View Full Version : FCC Interent rules getting rolled back.
Digital_Damage
03-29-17, 10:28
Knew it was going to happen, but honestly it is bullshit. Get ready for massive identity theft, increased internet cost and general douche baggary by providers. Soon there will be the great firewalls of Verizon and Comcast to dick with your streaming media.
House Republicans voted*Tuesday to*repeal a set of landmark*privacy protections for Web*users, in a sharp pivot away from*the Internet policies of the Obama administration. President Trump is expected to sign the measure.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/28/republicans-are-poised-to-roll-back-landmark-fcc-privacy-rules-heres-what-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.7c55b411c4c5
skywalkrNCSU
03-29-17, 10:49
Man all this winning sure is sweet
Hard to know yet where the legit concerns start and the tinfoil ends at this point for me, but it does not give me the warm and fuzzies, that's for sure. I'm already resigned to knowing, and or assuming, Google, Amazon, FB, et al know all about my online habits, not including associated .gov software piggy backing on that info in the name of national security, but that don't make it right either.
Digital_Damage
03-29-17, 11:05
Man all this winning sure is sweet
not sure if serious...
Digital_Damage
03-29-17, 11:14
Hard to know yet where the legit concerns start and the tinfoil ends at this point for me, but it does not give me the warm and fuzzies, that's for sure. I'm already resigned to knowing, and or assuming, Google, Amazon, FB, et al know all about my online habits, not including associated .gov software piggy backing on that info in the name of national security, but that don't make it right either.
The concern is legit, there were very real reasons the rules were put in place.
Just to give some background for context...
1) Comcast was intentionally throttling other streaming services and in some cases even blocking competing streaming services. Complaints from Hulu, Netflix and Amazon were filed and Comcast told them "too bad, the customers should be using our services"
2) There were 6 major suits involving identity theft and information sold by providers, to groups located in the Ukraine (One provider was actually using users SSN as an unique identifier.). The new regulations put in place required the providers to have high security protection for their users information and disclose all situations were the SSN was stored or transmitted outside of their systems.
3) Verizon was all set to introduce throttled "peek time" limits on user, they were going to limit other streaming services except their own during high use times such as evenings and weekends.
Outlander Systems
03-29-17, 12:20
This is proof that as long as you're using someone else's infrastructure, you're at their mercy...
skywalkrNCSU
03-29-17, 12:28
This is proof that as long as you're using someone else's infrastructure, you're at their mercy...
Yeah when the government allows it, this could have easily been voted down
wildcard600
03-29-17, 12:48
Double down on stupid ideas, first Ryancare now this. Too bad they actually got one of them passed.
Outlander Systems
03-29-17, 13:17
So, in case anyone was curious, here is the unabridged list of all the scum****s who approved this shit:
Senate ( YEA -- 50 ):
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Strange (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)
HOUSE ( YEA -- 215 ):
Abraham (R-LA)
Aderholt (R-AL)
Allen (R-GA)
Amodei (R-NV)
Arrington (R-TX)
Babin (R-TX)
Bacon (R-NE)
Banks (R-IN)
Barletta (R-PA)
Barr (R-KY)
Barton (R-TX)
Bergman (R-MI)
Biggs (R-AZ)
Bilirakis (R-FL)
Bishop (R-MI)
Bishop (R-UT)
Black (R-TN)
Blackburn (R-KY)
Blum (R-IA)
Bost (R-IL)
Brady (R-TX)
Brat (R-VA)
Bridenstine (R-OK)
Brooks (R-IN)
Buchanan (R-FL)
Buck (R-CO)
Bucshon (R-IN)
Budd (R-NC)
Burgess (R-TX)
Byrne (R-AL)
Calvert (R-CA)
Carter (R-GA)
Carter (R-TX)
Chabot (R-OH)
Chaffetz (R-UT)
Cheney (R-WY)
Cole (R-OK)
Collins (R-GA)
Collins (R-NY)
Comer (R-KY)
Comstock (R-VA)
Conaway (R-TX)
Cook (R-CA)
Costello (R-PA)
Cramer (R-ND)
Crawford (R-AR)
Culberson (R-TX)
Curbelo (R-FL)
Davis (R-IL)
Denham (R-CA)
Dent (R-PA)
DeSantis (R-FL)
DesJarlais (R-TN)
Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Donovan (R-NY)
Duncan (R-SC)
Dunn (R-FL)
Emmer (R-MN)
Farenthold (R-TX)
Ferguson (R-GA)
Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
Fleischmann (R-TN)
Flores (R-TX)
Fortenberry (R-NE)
Foxx (R-NC)
Franks (R-AZ)
Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Gaetz (R-FL)
Gallagher (R-WI)
Garrett (R-VA)
Gibbs (R-OH)
Gohmert (R-TX)
Goodlatte (R-VA)
Gosar (R-AZ)
Gowdy (R-SC)
Granger (R-TX)
Graves (R-GA)
Graves (R-LA)
Graves (R-MO)
Griffith (R-VA)
Grothman (R-WI)
Guthrie (R-KY)
Harper (R-MS)
Harris (R-MD)
Hartzler (R-MO)
Hensarling (R-TX)
Hice (R-GA)
Higgins (R-LA)
Holding (R-NC)
Hollingsworth (R-IN)
Hudson (R-NC)
Huizenga (R-MI)
Hultgren (R-IL)
Hunter (R-CA)
Hurd (R-TX)
Issa (R-CA)
Jenkins (R-KS)
Jenkins (R-WV)
Johnson (R-LA)
Johnson (R-OH)
Johnson (R-TX)
Jordan (R-OH)
Joyce (R-OH)
Katko (R-NY)
Kelly (R-MS)
Kelly (R-PA)
King (R-IA)
King (R-NY)
Kinzinger (R-IL)
Knight (R-CA)
Kustoff (R-TN)
Labrador (R-ID)
LaHood (R-IL)
LaMalfa (R-CA)
Lamborn (R-CO)
Lance (R-NJ)
Latta (R-OH)
Lewis (R-MN)
LoBiondo (R-NJ)
Long (R-MO)
Loudermilk (R-GA)
Love (R-UT)
Lucas (R-OK)
Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
MacArthur (R-NJ)
Marchant (R-TX)
Marshall (R-KA)
Massie (R-KY)
Mast (R-FL)
McCarthy (R-CA)
McCaul (R-TX)
McHenry (R-NC)
McKinley (R-WV)
McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
McSally (R-AZ)
Meadows (R-NC)
Meehan (R-PA)
Messer (R-IN)
Mitchell (R-MI)
Moolenaar (R-MI)
Mooney (R-WV)
Mullin (R-OK)
Murphy (R-PA)
Newhouse (R-WA)
Noem (R-SD)
Nunes (R-CA)
Olson (R-TX)
Palazzo (R-MS)
Palmer (R-AL)
Paulsen (R-MN)
Pearce (R-NM)
Perry (R-PA)
Poe (R-TX)
Poliquin (R-ME)
Posey (R-FL)
Ratcliffe (R-TX)
Reed (R-NY)
Renacci (R-OH)
Rice (R-SC)
Roby (R-AL)
Roe (R-TN)
Rogers (R-AL)
Rogers (R-KY)
Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Rokita (R-IN)
Rooney (R-FL)
Roskam (R-IL)
Ross (R-FL)
Rothfus (R-PA)
Rouzer (R-NC)
Royce (R-CA)
Russell (R-OK)
Rutherford (R-FL)
Scalise (R-LA)
Schweikert (R-AZ)
Scott (R-GA)
Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Sessions (R-TX)
Shimkus (R-IL)
Shuster (PA-IL)
Smith (R-MO)
Smith (R-NE)
Smith (R-NJ)
Smith (R-TX)
Smucker (R-PA)
Stewart (R-UT)
Stivers (R-OH)
Taylor (R-VA)
Tenney (R-NY)
Thompson (R-PA)
Thornberry (R-TX)
Tiberi (R-OH)
Tipton (R-CO)
Trott (R-MI)
Turner (R-OH)
Upton (R-MI)
Valadao (R-CA)
Wagner (R-MO)
Walberg (R-MI)
Walden (R-OR)
Walker (R-NC)
Walorski (R-IN)
Walters (R-CA)
Weber (R-TX)
Webster (R-FL)
Wenstrup (R-OH)
Westerman (R-AR)
Williams (R-TX)
Wilson (R-SC)
Wittman (R-VA)
Womack (R-AR)
Woodall (R-GA)
Yoho (R-FL)
Young (R-AK)
Young (R-IA)
Here are the 15 Representatives that decided selling your information to the highest bidder was NOT "OK":
Amash (R-MI)
Brooks (R-AL)
Coffman (R-CO)
Davidson (R-OH)
Duncan (R-TN)
Faso (R-NY)
Graves (R-LA)
Herrera Beutler (R-WA)
Jones (R-NC)
McClintock (R-CA)
Reichert (R-WA)
Sanford (R-SC)
Stefanik (R-NY)
Yoder (R-KS)
Zeldin (R-NY)
Who has the list of specific changes. That article is riddled with could, will likely...
I'd be concerned with walking back restrictions on security measures that protect customers personal data from unauthorized access. Won't be too happy with throttling schemes, but sadly it is Vz or ATT or COMCAST infrastructure that they paid good money to build and maintain. I think there is wiggle room there where the market could correct itself with enough customers pulling the plug or complaining.
The whole data mining thing. I'm sure that Google, FB and Twitter hate the competition, but the sad fact is that every entity you contact is selling your habits to someone.
Outlander Systems
03-29-17, 13:41
The following list of products is an example of ways you can tell your ISPs, and the scum****s who passed this, to rightly go **** themselves:
https://duckduckgo.com/
https://www.torproject.org/
https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/
http://openpgp.org/
As much as I find 4th Amendment violations reprehensible...
...being abused as a PAYING GODDAMNED CUSTOMER is even more disgusting.
May they go straight to hell, and pull the hole in with them.
Who has the list of specific changes. That article is riddled with could, will likely...
I'd be concerned with walking back restrictions on security measures that protect customers personal data from unauthorized access. Won't be too happy with throttling schemes, but sadly it is Vz or ATT or COMCAST infrastructure that they paid good money to build and maintain. I think there is wiggle room there where the market could correct itself with enough customers pulling the plug or complaining.
The whole data mining thing. I'm sure that Google, FB and Twitter hate the competition, but the sad fact is that every entity you contact is selling your habits to someone.
Outlander Systems
03-29-17, 13:53
/beginrant
I view the selling of my personal information, by someone I'm forking over cash to, to be akin to paying $100 a month for "Cable TV" only so the shitlords can double down, and make my ass watch commercials.
Not. ****ing. Gonna. Ever. Happen.
If you're going to stuff commercials down my eyeballs, you'd better pay me, or offer the service for free. Otherwise? Get rekt.
Same goes for selling my private data by ISPs. I'm paying for your service. I'll take a modest price hike for the integrity of my data. Wanna get froggy, and sell my shit, without my explicit blessing? Don't cry when you shit in one hand, and put my data in the other. One's going to fill up faster, because my ass will TOR the **** up. You will get jack, and shit.
At least the IC gobbles up my data for the, alleged, purpose of "Security."
The ISPs? May they swim forth in a river of dicks, and gag on each and every one.
/endrant
These people are Republicaning wrong.
I'll happily take rocket attacks and tribal warfare in the streets if it means I can keep my dignity and watch dirty movies and buy odd crap off amazon in peace and quiet.
I'll just OC my ECC with a bunch of 25 rounders and play Wildlands for real.
Keerist, just leave shit alone
Digital_Damage
03-29-17, 17:00
Who has the list of specific changes. That article is riddled with could, will likely...
I'd be concerned with walking back restrictions on security measures that protect customers personal data from unauthorized access. Won't be too happy with throttling schemes, but sadly it is Vz or ATT or COMCAST infrastructure that they paid good money to build and maintain. I think there is wiggle room there where the market could correct itself with enough customers pulling the plug or complaining.
The whole data mining thing. I'm sure that Google, FB and Twitter hate the competition, but the sad fact is that every entity you contact is selling your habits to someone.
The reason for the "could" is now there is not a single regulation. To repeat, the change is no regulations, end stop. Even states can't enforce any regulations because of the nature of it.
There are now no rules they have to follow as it pertains to your data or your quality of service.
There will be no market correction for 30% of the US consumers, that is the number of customers that have little or only one choice of provider. With box stores going out of business left and right (investors are even fleeing Walmart) the access to internet is a more critical choice than having a land line in current times.
Lets reshape the impact here... the ISP can now shape bandwidth to the point of being unusable to lets say to all news outlets EXCEPT the Huffington Post because the Huffington Post pays them to be the only new outlet in "the fast lane".
So, who's up for a group buy on the web browsing history of 537 elected officials in DC? :dirol:
Basically you're suggesting that we've gone back to a free for all? Are there privacy laws on the books that protect your personal information?? Asking cause I'm not familiar enough with this. Was the FCC relying on regulations or were they doubling down with regs atop laws and such. Kind of like its double bad to murder someone with a gun.
Seriously doubt that Comcast will throttle your access to Amazon shopping or Best Buy or Apple or any consumer site. They'd be slitting their own throats. I can see them throttling Netflix or Amazon Prime Video if they offer their own services.
Not that we should be forced to, but a VPN would cover your web habits from your ISP no? Two, I bet this would be a great time to buy stock in a public company that's focused on VPN and similar tech if such a company exists.
Outlander Systems
03-29-17, 17:32
Yes. A VPN will absolutely defeat ISP data-mining.
Not that we should be forced to, but a VPN would cover your web habits from your ISP no? Two, I bet this would be a great time to buy stock in a public company that's focused on VPN and similar tech if such a company exists.
Digital_Damage
03-29-17, 17:42
Basically you're suggesting that we've gone back to a free for all? Are there privacy laws on the books that protect your personal information?? Asking cause I'm not familiar enough with this. Was the FCC relying on regulations or were they doubling down with regs atop laws and such. Kind of like its double bad to murder someone with a gun.
Seriously doubt that Comcast will throttle your access to Amazon shopping or Best Buy or Apple or any consumer site. They'd be slitting their own throats. I can see them throttling Netflix or Amazon Prime Video if they offer their own services.
There are no laws at all now. They can do what ever they want with the information.
They would not be slitting their own throats, they had plans to introduce "fast lanes" to companies and services that pay them for faster access to their users and limit access to other companies this included retail outlets.
In fact before the rules Netflix had to enter into an agreement with (and pay) Verizon and Comcast to quit limiting the bandwidth to their service and put them on the same playing field and services offered by the providers. They were also trying to strong arm ebay into an agreement as well.
Digital_Damage
03-29-17, 17:50
Not that we should be forced to, but a VPN would cover your web habits from your ISP no? Two, I bet this would be a great time to buy stock in a public company that's focused on VPN and similar tech if such a company exists.
the issue will be bandwidth, they have to pay their provider and there is no guarantee your provider will not black access to those services. Prior to the rules, it was very common for providers to block a wide range of ports.
Opera is a good browser for VPN like connections
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
I'm curious why the GOP thinks their support for this is going to play well with GOP voters.
As long as you're at it, how about next pushing some anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage legislation, to really drive the nails into the coffins containing your legislative majority?
I'm curious why the GOP thinks their support for this is going to play well with GOP voters.
As long as you're at it, how about next pushing some anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage legislation, to really drive the nails into the coffins containing your legislative majority?
No kidding.. Morons. All of them.
I'm curious why the GOP thinks their support for this is going to play well with GOP voters.
As long as you're at it, how about next pushing some anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage legislation, to really drive the nails into the coffins containing your legislative majority?
When people's porn is squeezed, there will be riots.
MountainRaven
03-29-17, 21:30
Can't repeal/replace Obamacare.
Can't pass the Hearing Protection Act.
Can't repeal Hughes.
Can't repeal the Sporter Clause.
Can't pass tax reform.
But this? Yeah, we can do this. All hail our glorious corporate masters!
Can't repeal/replace Obamacare.
Can't pass the Hearing Protection Act.
Can't repeal Hughes.
Can't repeal the Sporter Clause.
Can't pass tax reform.
But this? Yeah, we can do this. All hail our glorious corporate masters!
"Here’s how much Comcast paid members of Congress to sell your browser history"
Read the full list of donations below:
http://resistancereport.com/class-war/comcast-congress-browser-history/
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 09:02
Note Rand Paul's conspicuous absence...
If you're not using TOR, you're doing it ****ing wrong...
"Here’s how much Comcast paid members of Congress to sell your browser history"
Read the full list of donations below:
http://resistancereport.com/class-war/comcast-congress-browser-history/
Perhaps the GOP is just engaging in self-sabotage because they are more comfortable with "losing gracefully" than they are with winning.
Note Rand Paul's conspicuous absence...
If you're not using TOR, you're doing it ****ing wrong...
What is TOR?
What is TOR?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 09:43
TOR (The Onion Router) is an on-line anonymity tool developed by DARPA, ONR, and others.
It's a scheme, whereby the activity of a user is concealed on-line. In reality, everything done on it is exposed to the IC, but unless you're up to some seriously bad/nefarious shit, you shouldn't care.
What it *WILL* do, is conceal everything from your ISP, thusly preventing them from profiteering from your information.
What is TOR?
I don't get it. Where was the outrage about everyone else still selling your info?
Google = ok, ISP = bad?
I also think it's better that we have an open debate about the subject. Congress making a law is the place for this, not just allowing the FCC to decide whatever they want to regulate.
Repealing excessive regulations can be a position itself.
"Here’s how much Comcast paid members of Congress to sell your browser history"
Read the full list of donations below:
http://resistancereport.com/class-war/comcast-congress-browser-history/
How much did they pay the Democrats?
The whole browser history is not my concern at all. Google, Facebook, Bing, Amazon, Walmart, Citibank, Amex, MasterCard, Visa all sell your browser, shopping, porn... preferences. If you think you have privacy cause you toggled 1 opt out button you're deluded. If you want privacy and you're on the internet without protection you're doing it wrong.
I'm more concerned about ISP's handling of personal info like SSN and such that can be used for ID theft and the like. No idea how good or effective FCC regulations were there, but this seems like a good place for states to step up and pass laws that protect their residents rather than sit back and allow some unelected beurocrats to regulate their way around.
The other concern is the whole throttling of competitive services. There appears to be a lot of goofy practices when it comes to how content is delivered. Does Comcast buy rights to HBO broadcasts or does HBO buy Comcast bandwidth? Anyone know?
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 09:45
Please, support this:
https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData
Tomorrow is payday, and I will be contributing to the fund.
From the GoFundMe:
"Congress recently voted to strip Americans of their privacy rights by voting for SJR34, a resolution that allows Internet Service Providers to collect, and sell your sensitive data without your consent or knowledge.
Since Congress has made our privacy a commodity, let’s band together to buy THEIR privacy.
This GoFundMe will pay to purchase the data of Donald Trump and every Congressperson who voted for SJR34, and to make it publicly available.
PS: No, we won't "doxx" people. We will not share information that will impact the safety & security of their families (such as personal addresses). However, all other details are fair game. It says so right in the resolution that they voted to approve.
Game on, Congress.
PS: In the event that we don't raise enough money to buy the data, all proceeds will go to the ACLU to help fight to protect all Americans' rights. Thanks."
This is what #Winning looks like.
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 09:55
Step 1: Don't use Google, or the data vacuum also known as, "Chrome."
Step 2: Done.
Google = ok, ISP = bad?
They have access to far more than just what websites you visit, my main man...
This was made as a cute example of what's possible. And it's ultimately a toy: https://clickclickclick.click/
Take the Click for a test drive. It's mildly creepy.
If you're still foolish enough to use Google, you can go here: https://myactivity.google.com/
The creepiest part is where you can listen to yourself using voice search...
Direct link to where your audio is stored: https://myactivity.google.com/?restrict=vaa&utm_source=help
How much did they pay the Democrats?
The whole browser history is not my concern at all. Google, Facebook, Bing, Amazon, Walmart, Citibank, Amex, MasterCard, Visa all sell your browser, shopping, porn... preferences. If you think you have privacy cause you toggled 1 opt out button you're deluded. If you want privacy and you're on the internet without protection you're doing it wrong.
Digital_Damage
03-30-17, 10:11
How much did they pay the Democrats?
The whole browser history is not my concern at all. Google, Facebook, Bing, Amazon, Walmart, Citibank, Amex, MasterCard, Visa all sell your browser, shopping, porn... preferences. If you think you have privacy cause you toggled 1 opt out button you're deluded. If you want privacy and you're on the internet without protection you're doing it wrong.
I'm more concerned about ISP's handling of personal info like SSN and such that can be used for ID theft and the like. No idea how good or effective FCC regulations were there, but this seems like a good place for states to step up and pass laws that protect their residents rather than sit back and allow some unelected beurocrats to regulate their way around.
The other concern is the whole throttling of competitive services. There appears to be a lot of goofy practices when it comes to how content is delivered. Does Comcast buy rights to HBO broadcasts or does HBO buy Comcast bandwidth? Anyone know?
Cable TV is on its way out the door, they have been bleeding subscribers are an alarming rate. So the Fees that HBO will get from the cable companies are dwindling.
The Service providers will try to recover that loss by charging the content providers (HBO,HULU,NETFLIX) for "fast lane" access.
The people who stream will be getting the bill with increased content services and increased internet access. This is a loose for the consumer and a push for the content providers, but a big win for the service providers.
Here's a different perspective:
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/phil-kerpen/online-privacy-vote-not-about-what-you-thought
It may have been done to break a Google stranglehold.
Digital_Damage
03-30-17, 10:54
Here's a different perspective:
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/phil-kerpen/online-privacy-vote-not-about-what-you-thought
It may have been done to break a Google stranglehold.
Ya a bunch of Bullshit, I saw that same "perspective" almost word for word from the providers.
The guy that wrote that is a known shill for the providers and a "free market" hack.
The bottom line is the FCC rules were put in place because the providers argued (successfully BTW) in court that the FTC rules do not apply to browser use and only to a limited amount of subscriber data.
The issue with that "perspective" is you don't have to use google, the same cannot be said for almost 30% of consumers that want any internet service and don't have a choice of providers. This also does not touch on fast lanes and other blatant abuse of the absence of regulation.
I stand corrected. Thank you. This lends credence to the assertion that "the left wing and the right wing are both parts of the same bird".
I'm not so sure why we are all crazy upset about who sells your data. Everyone sells your data. Want privacy take precautions or stay off the internet. From the onset of internet access we have always been told to treat internet communication as post cards. Legible by anyone who cares to look. Aside from a small subset of transactions that were masked for ID or financial protection that is. Have we really deluded ourselves over the decades that this has changed??
Why aren't we discussing the claims that that your protection against ID theft are eliminated?
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 11:22
TAZ, the issue isnt so much the fact that "everyone sells your data."
While Amazon may "sell" information regarding what I purchase, thats generally what they have access to.
The ISPs, on the other hand:
1) Have, essentially, a ****ing monopoly.
2) Have access to ALL data, including contacts and geoloaction information, rivalled only by the NSA and FBI.
If I told everyone to scan their drivers licenses, and print off 500 copies, and leave those copies wherever they go, I would be told to ETADIK and that I was a troll.
Meanwhile, you leave WAY more sensitive information out in the open all over the interNET and worldwideWEB.
To be fair, the IC is gobbling up your data under the auspices of national security.
Your ISP is gobbling up your data for a profit.
Furthermore, once your life is cracked open like an egg by the IC, at least they have the data secured.
I can guarangoddamntee you the ISPs will play fast and loose with your extremely private information.
I've said this 1000 times in other venues...
...IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING FOR IT, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT.
Unless, of course, we're discussing the Monopolists, and then you're literally paying them to be a product.
Please, support this:
https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData
Tomorrow is payday, and I will be contributing to the fund.
From the GoFundMe:
"Congress recently voted to strip Americans of their privacy rights by voting for SJR34, a resolution that allows Internet Service Providers to collect, and sell your sensitive data without your consent or knowledge.
Since Congress has made our privacy a commodity, let’s band together to buy THEIR privacy.
This GoFundMe will pay to purchase the data of Donald Trump and every Congressperson who voted for SJR34, and to make it publicly available.
PS: No, we won't "doxx" people. We will not share information that will impact the safety & security of their families (such as personal addresses). However, all other details are fair game. It says so right in the resolution that they voted to approve.
Game on, Congress.
PS: In the event that we don't raise enough money to buy the data, all proceeds will go to the ACLU to help fight to protect all Americans' rights. Thanks."
This is what #Winning looks like.
Hmm, now where did I hear that before? :confused:
So, who's up for a group buy on the web browsing history of 537 elected officials in DC? :dirol:
:)
Cable TV is on its way out the door, they have been bleeding subscribers are an alarming rate. So the Fees that HBO will get from the cable companies are dwindling.
The Service providers will try to recover that loss by charging the content providers (HBO,HULU,NETFLIX) for "fast lane" access.
The people who stream will be getting the bill with increased content services and increased internet access. This is a loose for the consumer and a push for the content providers, but a big win for the service providers.
If I understand your meaning. HBO used to get paid by Comcast for the right to broadcast their content to subscribers. For whatever reason folks are kicking the premium cable packages and are opting to buy a la carte plans from HBO online. Aka costing Comcast revenue. Comcast is making up that revenue by billing HBO a fee to use their infrastructure to deliver their content to Comcast clients. It seems that ISP are now wanting to treating content providers the same way they treat content consumers. Pay $x for a certain delivered speed or pay $y for faster delivery.
I'm trying to wrap my head around why it's ok to have tiered services for consumers, but the sky is falling when the content providers get the same treatment. I understand it will result in increased Netflix or HBO online prices as those guys will just pass it along. In the end it's ATT, Vz, Comcast infrastructure that they invested billions into over decades. Why is it ok for Google to have paid ads always pop to the top, but Joe Schmoe can come in on of 17?
I know I'm missing something...
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-30-17, 11:35
Step 1: Don't use Google, or the data vacuum also known as, "Chrome."
Step 2: Done.
They have access to far more than just what websites you visit, my main man...
This was made as a cute example of what's possible. And it's ultimately a toy: https://clickclickclick.click/
Take the Click for a test drive. It's mildly creepy.
If you're still foolish enough to use Google, you can go here: https://myactivity.google.com/
The creepiest part is where you can listen to yourself using voice search...
Direct link to where your audio is stored: https://myactivity.google.com/?restrict=vaa&utm_source=help
What if you are not signed into Google? I hit those links, but because I don't have a google account (or are signed in or have signed in over 10 years) I get nothing.
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 11:35
Comcast is scum, dude.
They literally have a monopoly, and have made it impossible for alternate providers to install their own infrastructure.
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 11:35
Brosef,
If you're not using google, you're doing it RIGHT.
What if you are not signed into Google? I hit those links, but because I don't have a google account (or are signed in or have signed in over 10 years) I get nothing.
It's no wonder Google is slowly expanding their ISP arm... Google Fiber.
Comcast is scum, dude.
They literally have a monopoly, and have made it impossible for alternate providers to install their own infrastructure.
How did the new privacy rule fix that?
My position is not that there is no need for regulation, but that it is the job of Congress. Regulators should be enforcing the law, not making up rules.
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 12:03
It didn't.
But it doesnt change the fact tbat Comcast is literally a bunch of scum****s.
https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/all-the-****ed-up-things-comcast-is-doing-to-compete-wi-1765672939/amp
It goes beyond the above, to even refusing to cooperate with other companies attempting to install infrastructure.
How did the new privacy rule fix that?
My position is not that there is no need for regulation, but that it is the job of Congress. Regulators should be enforcing the law, not making up rules.
I miss the days of privacy.
Not that I ever had anything to hide, mind you. Yes, I look at dirty pictures, yes I watch gory films, listen to a lot of punk and metal, and play violent video games. Been doing that since age 10 at least.
But the point is that it is nobody's business.
I remember after 9/11 being called a literal Communist to my face by "friends" because I vehemently opposed the "patriot" act. I made impassioned arguments about double edged swords, rights deferred are rights lost, that government never gives back what it takes, that even if the war is a smashing success; the law will stick "just in case".
And I got called a "Raghead lover" as well as a "Communist"
And this is more stripping of my privacy. I shouldn't have to use proxies or abandon a resource that literally belongs to no one.
The internet is the last frontier of functional Anarchism. I dont have to watch CNN, don't have to go the store, and get to communicate with other people over the world who share my interests (shooting, commiseration, humour).
And that's a bad thing because Trump was NOT supposed to win. Without the Internet, we would be in a very different world
On Paper, Clinton had it in the bag. The Establishment wanted her. But guys on the Internet, Americans, kept it going and didn't let the machine overrule the narrative.
Now it is time to seal the hole.
The pols do notvunderstand the internet but know that it allows too many people to talk to each other and think for themselves.
I doubt I would ever be Liberal but if you want to go to DU and chump on whitey the taxpayer; go nuts.
I'm all about the original golden rule: If I wouldn't want it done to me, then I wouldn't do it to others.
JM2C
Digital_Damage
03-30-17, 12:28
If I understand your meaning. HBO used to get paid by Comcast for the right to broadcast their content to subscribers. For whatever reason folks are kicking the premium cable packages and are opting to buy a la carte plans from HBO online. Aka costing Comcast revenue. Comcast is making up that revenue by billing HBO a fee to use their infrastructure to deliver their content to Comcast clients. It seems that ISP are now wanting to treating content providers the same way they treat content consumers. Pay $x for a certain delivered speed or pay $y for faster delivery.
I'm trying to wrap my head around why it's ok to have tiered services for consumers, but the sky is falling when the content providers get the same treatment. I understand it will result in increased Netflix or HBO online prices as those guys will just pass it along. In the end it's ATT, Vz, Comcast infrastructure that they invested billions into over decades. Why is it ok for Google to have paid ads always pop to the top, but Joe Schmoe can come in on of 17?
I know I'm missing something...
The issue is the consumers will not have choice.
So lets say you buy a plan that provides 10mbps downstream.
but
Hulu is not paying Comcast and Comcast limits your 10mbps to 50kbps when trying to stream hulu, causing the service to be more or less unusable.
Comcast has their own content service and does not limit the bandwidth and all 10mbps is useable.
but you want to watch Hulu, you are now paying for 10mbps service but are unable to use the 10mbps you are paying for to watch Hulu.
Hulu now has to pay Comcast so you can use the 10mbps of bandwidth you are already paying Comcast, so to recover cost Hulu now has to increase their fee.
So now you are have a choice, pay Hulu to use the actual bandwidth you already pay Comcast for or switch to Comcast streaming services.
This was the EXACT situation that Comcast was pulling with Netflix, Amazon and Hulu.
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 12:47
^This exactly.
You're literally paying for the same thing twice.
So the only way to deal with a monopoly or deceptive business practices are if the FCC decides to regulate something Congress has not given them authority to regulate?
Doc Safari
03-30-17, 14:00
WINNING?:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/326462-internet-users-raise-more-than-200000-to-buy-lawmakers-browsing-histories
Internet users raise funds to buy lawmakers' browsing histories in protest
Internet users are fighting back after Congress voted to block Obama-era internet privacy protections.
Two fundraising campaigns have so far raised more than $215,000 to purchase and reveal lawmakers' browsing histories.
BUT....such tactics may not be necessary according to this:
A former enforcement bureau chief at the Federal Communications Commission told the newspaper that most internet service providers would cover up this information, under their privacy policies. If they did sell any individual's personal data in violation of those policies, a state attorney general could take the ISPs to court.
So, who do you trust?
My answer: no one.
Even if the law weren't being rescinded we all know that just the fact the information is out there somewhere makes it vulnerable. Just ask Wikileaks.
I will be downloading Tor as soon as I have a free moment.
The issue is the consumers will not have choice.
So lets say you buy a plan that provides 10mbps downstream.
but
Hulu is not paying Comcast and Comcast limits your 10mbps to 50kbps when trying to stream hulu, causing the service to be more or less unusable.
Comcast has their own content service and does not limit the bandwidth and all 10mbps is useable.
but you want to watch Hulu, you are now paying for 10mbps service but are unable to use the 10mbps you are paying for to watch Hulu.
Hulu now has to pay Comcast so you can use the 10mbps of bandwidth you are already paying Comcast, so to recover cost Hulu now has to increase their fee.
So now you are have a choice, pay Hulu to use the actual bandwidth you already pay Comcast for or switch to Comcast streaming services.
This was the EXACT situation that Comcast was pulling with Netflix, Amazon and Hulu.
I get this part. But if you're paying for 10Mbs service and they don't deliver is that not regulated via deceptive business practices, false advertising and such? What does the fine print on your service agreement say. I know with my ATT wireless data plan they flat out tell me if I go over x Gb they will throttle me.
Why do we need faceless beurocrats regulating an industry instead of elected legislators passing laws? The solution is simple pass either a federal law mandating that service providers deliver the data rates they promise irrelevant if the content. If you can't do it at the federal level do it at the state level.
I'm not too keen on allowing unelected beurocrats to control industries. Maybe I'm just too biased against regulators in general to see past my nose, but I do appreciate you guys explaining stuff to me.
I don't get it. Where was the outrage about everyone else still selling your info?
Google = ok, ISP = bad?
I also think it's better that we have an open debate about the subject. Congress making a law is the place for this, not just allowing the FCC to decide whatever they want to regulate.
Repealing excessive regulations can be a position itself.
No no no!!!! We want big government to protect us. Oh, and with the advancement of technology the Internet is going to get slower like it always has. In fact I think Comcast has a new technology coming out call Big Brake to slow your connection down to that of a 300 baud modem. It will be applied punitively based on data they collect from you.
Oh... and the sky is falling.
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 14:41
Stack that bitch on BlackVPN or NordVPN, and let your bird finger fly sky high.
If you're running Android, Orfox and Orbot will allow you to tunnel all, or selected, apps, preventing them from being spies as well.
I will be downloading Tor as soon as I have a free moment.
Stack that bitch on BlackVPN or NordVPN, and let your bird finger fly sky high.
If you're running Android, Orfox and Orbot will allow you to tunnel all, or selected, apps, preventing them from being spies as well.
Teach me how to do this my friend
Plan on your Google mail to get jammed up with a VPN. When it sees you trying to log in from distant IP it will reject your password. IOW, if you are normally getting your mail in NC form a certain IP pool and suddenly 5 minutes later you are checking it from AZ on a different IP it will be blocked. Not the end of the world but a PITA.
Teach me how to do this my friend
If you get NordVPN they constantly have a sale.. .so go to their site and <gasp> they will "track you". Wait a bit if the sale pop-up doesn't occur. Sometimes it's automatic sometimes you need to click around on their site and read some pages, then the sale will pop up. It can be as low as $3 month for a 1Yr sub. Maybe even go to their site a few times without shutting your browser off.
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 15:06
Not a Gangster-mail user; however, one caveat to "TORing Up" is that you may, or may not, experience a speed slowdown, as you're routed from here to Djibouti, to Singapore, to L.A. and then to your destination.
Not the end of the world but a PITA.
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 15:07
PM me, mah brotha...
Teach me how to do this my friend
TOR vs VPN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8pCRMrbSl4
BTW... NordVPN has recently added a lot of new servers and their speed has gotten a lot better in the past year. They are constantly updating their hardware and software if anyone is trying to decide on a VPN. Get the sale price and it's probably the best deal in town from what I've seen.
The way to get the NordVPN sale. click on Tools&Info.. then click on FAQ... you will get a popup for $3.29/month for a two year signup. If it doesn;t work right away, just stay on the site a while.
Outlander Systems
03-30-17, 15:26
TOR vs VPN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8pCRMrbSl4
BTW... NordVPN has recently added a lot of new servers and their speed has gotten a lot better in the past year. They are constantly updating their hardware and software if anyone is trying to decide on a VPN. Get the sale price and it's probably the best deal in town from what I've seen.
The way to get the NordVPN sale. click on Tools&Info.. then click on FAQ... you will get a popup for $3.29/month for a two year signup. If it doesn;t work right away, just stay on the site a while.
^This.
3 bucks and some change is a hellacious deal, considering the service you're getting.
Not a Gangster-mail user; however, one caveat to "TORing Up" is that you may, or may not, experience a speed slowdown, as you're routed from here to Djibouti, to Singapore, to L.A. and then to your destination.
How much of a slowdown are you talking?
TOR vs VPN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8pCRMrbSl4
Very helpful. Thanks!
Given the politics of the ISPs one wonders how long it will be until it is ridiculously expensive or flat out impossible to visit sites like M4C. Imagine if you had to go through the cost and pain of the NFA process just to drop in here. I'm sure the Sierra Club, Antifa, etc. will have public funding to make sure that they are piped out to the masses at maximum speed.
I am already amazed at the side by side differences if you search a topic with Google/Bing etc and then do the same with DuckDuckGo or Startpage.
I am already amazed at the side by side differences if you search a topic with Google/Bing etc and then do the same with DuckDuckGo or Startpage.
After using Google for so long it will take an adjustment period to get used to the DDG site.
I don't get it. Where was the outrage about everyone else still selling your info?
Google = ok, ISP = bad?
There is a difference between using a "free" service where they disclose that anonymous data will be sold (remember: If any service is free, then you are the service, and the advertisers are the customers)
The ISP service was originally to sell a pipe, just like a phone line service was to sell a voice grade pipe. How you use it is your call as long as it's legal and does not violate the technical boundaries, etc.
The law prevented the pipe suppliers from inhibiting, degrading, blocking, etc services. Which they want to do for competing services. Imagine if your landline or cell provider intentionally degraded quality if you called a competitor, or a user of a competitor?
Which leads to the monopoly discussion. Unlike cellphones, mainstream ISP's (cable and landline based) have an effective monopoly due to the right of way/physical plant investments. Sat & Wireless have minor monopolies, but not to the same extent.
Comcast is scum, dude.
They literally have a monopoly, and have made it impossible for alternate providers to install their own infrastructure.
Just like the phone & electric companies, cable was allowed to be a defacto monopoly to encourage buildout. WHich would not have occurred if you had 10 companies competing.
But they pay the price, in most areas are regulated by the Public Service Commission. And at the heart of this debate is whether or not ISP's (pipe providers) have to act as a common carrier (used to be the treatment) or not.
Any company can chose to try to build out a physical plant in any area, they just normally chose not to as there is not the guarantee of enough customers.
The power companies had a chance to impact this by installing hybrid power cable which included fiber. Many did, but chose to try to setup competing ISP capability for businesses rather than selling dark fiber to other companies.
But there are three services which normally have physical plant to serve residential: Cable, Telco, and Power. Sometimes Gas, but they are not as consistent, nor do they have any desire to play ISP.
Wireless is constrained by the physics of radio bandwidth and tower availability. Which in most populated areas (metro areas for sure) is becoming a scarce resource. It's very hard to get new towers approved in most metro areas, and most counties require that any new towers allow up to 5 other telco's to use that tower on a contract basis. Consumer Satellite is highly asymmetrical, so-so bandwidth down, with delays. And has to use a traditional ISP approach for uplink in most cases.
Net-net: Cable, Telco, or power company will be the defacto ISP monopoly for 95% of american households.
The issue is the consumers will not have choice.
So lets say you buy a plan that provides 10mbps downstream. but Hulu is not paying Comcast and Comcast limits your 10mbps to 50kbps when trying to stream hulu, causing the service to be more or less unusable.
Comcast has their own content service and does not limit the bandwidth and all 10mbps is useable. but you want to watch Hulu, you are now paying for 10mbps service but are unable to use the 10mbps you are paying for to watch Hulu.
Hulu now has to pay Comcast so you can use the 10mbps of bandwidth you are already paying Comcast, so to recover cost Hulu now has to increase their fee.
So now you are have a choice, pay Hulu to use the actual bandwidth you already pay Comcast for or switch to Comcast streaming services.
This was the EXACT situation that Comcast was pulling with Netflix, Amazon and Hulu.
This is the exact issue, it was not just Comcast, and is what the law was trying to prevent.
All you cable haters/cutters, just where do you think you are going to get your pipe? Cable and Phone companies are in lockstep on this... they want to force you and the content providers to pay a 2nd time to use their pipe as it competes with their own services, which BTW, use the same pipe but are not metered. Power companies missed the boat for the most part.
There is not enough bandwidth for Sat/Wireless to pick up the video now covered by cable/landline companies.
So even "cablecutters" are impacted by this. Just try to get a pure, unfiltered ISP pipe without cable service or a landline. You are normally pushed into business level rates, or get a nominal bandwidth "emergency" package which was mandated to be available by the gov.
All you VPN/TOR types, don't think you are immune either.
1) Once they are allowed to "tamper" with the content in the pipe, they can effectively filter, block, or degrade at will.
2) Both VPN, and especially TOR increase bandwidth usage significantly. So they will have a justification to restrict it.
This was an issue early on in the first days of VPN usage... many ISP's did not support it. And their equipment (modems/routers) for sure did not.
So killing the law is essentially a gift to the telco's and cable companies. With Sat & Wireless also adding support, because they want the right to do the same.
But the core issue is: Did you buy a pipe that you can use as you wish, without the carrier snooping or filtering/blocking? Or one that you can use as long is what you want to view does not compete with the provider's native service. And your detailed usage being sold.
Bad day, and the R's are as bad as the D's on this.
TOR and VPN guys- don't think you are immune.
VPN is easy to detect and block. And the content providers (hulu, netscape, amazon) are very adept at doing so, just ask anyone who uses the vpn services to try to bypass regional video restrictions.
It's an ongoing battle requiring the VPN companies to add DNS spoofing/masquerading and similar measures to keep their services from being blocked.
VPN does add another layer of encryption, which makes it more difficult to snoop though. So has utility in that aspect.
TOR- completely different beast. Can be filtered/blocked, and likely would be if folks started trying to use it for video to bypass ISP filtering. And is already viewed as "only guilty parties use it", so the ISP's could easily justify doing so.
Likewise, it's been cracked multiple times. Takes some effort, but if you think it's completely private you are mistaken. And one of the big ways they break it is when people use TOR to access stuff that does not need security (casual email or web), then later also access the same content without TOR.
TOR also assumes that it's gateways have not been compromised, which has also proven to not be the case. At least as a safe assumption.
One last thing, all the hatred toward cable companies (and now telcos) over channel bundling needs to be directed at the sports users. ESPN and the various networks is the majority of the content licensing cost that requires video providers to bundle. If ESPN was sold ala-carte it would be over $100/mth per subscriber. Which the market would not bear. So they spread that across all users. Just try to get a package without ESPN and friends. They don't exist in most cases.
Likewise, if you pulled ESPN and friends out of the bundles video prices would fall significantly.
Pinzgauer - great post. The more I read the more I understand, so again thanks to all who have spent time writing essays :)
The more I think about it, the more I think that we need either Federal or local laws to cover this. I'm not aware of any. I'm not a fan of faceless regulators not bound to the people, but to an admin.
Laws could be simple. Advertise/charge for a data rate. Deliver that data rate for all internet content at all times. Doesn't need to be a thousand pages of goobly gook legalese.
Outlander Systems
03-31-17, 10:44
TOR has absolutely been compromised, in some regards. I'd bet a month's worth of paychecks that certain elements in the IC are running exit nodes.
I ultimately could care less. I'm trying to prevent as much of my data from being a commodity as possible. If the IC wants to know that I like PAWGs, and browse gun forums, they can knock themselves out.
TOR also assumes that it's gateways have not been compromised, which has also proven to not be the case. At least as a safe assumption.
PM me, mah brotha...
Copy all
Laws could be simple. Advertise/charge for a data rate. Deliver that data rate for all internet content at all times. Doesn't need to be a thousand pages of goobly gook legalese.
That's essentially what classifying the ISP's as common carriers did. And unfortunately, is that DC (D's, R's, and Trump) want to unwind.
Spicer positioned it as "unfair" and "federal overreach" to treat the ISP's differently than "edge providers" (Google, etc) by forcing them into common carrier status.
Which is totally bogus, as they are a common carrier as their primary role/service as an ISP. Either DC (Trump and all) are just plain stupid with that type of comment, or they think we are. Hint: they are not stupid. Big $$$ at work.
And they do the same for the content creators (Sony, Disney, etc) as well, so don't think they are just protecting the ISP's. They are protecting big contributors/lobbyists.
I want a pipe, for a reasonable price, that is not filtered/snooped/degraded. It's that simple. That's the service an ISP is supposed to provide. No such luck now!
Outlander Systems
03-31-17, 11:19
Word up, mah brothers.
We could fix this shit by going back to BBSs, being our own SYSOPS, and owning our own infrastructure.
Then the telecos would probably try to pull shenanigans.
I miss the pre-commercialized internet.
Once it degraded to the clickbait-infested, cat-video, selfie wasteland that it's become, it lost its magic.
TOR has absolutely been compromised, in some regards. I'd bet a month's worth of paychecks that certain elements in the IC are running exit nodes.
I ultimately could care less. I'm trying to prevent as much of my data from being a commodity as possible. If the IC wants to know that I like PAWGs, and browse gun forums, they can knock themselves out.
Agreed on the compromise and IC.
I have a different view: I don't care if they snoop, and want to preserve TOR for if/when I really need it. One of the suspected snoop behaviors is that being a regular TOR user gets you on the radar, and allows "them" to correlate by traffic analysis over a long period of time. So it's anonymity is compromised.
It takes much more resources to do that quickly, and is not instantaneous.
I take an alternate approach on email, I routinely encrypt all my stored email. If "they" want to expend the resources to decipher mundane stuff, they can. Unlike TOR, there is not an advantage to having access to many encrypted email.
The fact the patriot act allows the gov to read/access emails over 30 days old without a warrant is unacceptable to me, so they can work to read them. Or get a warrant. That all assumes it's not being scarfed live and stored in giant data farms out in utah!
But maybe you and I both get classified as "routine" users, and ignored/deprioritized.
Outlander Systems
03-31-17, 11:23
I'm gonna throw this out there as tertiary commentary.
If YouTwitFace, social-media shit didnt exist, the internet-as-data-mine juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze.
I know people whose entire internet experiences only involve Cuckbook and Amazon...
Outlander Systems
03-31-17, 11:38
@pinz:
I've long had suspicions of certain Secret-Squirrel Software being used as a honeypot...
My ass is boring; however I trust "them" a lot more with access to my data than I do ISPs, and other third-parties.
So, "they" might know how many truckloads of ammo I have in my bunker of doom, they ultimately waste resources knowing that I drink Moutain Dew by the drum and I'm currently in an existential crisis regarding a Jon Boat vs. New Sit-On-Top boat...
The ISPs?
Scumcast and my cell provider have EVERYTHING.
And they aren't bound by any laws regarding what they can do with that.
Beyond that, retailers even use "Dynamic Pricing" based on what data they can mine about your ass in real-time...
I've had my data compromised by a retailer, and a government agency. I can't do much about that. But the ISPs can absolutely bow down and give me a circle massage if they think I'm going to make it easy for them.
That's why I ****ing hate social networking with a passion.
People are literally allowing Cuckerberg and friends to profit off of the users' content. Does Cuckbook pay royalties to the users? Didn't think so...
I've long had suspicions of certain Secret-Squirrel Software being used as a honeypot...
My ass is boring; however I trust "them" a lot more with access to my data than I do ISPs, and other third-parties....
Roger all
When "they" can change the routing of the internet to allow a "man in the middle" system to respond first, and thus break https, then "they" can pretty much do anything.
It's just a matter of time and interest level for the NSA.
Same really for encrypted email, just a matter of time. Then again, there has always been a theory that pgp/gpg was also a Honeypot.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.