Congress just voted to let internet providers sell your browsing history

That's helpful. I'll be sure to spread that to 100 million other internet users that are getting pissed off as we speak.

 

I'm old enough to remember the Cold War. It's still jarring to hear Red as a descriptor of Republicans and Conservatives and not for the Soviet Union and Communists

 

You realize that this isn't a law related to policing...at all....right?

 

Consider the fact that future employers can now purchase your browsing history to find out your level of productivity.

 

Using Tor is suspect to the NSA, and I assume to the rest of Homeland "Security"

And I suspect that soon our beloved Congress and President will pass legislation restricting, if not outlawing altogether, Tor, VPNs, and VMPNs. We must not allow Bad People to hurt our children!

 

As can the police or abusive spouses.

 

I agree. Would you let passers by watch you having a shower? There's stuff no one else needs to know about you. Just one nitpick-it was Joseph McCarthy.

 

That moniker is more fitting than ever. We are still more free than Russia (Russia being more free than it used to be - moved further away from totalitarianism) but, we have moved closer towards totalitarianism.

 

It is not just that - what happens when Gov't goes bad and once again starts going after people on the basis of their thoughts ? Thought police.

At least back in McCarthy's day they did not have emails and private conversations from 30 years ago.

Big Brother is here !! never mind - we are getting there.

 

It doesn't have to just be when a govt goes bad- a benevolent govt can do the same, because they believe they know "what's best for you". The enduring nature of the internet is a problem . I cringe when I consider some of my misspent youth.

 

Agreed but, I would consider this form of totalitarianism - Gov't going bad.

The founders set up a system whereby the power of Gov't was supposed to be extremely limited. Without going to far into the tenets of Classical Liberalism (not to be confused with the modern term Liberal) the power of Gov't is supposed to be limited only to protection from direct harm (Murder, Rape, Theft and so on)

Individual rights and freedoms were put "ABOVE" he legitimate authority of Gov't. Your freedom ends where the nose of another begins ... and this is also where the power of the State begins.

One of the current plagues is what I call fallacious Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a justification for law that looks only at what will increase happiness for the collective. It is an ends justify the means philosophy of law which has no regard for individual rights and freedoms - and should be thrown out in general on this basis alone.

Another problem with this philosophy is "who get's to decide" one mans poison is another mans pleasure.

Now we are seeing this kind of justification that is not even good Utilitarian justification (fallacious).

For example - "If it saves one life" or "harm reduction" as a justification for law.

If this was a valid justification for law then ... should we not ban skiing ? would this not save a life or two ?
What about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? Banned.

In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

The whole point of individual liberty is that one is allowed to engage in actions that have a risk of harm.
These fallacious utilitarian arguments are an anathema to individual liberty - respect for which are the principles on which this nation was founded.

 

Well, that resolution sυcks. A sincere wish of good luck in getting rid of it.

 

Why would anyone think that a search inquiry posted on the internet would be private? That's really naive.

I've always assumed the internet was public. If you use the web then you expect everyone, everywhere to know what you're doing while on it.

The advertisements in my gmail are in Swedish and I assume it's because Google knows I send emails in Swedish because they're looking at my messages. More accurately I assume it's a computer program that matches the words I use to advertisements. That would explain why when I sent my sister a message about my trip to the Grand Canyon I saw Grand Canyon ads on my page the next day.

What I'm saying is even if a law was passed saying companies couldn't sell our internet searches, you'd be foolish to then think your searches were private.

If it's on the web, it's public.

 

Hi mom

 

The police use the net and the so-called dark net to identify jihadists and child abusers, so let them get on with it is what I say. Were it not for scum like that I'd agree with you, but I'm a pragmatist.

 

There it is. Security beats freedom every time.

 

I HATE Google. Google is the worst offender of all the search engines, when it comes to tracking its users. Google is not a search engine so much as it's an advertising company. Your searches are simply ways for Google to collect data in order to use that data so their advertisers can target you wherever you are on the internet.

The targeted ads were driving me bugs. So I switched to duckduckgo. No more tracking, and the targeted ads disappeared. But I do use Google if I need it, once in a blue moon.

 

That's my biggest worry about trump. He has no respect for anyone's rights other than his own. He's so small that he's always going after people he percieves as his "enemies". Remember, Tricky DIckie also had an "enemies" list. He was also small and paranoid. But nobody's as bad as the Orange AH in the Oval Office today. And trump, as everyone knows has made so incredibly stupid and dangerous statements.

If trump finds a way to take more power for himself, I have no doubt he'll become like Saddam Hussein, probably worse. He's a paranoid, over-sensitive sicko.

 

That's what you think.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

But this bill has zero to do with policing powers. This bill allows private companies to sell the information to other private entities. Stop using jihadists and child abusers as some type of diversion.

 

You yourself said, I paraphrase, that it could be thin end of the wedge, and so far as the 'privacy' (I mean we are talking about the matter of personal privacy and the invasion thereof here, aren't we?) of child abusers and jihadists are concerned I hope it is.

 

No, Its THEIR computers you are accessing that allows corporations to sift through your data. Google has access to the Data because its on THEIR computers.

 

The regulation was enacted by Obama just last year. And, generally internet companies just put a sentence or two in their 2 pages of fine print "terms of use" agreement where you give them permission to do so.

 

Privacy versus security is an interesting choice. Given the government's track record on both privacy and security I would favor privacy.

For those who are neither pedophiles or jihadees and gladly surrender privacy since they've nothing to hide, just hope that's all they're looking for. Right now the "deep state" is searching for "contacts with Russians", previously global warming skepticism, homophobia and misogynism were suspected views (probably still are until "deep state" gets purged). Will you be safe when they search your browsing for evidence of interest in homeopathic medicine, space travel or constitutional positivism?

I think they're on a fool's errand to catch advertising dollars: Shareholders get disappointed with their dividends, choose a new CEO who gets 90 days to boost profits, he checks things out; good product, profitably marketed, efficiently produced, distributed, sold and delivered, can't reduce costs so tries to boost sales -with advertising!

CEO has a good brand, they've got billboards, TV, radio, mass mailings, billboards, sponsorships, placements, syndicated dailies and periodicals, then some online "content provider" offers "targeted advertising" to the coveted age/gender/life-style group.

Advertising buyers are told whatever it takes to get them to spend lots of money, they pay and Google, National Review, Facebook, LATimes, Twitter, Snapchat, Boston Globe, Tinder, MSNBC, Reuters, AP, the BBC, Guardian, Variety, NYT, CNN, ABC, Deadline, Breitbart or any other online content provider, who all promise age, gender, ethnicity (if known) and income (in $10k ranges), for the advertising buyers to target with appropriate age, gender, ethnicity and income to identified targets.