Is this Libtard Facebook bait or is this actually a possibility?

They probably already do half of this and just don't tell you about it

>>59514974
This.

>>59514974
Number 4 its especially stupid since most ISPs already supply you with DNS, logging every request you made.

File: nazicommunism.png (18KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 256x256px

OP pic is the usual alarmist, neurotypical drivel. 2 doesn't parse, 3 and 4 are confused with network sponsored handsets loaded with bloatware and 5 has already happened on multiple occasions, protections or not.

However the lobbying does exist and the pressure to weaken the FTC/FCC rules are real:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-industry-using-convince-congress-repeal-fccs-privacy-rules

>>59515082
> 2 doesn't parse

Its actually possible, some ISPs used to redirect you to ads ridden pages whenever you hit an empty (as in available) domain name.

>>59514945

That's exactly the way things are now if you use any major internet tools like staying signed in to your google account or using facebook or just using google or bing or visit sites like ebay or Amazon.

Not only is it a possibility, I would say one or more of those things is true of any major internet site or service

>>59514974
Comcast redirects you to their sites for no reason since ever, they hijack your DNS requests, if you got the site wrong this >>59515150 happens

File: 1356652958055.jpg (14KB, 313x313px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 313x313px

>>59515150
>Its actually possible, some ISPs used to redirect you to ads ridden pages whenever you hit an empty (as in available) domain name.

what are google fucking ads at the top of every search

what are google adwords following you around to every site you visit and displaying ads personalized to you.

Google a bunch of shit about buying a certain type of car and you will see nothing but ads for that car on half the sites you visit for weeks

>>59515150
>Its actually possible, some ISPs used to redirect you to ads ridden pages whenever you hit an empty (as in available) domain name.
>>59515188
>Comcast redirects you to their sites for no reason since ever, they hijack your DNS requests, if you got the site wrong this >>59515150 happens

The ISPs are not the issue, everything else is

>>59514945
>Number 4

Do you not think this fucking happens right now? No software install needed. Go commit a crime and the cops will review every site you have visited on your phone for months

>>59515206
You can avoid google ads if you don't save their cookies or anything else(ie private browsing).

But you cant avoid your ISP tracking your DNS request, then selling your info to google, of course you can use an alternative DNS like 8.8.8.8 ..... oh wait.

>>59514974
>probably
They do.

t. comm. engineer

>>59515254
>You can avoid google ads if you don't save their cookies or anything else(ie private browsing).

But really who does this all the time, Google does not make hundreds of billions of dollars displaying ads and tracking people because so many of them block their cookies

You can avoid your ISP tracking your DNS request by using an encrypted VPN 100% of the time, but again, who really does that

>>59514945
Everything but 4 isn't just a possibility, but a reality.

Most of that, they can do already. Right now you can get two different pricing schemes with AT&T in most cities. The cheaper one allows them to monitor your data & sell it. You agree to it, so it bypasses all those protections. The slightly more expensive one does not allow them to do that. Almost nobody bothers to learn what the difference is, so almost no one chooses the slightly more expensive plan.

>>59514945
>1
Yes, easily one of the most obvious "on the face" reason why they want to do it.
>2
They've done these in the past, with the new law, it will become much more ubiquitous.
>3
They already do this, except the ads part. Long ago when you had free internet like NetZero, they would inject ads into it. But that was the "google model". With paid ISP being given the right to do it, it means you'll be fucked.
>4
They don't need to install it, they can already detect it unless you use VPN. In that case, another IPS does it. If you buy phone from a phone company and use their service without custom firmware, then they might do it.
>5
2 + 3 makes "cookies" redundant and useless.

Cookies are the old ways of doing it, back 10 years ago. Now cookieless tracking era is coming.

This is why we need ubiquitous encryption.

File: isis.png (36KB, 690x539px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 690x539px

>>59515284
>VPN
Too much hassle indeed, not that it would scale to large internet population anyway.

On the other hand, dnscrypt is actually fairly popular (for example yandex browser or avast uses it), which can deal with NXDOMAIN hijacks and/or site blocking.

>>59515517
>This is why we need ubiquitous encryption.

how is encryption going to hide the fact that your IP made a specific DNS request?

>>59515546

you could just do what Stallman does and use friend's computers to download cp and not use any major service or useful website on the net

>>59514945
They already do #1.

#2 is basically anti-net neutrality and some ISPs are guilty of that, like AT&T.

#3 is a guarantee, literally all ISPs snoop through your data to ensure you aren't torrenting from big names or downloading CP.

#4 is a guarantee

#5 is semi-true, but undeleteable is sort of stretch. It's possible, just not as simple as deleting your cookies.

You seem like a fag, OP. As if you just posted this to reassure yourself before sharing this in your timeline yourself. Everyone with internet access already knows #1 is true.

>>59515575
Switch to a 3rd-party server that uses DNSCrypt and they won't be able to determine what sites you look up. They will be able to determine which IPs (not necessarily which sites) you connect to, when, and how much data you transfer, that's inherent. But TLS prevents them from reading the content or injecting anything of their own. It also prevents them from knowing which specific pages on a particular website you look at. And of course a (trustworthy..) VPN breaks just about anything malicious that an ISP could do to your traffic short of cutting you off completely, since it's all gibberish and all going to or from a single server.

>>59515189
Don't use Google?

>>59514945

They already do this, OP....

>>59514945
number 1 would actually help the democrats.

they can use that data to find good goy shills that are very likely to never leak anything.

File: 1423955140274.png (1MB, 1095x730px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1095x730px

>>59515680

Don't use Google, or Ebay, or Amazon or Facebook or Linkedin or git or yahoo or Bing or any site that requires you to create an account or newegg or 4chan (google captcha) or comcast or ATT or Charter or any other major ISP

basically just don't use the internet, or only visit static small business websites via an encrypted VPN

problem solved, I know this is how we all realistically use the internet

>>59515742
>number 1 would actually help the democrats.

wow that is reaching

>>59514945
The better question is: why shouldn't they be allowed to do this? If you don't like it, switch to an ISP that doesn't. If it doesn't exist, start your own. You're not allowed? Why not? Maybe that's a better cause for concern than muh private citizens do bad things.

>>59515877
>If you don't like it, switch to an ISP that doesn't.

LOL

Because at the local level there is so much competition between ISPs and options to choose one that does not do this

LOL

>>59515877

Why not just start your own satellite TV/Internet system?

>>59515904
So bitch about that instead of what a private company does with their property. Idiot.

>>59516046
>So bitch about that instead of what a private company does with their property. Idiot.

These companies are utilities, learn how that works in the USA

>they are spying on you and that's ok because they are private companies

get bent

>>59514945
2. if you don´t use https
3. if you don´t use https
4. phones are cancer and they know what urls you visit anyways because you are using their dns server and not a vpn
5. if they can inject it then it is detectable

Verizon had "super cookies" that tracked what you did anywhere. I didn't research much since I wasn't on Verizon, but the list is plausible.

>>59516096
Learn how the US government works, idiot.

>>59516157
>Learn how the US government works, idiot.

what the fuck are you talking about

>>59516168
Exactly. Now fuck off back to /pol/.

>>59516203
>Exactly. Now fuck off back to /pol/.

you are an idiot

>>59514945
is the joke that they already do all this
because they already do this, or at least try

>>59515021
Only if you are a retard and don't specify your own.

>>59514945

They have been doing this and nothing is stopping them from doing it

The solution to this problem is probably somehow removing the need for ISPs. We're not ready yet

>>59514945
No
Whoever made that has no idea what he's talking about

>>59515667
>They will be able to determine which IPs (not necessarily which sites) you connect to
Can you please explain more the "not necessarily which sites" part?

>>59517032
One IP can serve multiple sites. This used to be very difficult to square with TLS, and it's still easier to have one IP -> one site, but modern web servers, load balancers, etc are able to deal with this better.

Also even if one IP equates to one site, an external observer can't see where you go on that site, in the presence of TLS. Your ISP will see an encrypted connection to (for instance) wikipedia, but won't see which articles you request from them.

>>59514945
is this about net neutrality? I mean yea it sounds like a good idea but it's been terribly implemented and in it's current state protects existing isps and essentially bars the creation of any competitors that don't already exist

>>59514945
They already do that friend.

>>59514988
2. google does this already. my family all grew up without itnernet. they always click on the very first link...even if that link is a google ad. for years, i had to delete adware from their computers because they would always download adobe flash/google chrome installers from google ads.

3) im pretty sure cell phone providers did this.

5) didn't Verizon get caught doing this?

1-3: Easily; probably already do.
4: Good luck stealth-installing things these days, but why in the hell would ISPs need software to record every URL you ever visted? You literally need to give the ISP the URL you want to visit in order to get to that URL. That's how ISPs work.
>>59516373 1: How the hell do you think you get to the DNS? Through the ISP. And once the DNS converts a URL into an IP who do you give the IP to? Your ISP.
5: Neither "undetectable" nor "undetectable" are real things on a conceptual level. "Hard to detect" and "hard to delete", on the other hand.

>>59518968
http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/7/11173010/verizon-supercookie-fine-1-3-million-fcc

>>59518968
>And once the DNS converts a URL into an IP who do you give the IP to? Your ISP.

domain name = IP but IP != domain name

You can resolve multiple domain names to a single IP.

>>59514945
#1 is probably happening everywhere

>>59515505
I've tried to limit tracking at any point, Here's what I did:

> Firefox
> Smart referer extension, 'looking like a direct hit' option
> about:config disable memory cache and disk cache
> do not track setting
> disable cookies and always enable private browsing mode
> JonDoFox+ extension
> NoScript extension with all settings on

at www.ip-check.info I got only 2 reds: auth and session

File: lost brain cells.jpg (41KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x480px

>>59514945
Only if you're a retarded normie. Let's go over all of them individually.

1) This is already done to everyone running Windows 10 anyways. Encrypt your traffic with a tool called tcpcrypt.

2) Blacklist those sites in your router firmware. It's easy if you're running OpenWrt, but if you're tech illiterate then get one of those touch screen baby proof routers.

3) Again, encrypt your traffic and use an ad blocker.

4) This wouldn't be limited to phones only if it was implemented, and it would require them to have exploits for every kind of browser and operating system out there.

5) Also wrong. Install a browser extension that destroys cookies and clears the cache after a set amount of time

These laws will only be hurting tech illiterates that are probably using Touchwiz and Windows 10 anyways. If you're not a mouth breather with an IQ of 55 then you can secure your shit easily.

>>59515225
It's called CarrierIQ. You can get a free app from FDroid that checks for it.

>>59514974
Half of it? They do all of it