Thread replies: 18
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Trump attacking Internet privacy: will gut rules against user-tracking 2017-01-19 11:05:48 Post No. 58557182
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Trump attacking Internet privacy: will gut rules against user-tracking 2017-01-19 11:05:48 Post No. 58557182
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: rubbing_hands.jpg (390KB, 805x805px) Image search:
[Google]
390KB, 805x805px
Trump attacking Internet privacy: will gut rules against user-tracking
Anonymous
2017-01-19 11:05:48
Post No. 58557182
[Report]
http://techdirt.com/articles/20170104/10021436408/ad-industry-wants-new-fcc-broadband-privacy-rules-gutted-because-uh-free-speech.shtml
>We've noted repeatedly how Trump's incoming telecom advisors have made it very clear they not only want to gut net neutrality, but defund and defang the FCC. That means rolling back all manner of other recent FCC policies, like the agency's recently approved broadband privacy rules. They really were relatively fundamental; simply requiring that ISPs not only make it clear what's being collected and who it's being sold to, but requiring they provide working opt-out tools to broadband subscribers.
>ISPs and the advertising and marketing industry are already getting a running start on rolling back these new privacy rules. In a joint filing by all of the major advertising lobbying and trade associations, the advertising industry this week was quick to submit a petition to the FCC claiming that the new rules aren't necessary because the marketing sector already adheres to a "self-regulatory" regime that delivers all the transparency, choice and benefits that consumers could possibly handle.
>The FCC imposed rules specifically thanks to the lack of competition in the broadband last mile, a lack of competition that lets ISPs and advertisers impose draconian new consumer surveillance policies the consumer can't vote to avoid with their wallet. The FCC was particularly nudged to action by the discovery that Verizon and its ad partners were covertly modifying user packets to track users around the internet.
>At no point did industry, or any of its self-regulatory apparatuses, stop and think they'd taken things a bit too far, which is why the FCC, agree or not, felt it was necessary to lend consumers a hand. The FCC was also concerned about a growing push by some ISPs to make opting out of data collection a pricey, luxury option for consumers, "self-regulatory safeguards" be damned.
>>
>>58557182
>look mom i posted it again!
2920 days
>>
>>58557182
Oooh another shitty /pol/ thread
200 replies gauranteed
1% of posts could be construed as semi-technical in some remote fashion
>>
>>58557182
Lend consumers a hand?
I still have the same shitty expensive capped internet as pre-NN
My isp probably still logs my shit.
The only winner with NN was corporations that didn't have to pay as much
They got a free ride
Never had a problem with all the scare tactics used now such as shut down sites, paying to visit certain sites, etc pre NN
NN has only been around a few short years
It hasn't done shit for me , it was never a problem for years what they are screaming about now.
Fuck sucking corporate cock like Netflix
If they want to use 80% of the Internet's bandwidth PAY UP YOU DIRTY JEWS
>>
>>58557182
Not to derail the topic at hand but Trump is also against net neutrality. What's scary is that I'm not exactly sure he knows what that means.
>>
>>58557509
You're just an ISP shill, if you really didn't want to suck corporate cock, you'd be campaigning against DRM, not net neutrality. You're not fooling anyone.
>>
>>58557282
2920 days untill you like it.
>>
>>58557509
I don't think you know what NN is either. You specific experience with NN isn't the point. It's about giving everyone a level playing field for access and for distributing content. Without NN you are going to see worse pricing and a-la-carte internet choices. For example, pay an extra $6 dollars per month for access to YouTube. Or an extra $6 for access to Torrent ports.
>>
>>58557557
ISP shill?
That's you.
Accuse the other side of the crimes you commit to distract and deflect from the topic.
Accuse them of not being pure enough with their ideology. Change the topic, deflect the questions
NN didnt help the consumer in any way.
It gave large corporations a free ride
None of the censorship existed pre NN, why is it an issue now? Scare tactics by large corporations.
>>
>>58557566
Nope. You are lying. None of these things occurred in the history of the internet. NN has only been in place a tiny fraction of the internets history. These are scare tactics, nothing more.
It didn't help me in any way. Netflix still raised prices.
>>
>>58557591
>>58557609
What the fuck do you think NN is exactly? Your weird shilling is nonsensical
>>
>>58557509
Netflix has already shown that they are willing to upgrade ISP's own infrastructure to get better speeds. All without NN, and against NN morals. NN is not about protecting large companies like Netflix but tiny companies which can effectively be blocked or slowed to oblivion at an ISP's wish.
>>
>>58557566
What if a consumer only browses social media and watches some NF? Why cant they just pay $12 a month, instead of forking over $100?
>>
>>58557509
>>58557609
>muh netflix bogeyman
Netflix isn't overcharging me due to lack of competition or hijacking my DNS queries, you faggots.
The problem is ISPs. You can drop the red herring now.
>>
>>58557684
And NN does absolutely nothing about the underlying issue of ISP monopoly.
So drop the red hearing, ok?
>>
>>58557720
How much are they paying you?
>>
>>58557720
>I don't know what a "red herring" is
>>
>>58557733
Not as much as you
Thread posts: 18
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1