Why do Republicans want the worst for us when it comes to

>>118778245
They're fiscally conservative. They don't like regulations.

>>118778245
>That hand
hello pajeet

I've been looking up pros to this bullshit, i cannot find any pros to repealing this regulation. Is just just getting rid of regulation for the sake of getting rid of regulation? I don't get it

>>118778245
It's interesting to see the level of backlash against this versus the muted response to the repeated attempts to fuck people's privacy via copyright law during the Obama years. Maybe Trump is the lightning rod we need to get people to start paying attention to all the gross stuff that both parties do in exchange for bribes from big business.

>>118778249
SOPA?
PIPA?

File: "muted response".png (83KB, 836x253px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 836x253px

>>118778249

>>118778245
They like money.

>>118778245
why does my god damn state keep voting in mcain fucking spics

File: Ted_Cruz_zombie_front_runner_flames.gif (2MB, 311x419px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 311x419px

>ted cruz
of course

>>118778251
Yes, and the reaction from the general public was a shrug of the shoulders.

File: image_12.jpg (77KB, 636x540px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 636x540px

>>118778252
It wasn't even that much.

>>118778245
>>118778248
Thanks for correcting the record shills, if stopped pirating your pedo cartoons you'd have nothing to worry about

Republicans and Democrats can be authoritarian or libertarian leaning too. Rand Paul wants privacy and he's a Republican. So does Bernie Sanders.

>>118778246
>fiscally conservative
>adding 10 trillion dollars to the debt after calling out Obama for the same thing

>>118778245
So, we can just buy those politicians data and publish it once this passes? I'm in.

>>118778245
>privacy issues
>ohnotheyllseemycp

get some priority in the issues of your life, there's worse problems than this

also neck yourself

>>118778259
>Rand Paul wants privacy

He's the one who sponsored the bill in the OP, you fucking retard. That's why his vote isn't on it or the abstain list.

>>118778248
The pros are only for the companies that give money to the politicians who vote for this legislation, not for us.

>>118778260
I want this reddit meme to go

>>118778245
Republicans aren't very smart people. Now that the government is actively working against free speech by monitoring what you do they feel ashamed for it and defend with memes.

>>118778245
Both parties tend to vote on partisan issues even if they don't understand it or agree with it.

You never vote across party lines, that's why you see zero democrats supporting the bill.
If this was a democrat sponsored attack on internet freedoms, you would see ONLY Ds on that list.

Fucking balkanize already

>>118778258
Name a benefit.

>>118778262
He cares about privacy from the government.

>repeal regulation that was passed 3 months ago
>oh no the world is over!

There is quite literally not one positive of this thing for the people of America. Not ONE.

>>118778268
you can find out if your neighbor is a kiddie fiddler

>>118778245
Why do Democrats want the worst for us when it comes to free speech issues?

>>118778245
Why do you care? Single liberals with no children have no future. You have no country. No tribe. No religion. Nothing but empty equality and individualist rhetoric.

You simply don't matter outside of being a consumer widget. That's why you have no privacy and all your data is sold. You are nothing but a collection of receipts.

Kill yourself.

>>118778273
What's this about?

>>118778270
Who are you quoting?

File: 1452319118558.jpg (22KB, 221x246px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 221x246px

>>118778245
unfortunately, neither side cares about privacy.

patriot act started with bush, was met with little resistance. obama renewed it, trump hasn't said shit about it. nsa revelations didnt change much

america is forever fucked because muh terrorism

>>118778260
>>118778272
What is the origin of this meme? You morons do realize that ISPs aren't going to put up a public storefront where Joe Public can buy anyone's browsing history, right? They're going to sell it to advertisers, ten million records at a time.

>>118778271
shut up ctr cuck

>>118778274
>that damage control

>>118778245
Don't believe that any government, or large organization in general actually, wants anything other than the worst for you when it comes to privacy issues.

>>118778273
MUH FREEZE PEACHES

>it's a /pol/ gets their histories purchased and published episode

>>118778273
Can you describe these issues you're talking about?

File: 1483341339689.png (127KB, 353x334px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 353x334px

>/pol/tards can no longer get jobs because their employers will purchase their browsing history and no one wants to employ /pol/tards
Only good thing that will come of it.

>>118778285
>/pol/tards have jobs
good one

>>118778281
If you really cared about security and privacy you would not rely on government regulations passed 3 months ago to protect you.

>>118778272
>Implying child fuckers won't just use a VPN/Tor.

This does nothing for stopping CP other than catching idiots using the clear net. I and just about everyone else don't have a choice when it comes to ISP policies since you're often limited to one. The "Google and Facebook collect your shit, why shouldn't they?" argument doesn't float either, since you can block all cookies/js/localStorage from their domains of you so choose. The fact that we're paying for a lousy service that has a virtual monopoly on what we can do selling our info without our explicit consent should trouble the shit out of everyone who even thinks for a second that we should have some right to communicate without our traffic being used to sell a specific profile.

>>118778251
>>118778250
The difference between whats happening now and SOPA/PIPA was that SOPA/PIPA was going to hurt big companies profits, so they clearly protested in
Meanwhile removing this regulation will make them money, so of course they aren't going to protest it

can they sell your search history retroactively, or only things you've searched since the bill came into effect?

>>118778277
>muh terrorism
And muh pedos. Eternal argument.

>>118778290
Seeing as all this bill does is repeal restrictions added 3 months ago, they can sell all your search history from before December 2016.

>>118778268
help catch terrorists and political dissenters

>>118778245
Funny how republicans are supposed to be the small government party

it's not going to have your names on it you fucking mongs

>>118778245
They worship power.

For them, having money and power means they're right.

>>118778295
>>118778292
sauce?

>>118778295
this

it will be "users who browse 4chan bought X" -> advertise X on 4chan

>>118778294
So regulations are now a small government thing?

>>118778297
common fucking sense jesus christ why do i even need to explain this

you think advertisers give a shit about YOU personally? pro tip: they don't

they want to see the big data and big trends so they know what ad space to buy on which sites

>>118778268
America is made great again

>>118778300
protip: the republicans also want to allow DNA testing as a condiction for employment

it's "just advertising" now, later it will be equivalent to a credit score or a background check

>>118778297
You really can't even bother to read the original bills to form your own opinion but instead just parrot whatever fake news headline you find?

>>118778302
good

tired of nogs doing a shitty ass job when i order fast food

>>118778300
I'm more concerned about companies buying that information for background checks

>>118778303
>fake news
>>>/pol/

>>118778302
That's good I don't want to waste my time hiring and training someone who will die of cancer in the next 4 months.

File: blackburns.png (496KB, 735x490px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 735x490px

>>118778256
She got $700k...

>>118778302
it isn't even possible to use this data in that way

The reasonings behind most senators votes is that they don't want the FCC but the FTC in change. I really don't get this meme, liberals are pretty retarded it seems.

>>118778304
>>118778306
People who would almost certainly be negatively affected by it and the ones agreeing with it.

Really gets the grey matter moving.

>>118778302
Nice tinfoil hat

>>118778310
Yup, at the same time we should ban background checks and drug tests. Those are racist.

>>118778312
no we should ban them because they're regulations :^)

>>118778313
What are regulations? Show me one regulation forcing private employers to perform background check on candidates.

>>118778291
>And muh pedos
nah, that one is going to be a-okay in a few years with the direction that the left is going in, as long as you're a look, but don't touch pedophile for the first 10 years or so.

>>118778309
That's because the FTC is has a bigger backlog than someone who browses /a/. It would be okay if the FTC were actually funded like it should be, but ISP's are banking on the fact that all but the most egregious complaints will be stuck in a bureaucratic purgatory behind other issues.

>>118778314
ok, what about our children? our troops fighting for this great nation. god wouldn't approve of this

:^)

>>118778317
>le America is le Christian nations
>le our troops meme
>:^)
kill yourself

>>118778317
So where are the regulations?

>>118778318
>>118778319
it's an issue of national security, we can't let the terrorists win : ^ )

File: 1341791346402.jpg (20KB, 281x480px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 281x480px

>>118778320

>>118778320
>muh straw man

>>118778318
>le America is le Christian nations
It objectively is.

>>118778323
Nice try false flagging and deflecting the topic. How are background checks a government regulation?

>>118778324
they aren't, I'm a huge gigantic faggot for bringing that up

t. the poster you just replied to

Amount of mad, single white boys in this thread is hitting critical mass.

Before the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was the primary regulator of companies' privacy and data security practices. The FTC had the authority to bring enforcement actions against companies who engaged in "unfair and deceptive practices." The 2015 reclassification of broadband providers removed internet service providers (ISPs) from the FTC's jurisdiction. On April 20, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed a rule applying privacy requirements of the Communications Act to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). However, the proposed rule would not apply to edge providers and web sites, like Facebook and Twitter, since they still fall under the FTC's authority.
As you know, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona introduced S.J. Res. 34 on March 7, 2017. This resolution would repeal the FCC's privacy rules. I do not believe a two-track system in which the FCC regulates ISPs while the FTC monitors the rest of the internet ecosystem is good for consumers. For this reason I cosponsored S.J. Res 34.

File: 1434612219669.jpg (56KB, 500x385px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x385px

>>118778327
>b-but muh evil Republican trying to kill le free internet!!

>>118778302
>protip: the republicans also want to allow DNA testing as a condiction for employment

Damn this is happening to your as well?

In Canada the government recently refused to add DNA profiling to a list of things illegal for an employer to do. Kind of ominous that anyone would be against that.

I don't get it

This will repeal policies added 3 months ago. Was it that big of a deal that we didn't have these protections prior to that?

>>118778327
> Implying the FTC will ever regulate this, good one.

>>118778330
The fake news articles on this don't mention that.

>>118778245
I don't think is about "want the worst for us when it comes to privacy issues" One of the biggest markets right now is sadly personal data selling and the major players are Google and Facebook, that's how they get their profits right.

So the ISP seeing this is a hot market also want to get in that business so they bribe (a.k.a lobbying) Republicans so that the Republicans can have an excuse of "cutting regulations" and ISP can get more profits.

Sadly, the Democrats isn't caring about your privacy at all they were just bribed by the major players like Google and Facebook to vote no.

In summary, this bill is not about regulations and not about privacy is about who can continue selling your personal data for profit.

>>118778276
The general public.

Why trust in government regulations to guarantee your privacy to begin with? Telecoms companies and tech companies both have a history of flouting them, and a financial incentive to do so. Better to use technical means (VPNs, Tor, etc) to stop your ISP from being able to see what you're doing online at all.

>>118778330
This desu. It wasn't the fucking end of the world big brother situation before 3 months ago so why would it now? Nobody gives a fuck about your porno addiction

>>118778330
We did, until they took them away from the FTC and gave them to the FCC with this bill. Now nobody is overseeing it.

>>118778330
Problem is more so that we are now establishing that this is perfectly legal and no longer a legally grey area.
The only reason it wasn't a problem before was because companies did things reasonably and sought not to step on any toes when it came to selling information, considering a class action against them from a huge group of pissed off people could be dangerous. So it was more of a problem for the companies that they didn't know what could happen if they went off the rails with what they had. An individual getting mad wouldn't matter so much, but a solid 5000 people pissed off with numerous connections, media time, and lawyer money is a bad look.

Now that they can do whatever with the information, they don't need to worry about people banding together and standing up to them.

>>118778337
The regulation gave it to the FCC, this bill fags are crying about gives it back to the FTC

>>118778339
Wrong.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-industry-using-convince-congress-repeal-fccs-privacy-rules

>>118778248
>pros
government shrinks
>cons
nothing else matters

>>118778248
It keeps government hands out of the cookie jar in a matter that ISPs already don't give a fuck about.

In this day and age of encryption, so much of Average Joe's info is inadvertently secured that collecting any meaningful insight will not be worth the millions you'd have to dump into it.

Advertising rules all in user data collection and nothing will come close to it in our lifetimes.

>>118778340
>EFF
Fake news

>>118778327
>>118778328
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-industry-using-convince-congress-repeal-fccs-privacy-rules
>The 2016 FTC v AT&T Mobility decision at the 9th Circuit eliminated the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to enforce privacy rules on ISPs in Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Other courts may do the same. And while some states’ Attorney Generals have brought actions against ISPs that mislead or deceive consumers about how the companies collect, share, and sell customer data, many other states have scaled back their enforcement on the premise that federal enforcement was sufficient and preferable.

>ad by a VPN company to scare people to buy more VPNs
How is this legal?

File: 1490548164577.png (99KB, 189x260px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 189x260px

>>118778288
>vpn/tor
>safe

This bill will create a new market, which will boost the economy, which will benefit everyone. Besides, you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

>>118778345
>How is this legal?

>asking this question and not killing yourself instead

>>118778347
It will help rich companies who already have the cash to afford it monopolize, if your business is small or just starting out then you're sol.

>>118778245
In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans for the last 30 years have literally done nothing to benefit the stability, safety, or people of this nation.

They are cartoonishly evil, and if you still don't see it, do the rest of us a favor and literally suck on a shotgun barrel.

>>118778350
Dems are actually evil.
Repubs are cartoonish evil.

Only true solution is the feel the Johnson and at a minimum instill a hefty amount of regulation in favor of the safety and privacy of the public.

>>118778245

In Canada our Liberals are trying to erode privacy as well (although more to the flavor of gov surveillance rather than letting businesses sell info), so don't go thinking you can blame the party you dislike or think any side of the political spectrum will save the internet.

>>118778352
This. No politician likes the idea of citizens having privacy. If they didn't want to control you - a task for which it is required to know a lot about who you are and what you do - they wouldn't be politicians.

>>118778269
It wouldn't take much for the government to ask for data gathered by companies. They probably do it already

>>118778351
>>118778350

They are both puppets of the Jew.

This kind of de-regulation would be fine if the free market was actually allowed to decide the results of it.

Why should ISPs ever be treated the same as websites?

Anyone can have a website but people in most towns can't even use the internet unless through one of like two ISPs.

>>118778259
>Rand Paul wants privacy and he's a Republican
Is that why he sponsored the privacy rollback that just passed and also didn't vote against it?

>>118778356
Because the GOP is retarded.

This is like ordering something from amazon, and the mail company (ISPs) open your box, write down what you got, and then place ads inside the box before sending it to you.

ISPs should NOT be regulated the same way other technology companies are.

>>118778358
No, it would be like a bunch of people ordering more from Amazon, Fedex noticing the increase in traffic, and adding more delivery trucks to meet increased demand. The "privacy act" passed 3 months ago by the FCC would forbid ISPs from using this kind of information to improve their services.

>>118778358
> ISPs should NOT be regulated the same way other technology companies are.
You already have an oligopoly in the US of A, and you tell us they shouldn't be regulated.

File: jerry.gif (484KB, 294x235px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 294x235px

>buy up all this ISP data
>start a website where you can type in a person's name and address and you can see every domain they've visited
>every site that doesn't use SSL (e.g. Pornhub) will display a complete detailed history
>mfw all your friends and family know what you've been fapping to

>start another website that generates a numeric score based on an algorithm
>the algorithm takes data into account like the domains visited, the amount of data downloaded, and the spread of timestamps from those domains
>this score reflects the extent to which the person opposes authority
>non-SSL sites will parse things like forum posts, making the score that much more accurate
>low score = more defiant, high score = more loyal
>potential employers will automatically reject applicants whose scores fall below a certain cutoff
>mortgage and insurance underwriters will also use this score
>mfw I'm rich as fuck

>>118778361
Why will ISPs start offering to sell the browsing histories of its users now?

>>118778362
Because I just paid for it. It's free money.

>>118778359
THAT IS A LOAD OF FUCKING HORSESHIT AND YOU KNOW IT.

Come on man, ISPs selling data on their users to ad companies have nothing to do with meeting demand.

>>118778363
Why didn't you pay for it last year?

>>118778363
>give you all their data
>you put it online
>now no one would pay them for their data anymore since you made it available for free
Sounds like a great business decision. Why haven't the other companies that collect user data like Facebook and Google started offering this package?

You know what I don't get? Why ISPs are so fucking evil. Aren't they run by technically competent people? You know...The kind of people who have a passion for technology and the internet? Or are they run by a bunch of soccer moms and baby boomers who's technical knowledge extends as far as opening microsoft word.

I understand the government is retarded on technological issues and always will be. But ISPs are just evil, and they don't even have an excuse.

>>118778367
They are run by people with an obligation to produce profit for shareholders. How does technical competence have anything to do with this?

>>118778295

>you need names to figure out identity

Jesus Christ how fucking new are you?

>>118778309

>Being this stupid

The FTC lost the ability to regulate ISPs with the AT&T suit which is why the FCC overstepped their boundaries to put in stops to attacks on net neutrality and privacy issues. The Republicucks ant the FTC back in charge because they have no teeth.

Because they are the party of the rich and the rich always believed the masses are their slaves.

So what do those slaves need privacy for? They're only useful as meat robots in our factories and as consumers.

>pro-privacy leaflet
Oh nic-
>PIA
>some cunts in bed with the CIA
every time

>>118778246
If they don't like regulations, then why do they want to regulate?

File: l04he.jpg (27KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 399x385px

All these leftist libtard tears

>normalfags suddenly care about privacy
rly makes me think
this totally isn't politically motivated

heh

>>118778293
>political dissenters
Is this power you would want democrats to have?
If not, why do you think giving Republicans this power is a good thing?

>these flags

what board did this thread come from, /g/ ?

We have an illegal alien thread here guys, let's beat the shit out of them.

>>118779710
kek

Hey guys, what board did you all come from?

Let me try and make this as clear as possible for you mental midgets.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT GOVERNMENT MONITORING.

If the gov wants to monitor your browsing habits, they can already do that (and do it within the law using the appropriate legal process, so this isn't some retard's conspiracy theory).

THIS IS ABOUT THE SALE OF YOUR BROWSING HISTORY TO FOR-PROFIT ADVERTISERS.

That way they can target advertisements specifically to you that are more likely to pique your interest and, hopefully, cause you to spend money on whatever shit they're peddling. So basically the same shit they've been doing for years.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not problematic and doesn't invoke privacy concerns, but the idiots on both sides making the "oh noes! The gooberment!" arguments are fucking stupid.

Fuck off ayy lmaos.

Earth Pride.
World Wide.

You: >>118778293

and you: >>118779052

See this: >>118780210

Now stop being such obtuse faggots.

>>118778245
Neoconservatives aren't your friends

File: 1482772215386.png (74KB, 284x284px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 284x284px

>>118778374
>privacy rights and anti-advertisement clauses
>leftist

We all made fun of the EU and Australia for sucking ISP cock in 2014/15 with data retention laws, and liked the ECJ ruling to ban mass retention.

All of 4chan, including /pol/, hated SOPA-PIPA in 2012.

Everyone, including /new/, hated the Patriot Act extensions and cheered for the Warshak case in 2010.

Remember Paxfire? The 2011 and 2014 ISP fiascos with supercookies and advertisement injections in hotspots? Who the said "hahaha leftists mad as fuck" back then?

Fuck off faggot, being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian is retarded.
If there is a single political belief that every single imageboard, yet alone /pol/, in the world can agree on, it's about internet privacy.

Well considering most people thought they already did this it won't get much blowback

>>118778278
I own a software company and we are a registered LLC in the US, you better believe I'm going to try my best to get my hands on every single senator who signed this.

Why do democrats want the elimation of white people?

>>118778261

Your the type who will bend over and take any willing dick in your ass and then call everyone else fags.