issue), it isn't. The US is on level with China on the war on privacy, although many other countries are trying to catch up real quick.
I'm going to need to speak to your supervisor
This is his supervisor, David Brock, speaking. How can I help you?
at least you know who you work for
...
Your retarded if you think he will blame kikes and blanket blame them, especially his own kike family members and with him being a civnat.
Holy fuck, I'm not going to read all the posts to check if anyone mentioned this, I'll just assume that the assholes defending trump and the removal of the privacy bill are retarded. There's a HUGE fucking difference between google or facebook getting your data and selling it, vs. an ISP. I'm going to all caps it, just so you retards can under-fucking-stand it.
YOU NEED AN ISP JUST TO GET ON AND USE THE INTERNET! ONCE YOU'RE ON IT, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR PRIVACY POLICIES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, ETC. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO. OBAMA'S BILL GAVE YOU THE FREEDOM AND CHOICE PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY, BUT NOW TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS HAVE REMOVED THAT AS EVEN AN OPTION.
ISPS ARE NOT WEBSITES YOU RETARDED NEWBS! OF COURSE THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SELL YOUR DATA IF THE ONLY CHOICE YOU HAVE IS
1. USE INTERNET, ISPS SELL YOUR DATA
2. DON'T USE INTERNET.
so, it's like england's tv license conditions?
lies
Sadly he can do what he likes because the opposition and media are still in election mode. They havent yet accepted that they lost so they arent in providing a responsible opposition and holding the government to account.
They are all too busy chasing unfounded ghost stories about him being connected to Russia or something.
I have a list of every person in my country ever to have consumed water.
Besides, everyone knows you should just solder out the prism and the licensing requirement no longer applies. That's what we've been doing since the device switched from being a radio receiver to being a dumb screen.
what a tragedy for human rights on the Internet!
https ://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation
http ://www.funnyjunk.com/channel/politics/Let+s+talk+internet/tifpLgv/
https ://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/what-the-online-privacy-vote-is-really-about
Read about what was actually changed before you jump on the MSM fearmongering. Nobody can buy or sell yours or anyones internet history.
This transfers power from the FCC to the FTC and fixes the confusion created by earlier rules. This allows for a proper and fair privacy framework to come in the future that doesn't shaft the small guy. Ultimately it blasts a hole in their plan to use the FCC for censorship.