Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Senate Just Voted to Allow Internet Providers


ExpandMyMind

Recommended Posts

Quote

Today, the US Senate voted 50-48 to overturn broadband privacy rules that would have required internet service providers get consumer consent before selling their web browsing data to advertisers or other data companies.

 

The rules, which passed in October of last year, govern the collection and selling of private data by ISPs like Verizon, Comcast, or AT&T. Those rules would have required internet providers to ask for permission before selling data about your usage, like web browsing history and location, as well as data about finances, health, app usage, and more. The Senate just voted against it.

Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the swamp just gets swampier. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This happens here all the time. It's not just your browsing data either. I was chatting with a friend by E-mail about visiting Australia, I hadn't Googled anything on the subject, no flights, travel agents, hotels, only reference was as I say in the E-mails. Next thing, I'm getting adverts for the whole trip thing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad move but not really impactful in any way.

We agree to it everytime we click the I agree to terms and conditions button lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldrover said:

This happens here all the time. It's not just your browsing data either. I was chatting with a friend by E-mail about visiting Australia, I hadn't Googled anything on the subject, no flights, travel agents, hotels, only reference was as I say in the E-mails. Next thing, I'm getting adverts for the whole trip thing.

The difference though is that you have choice to use their services (email, Google, etc). In the US, with the ISP monopoly, citizens don't really have a choice in who provides them with internet. This is the difference.

The US definitely has the best government money can buy, that's for sure. I just wonder how they'll feel when news outlets start buying up their surfing history.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Bad move but not really impactful in any way.

We agree to it everytime we click the I agree to terms and conditions button lol

It might not seem like it will have much of an impact, but really it will. They'll have everything. Details on your finances, your health, dating habits, friends and your family. They'll know when you wake up and go to sleep, what you eat and watch, your political views. Basically every facet of your life will be available to the highest bidder. In other words, truly the end of privacy.

This has massive implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The difference though is that you have choice to use their services (email, Google, etc). In the US, with the ISP monopoly, citizens don't really have a choice in who provides them with internet. This is the difference.

The US definitely has the best government money can buy, that's for sure. I just wonder how they'll feel when news outlets start buying up their surfing history.

I don't get it. Is there only one internet thing over there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It might not seem like it will have much of an impact, but really it will. They'll have everything. Details on your finances, your health, dating habits, friends and your family. They'll know when you wake up and go to sleep, what you eat and watch, your political views. Basically every facet of your life will be available to the highest bidder. In other words, truly the end of privacy.

This has massive implications.

My point is that they have already done that, they tell us in the terms and conditions that we don't read. The only diffrence now is that they don't have to put it in the terms and conditions.

Don't get me wrong idont support this vote in any measure. But it didn't change much 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It might not seem like it will have much of an impact, but really it will. They'll have everything. Details on your finances, your health, dating habits, friends and your family. They'll know when you wake up and go to sleep, what you eat and watch, your political views. Basically every facet of your life will be available to the highest bidder. In other words, truly the end of privacy.

This has massive implications.

Yep. Using logorithims to to give you the best experience their money can buy. 

It's only going to turn the information super highway into one-way lane down Stepford Drve.

And we will be viewing the news someone thinks we will enjoy, shopping for things someone knows we will just love.

And just think how a Political candidate might use the information.

However I do believe at least one data minning company was a contributer to one campaigner during the recent US election.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldrover said:

I don't get it. Is there only one internet thing over there?

There are four I think, but they don't compete. They've basically cut up the US. This is how so many in the US get shafted on internet deals. Most of the time the provider doesn't even offer unlimited broadband and they end up bleeding old grannies and the like dry. It's a total racket and surprising as hell when you compare their system to practically every other western country and even some developing and third world ones.

They basically have a utility model like gas or electricity, so the profits just keep rolling in. There have been attempts to create competition by allowing other startups in on the game, but the big boys have essentially bought the senate and congress so the laws they've made keep preventing anything substantial.

My comment about the US being the best government money can buy wasn't actually a joke. It's actually bought and paid for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

My point is that they have already done that, they tell us in the terms and conditions that we don't read. The only diffrence now is that they don't have to put it in the terms and conditions.

Don't get me wrong idont support this vote in any measure. But it didn't change much 

Nope. The difference is that they don't have a choice other than not using the internet at all. Taking away the choice is a massive difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It might not seem like it will have much of an impact, but really it will. They'll have everything. Details on your finances, your health, dating habits, friends and your family. They'll know when you wake up and go to sleep, what you eat and watch, your political views. Basically every facet of your life will be available to the highest bidder. In other words, truly the end of privacy.

This has massive implications.

They already have all that. The agreement made is in the terms of service. You either allow them, or you don't use it at all. 99% of people consent without even reading the terms. Privacy is long dead, unless you get completely off the grid. Which of course will raise suspicion and they will then spy on you through other means.

If ever there was something real to protest about, on both sides of the coin, its this. But no. We already have a whole generation that couldn't care less about privacy, who are currently raising the next generation to not care about it either. Seems like only us old timers care about it at all.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have a choice between 2 providers, if i chose to get a satellite that gives me 3rd option. i can also get internet on my cell phone, provided by 4th company, the isp monopoly in usa is a lie

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aztek said:

i have a choice between 2 providers, if i chose to get a satellite that gives me 3rd option. i can also get internet on my cell phone, provided by 4th company, the isp monopoly in usa is a lie

It's not a lie. Do you live in a city? Because there may be more competition in larger populated areas. Regardless, your evidence is anecdotal and doesn't represent the entire country. A quick Google search for 'ISP monopoly in the US' should enlighten you. It's a very well documented problem.

 

27 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

They already have all that. The agreement made is in the terms of service. You either allow them, or you don't use it at all. 99% of people consent without even reading the terms. Privacy is long dead, unless you get completely off the grid. Which of course will raise suspicion and they will then spy on you through other means.

 

There's a misunderstanding here: last year legislation was brought forward that would have ensured that ISPs could not do this so as to protect consumers. This new vote was the first step in getting rid of those protections. This was no doubt due to lobbying by these companies.

What is surprising is that they voted along party lines. I would have thought that the republicans would be just as against invasion of privacy as the democrats.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It's not a lie. Do you live in a city? Because there may be more competition in larger populated areas. Regardless, your evidence is anecdotal and doesn't represent the entire country. A quick Google search for 'ISP monopoly in the US' should enlighten you. It's a very well documented problem.

 

There's a misunderstanding here: last year legislation was brought forward that would have ensured that ISPs could not do this so as to protect consumers. This new vote was the first step in getting rid of those protections. This was no doubt due to lobbying by these companies.

What is surprising is that they voted along party lines. I would have thought that the republicans would be just as against invasion of privacy as the democrats.

Republicans love invasion of privacy. So do the Dems. The elected, not necessarily the people. They might act mad right now, cause its happening under Trump, but the things they let 0bama get away with make this look like child's play.

The only way to stop this is public pressure (or voting in libertarians). Getting pressure from a public who feels the need to announce to the world what they have for breakfast everyday is unlikely, unfortunately.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i do not need to google anything, i live here, i travel all over us for work, and personal reasons. you do not., you most likely never even been here, so forgive me if your word means 0 to me.

yes some areas do not have as many providers, but it is hardly a monopoly. 

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aztek said:

i do not need to google anything, i live here, i travel all over us for work. 

Then, yeah, you're right, you shouldn't have to Google it to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Republicans love invasion of privacy. So do the Dems. The elected, not necessarily the people. They might act mad right now, cause its happening under Trump, but the things they let 0bama get away with make this look like child's play.

The only way to stop this is public pressure (or voting in libertarians). Getting pressure from a public who feels the need to announce to the world what they have for breakfast everyday is unlikely, unfortunately.

I agree with this for the most part, but why then did the dems vote against it? This legislation has nothing to do with Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Then, yeah, you're right, you shouldn't have to Google it to know.

Where I live, we have the top internet providers (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, ect..). We also have smaller ones, like NetBlazr and HughesNet (there are a few others, but I haven't dealt with them, so I can't remember their names). 

Point is, we have more choices than you are claiming we do.

Quote

From Aztek: "yes some areas do not have as many providers, but it is hardly a monopoly. "

You must have missed this part....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I agree with this for the most part, but why then did the dems vote against it? This legislation has nothing to do with Trump.

I remember listen to a interview with Ron Paul a few years ago. He was saying he had been talking to another congressman who happen to be a Dem about a bill that was coming up. That Dem was concerned that it would look poorly back home if he had voted for it, so the Dems made sure they had enough votes, then gave him permission to vote against it. They often do this for those soon up for election. I remember Ron being very disappointed to hear about it. He's the one guy at the time who they knew they couldn't force to do anything, so they didn't bother.

And they are all in on it together, Dems and Reps. At least on certain subjects. Seems every bill, when it comes to surveillance, passes. No matter which party is in control.  If there are enough votes to pass it, then id imagine there are those who were given permission to go against it. If there were a few higher level republicans that refused, bet your butt some lower level dems, not soon up for election would have been forced to vote for it. That's cause there are no dems, or republicans. Not at least when it matters most.

That's really what intrigued me most about Trump honestly. You could tell that it wasn't business as usual, and that they saw him as a threat to the status quo. Now the only question I have about him, looking at just the big picture, is he really for the people, or is he about starting his own status quo? Jury is still out on it. What he does if this bill passes will go a long way in determining that for me.  

I know that was a rant that had little to do with your question. To answer it though, Id say Dems don't want to be seen as anything but against government working at all till Trump is either removed or dead. They have already abandoned things they have always supported just to be Trumps opposition.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I remember listen to a interview with Ron Paul a few years ago. He was saying he had been talking to another congressman who happen to be a Dem about a bill that was coming up. That Dem was concerned that it would look poorly back home if he had voted for it, so the Dems made sure they had enough votes, then gave him permission to vote against it. They often do this for those soon up for election. I remember Ron being very disappointed to hear about it. He's the one guy at the time who they knew they couldn't force to do anything, so they didn't bother.

And they are all in on it together, Dems and Reps. At least on certain subjects. Seems every bill, when it comes to surveillance, passes. No matter which party is in control.  If there are enough votes to pass it, then id imagine there are those who were given permission to go against it. If there were a few higher level republicans that refused, bet your butt some lower level dems, not soon up for election would have been forced to vote for it. That's cause there are no dems, or republicans. Not at least when it matters most.

That's really what intrigued me most about Trump honestly. You could tell that it wasn't business as usual, and that they saw him as a threat to the status quo. Now the only question I have about him, looking at just the big picture, is he really for the people, or is he about starting his own status quo? Jury is still out on it. What he does if this bill passes will go a long way in determining that for me.  

I know that was a rant that had little to do with your question. To answer it though, Id say Dems don't want to be seen as anything but against government working at all till Trump is either removed or dead. They have already abandoned things they have always supported just to be Trumps opposition.

Yeah, basic politics. Like the fact that there were two who abstained from voting so that it didn't split the vote. No doubt they did so as a favour to the VP so he didn't have to use his deciding vote. One of those two was Rand Paul it should be noted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MstrMsn said:

Where I live, we have the top internet providers (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, ect..). We also have smaller ones, like NetBlazr and HughesNet (there are a few others, but I haven't dealt with them, so I can't remember their names). 

Point is, we have more choices than you are claiming we do.

You must have missed this part....

No, the point is that it isn't the same everywhere, which I have already stated. You are lucky, others are not.

Quote

If you’re one of those people who was on the fence about things like net neutrality, and don’t really understand why it’s important to have a healthy, competitive marketplace for Internet service, then it’s time to pay attention. As with any industry, a lack of competition leads to higher prices. Since many areas in the U.S. are serviced by a couple, or sometimes only a single Internet service provider, it paves the way for big businesses like Comcast or AT&T to inflate what they charge customers.

It’s essentially a monopoly for these companies — by design, mind you — and as a result, customers are feeling the crunch. Such is the case in Cupertino, California, where AT&T recently rolled out gigabit fiber Internet service to interested consumers. According to Ars Technica, prices start at $110 for the service.

 

That’s all fine and dandy, but here’s the thing — the $110 price is $40 more in Cupertino than in other cities where the same service is being offered. Why? Because in other cities, AT&T actually faces competition, in the form of Google Fiber and other companies. So, because AT&T effectively has a monopoly on service in Cupertino, it can charge whatever the hell it wants, and customers can’t do a thing about it. It’s basic economics, really, but represents a microcosm of what’s truly wrong with the industry as a whole.

And there are countless other examples where the effect is worse.

And while there is minor competition in some places, it is largely a monopoly. You should research it a bit. Every American should really because it's a very important subject in this day and age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Yeah, basic politics. Like the fact that there were two who abstained from voting so that it didn't split the vote. No doubt they did so as a favour to the VP so he didn't have to use his deciding vote. One of those two was Rand Paul it should be noted.

Yea Rand definitely seems willing to play politics. The guy indorsed Romney for goodness sakes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.