that's why I never had the courage to enlist...

Privacy as the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people is a cultural factor that's far too easy to change and varies greatly between groups (rich vs poor, politically powerful vs serfs) even in the society. Privacy is nice and I value mine but it's one of the first things humans give up to survive because we know its mainly an illusion. Your information will be collected but will it really be yours or will it be a artificially constructed version that's designed to fool big data using secrets only the real person knows.

 

that's why I never had the courage to enlist...

The kids From my high school that enlisted in the Navy thought that was a fringe benefit.

 

I consider it a game changer because it sets a precedent. And therefore a glimpse of things to come.

Think about how short-lived this will be. ISPs can sell users' browsing history. I buy Melania Trump's and Eric Trumps browsing history and publish it to show they both like to look at the same male dancers website. Boom, law gets changed.

 

The kids From my high school that enlisted in the Navy thought that was a fringe benefit.

benefit? .... I'm afraid you lost me there...

 

Think about how short-lived this will be. ISPs can sell users' browsing history. I buy Melania Trump's and Eric Trumps browsing history and publish it to show they both like to look at the same male dancers website. Boom, law gets changed.

Yeah... except that those are exactly the type of people that will be protected on some newly formed "public servant" privacy law... so the ruling elite will always play by different rules

 

I can't believe people have the expectation of privacy .... especially when they just click on the EULA or whatever they want to call the agreement, to continue their download.

Has anyone ever read the EULA?

I'll bet there are a lot of users who haven't read the terms at AAC, but they checked the box.

 

Think about how short-lived this will be. ISPs can sell users' browsing history.

They already have been, indirectly. But the user base got smarter and installed ad blockers. Now the ISPs and search engines will sell directly to whoever buys such things, so they can market directly to you. Spam filters will get smarter, and the cycle repeats.

Remember the great "Do Not Call Registry?" It moved telemarketer jobs offshore.

I got a call the other day, with a robo type voice asking "is this Joe", when I said yes, the call was transferred to another robo voice....that started the spiel. I just hung up.

Do you think AAC sells your meta data? They could.

 

See how they like it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39443161
​

The organisers of two privacy campaigns say they plan to buy, then sell, the internet browsing histories of some of America's best-known politicians.
But experts said the schemes were doomed to fail.
The campaigners are protesting against a congress vote to repeal a key internet privacy law earlier this week.

 

See how they like it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39443161
​

The organisers of two privacy campaigns say they plan to buy, then sell, the internet browsing histories of some of America's best-known politicians.
But experts said the schemes were doomed to fail.
The campaigners are protesting against a congress vote to repeal a key internet privacy law earlier this week.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...uy-congresss-internet-data-anyone-elses.shtml

But here's the real problem: you can't buy Congress' internet data. You can't buy my internet data. You can't buy your internet data. That's not how this works. It's a common misconception. We even saw this in Congress four years ago, where Rep. Louis Gohmert went on a smug but totally ignorant rant, asking why Google won't sell the government all the data it has on people. As we explained at the time, that's not how it works*. Advertisers aren't buying your browsing data, and ISPs and other internet companies aren't selling your data in a neat little package. It doesn't help anyone to blatantly misrepresent what's going on.

Sure, it helps them to collect donations for the GoFundMe campaign with a Fake News story.

 

The data collected by google is googles asset. It helps them provide you with relevant links to get you to make purchases. Amazon does the same thing. Facebook does also.

Chances are you gave them permission to send you all those recommendations.

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...uy-congresss-internet-data-anyone-elses.shtml


Sure, it helps them to collect donations for the GoFundMe campaign with a Fake News story.

It cant be purchased today but as soon as the ISPs realize there is a market to demand for customers to buy an INDIVIDUAL'S browser history, they will put them up for auction. It wont take long if $200k is available on a goFundMe page - there must be more.

Marketing people dont believe in "no".

 

so they can market directly to you.

that's not how it works*.

I too smell a rat. There is no point in selling my browsing history in order to sell me what I've been browsing about if you can't identify me and my computer as the place to send the advertising. Double-speak.

 

that's not how it works*.

I too smell a rat. There is no point in selling my browsing history in order to sell me what I've been browsing about if you can't identify me and my computer as the place to send the advertising. Double-speak.

I know it's tricky but please concentrate.

Analogy
The bank teller sees your information while providing a service just like the telecommunications carrier.

Its more like when you are cashing a check, a bank teller sees you have $20,000 in your deposit account and refers you to an investment adviser. That would be using your data for a targeted ad.

This makes releasing/selling personal information like in most of the bogus articles and stories ILLEGAL. Nothing has changed from these basic facts.

The Telecommunications Act explicitly prohibits the sharing of “individually identifiable” customer information except under very specific circumstances.
What the campaigns (and #12) describe would be illegal no matter what the FCC does.

47 U.S. Code § 222 - Privacy of customer information
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222

 

But the GOP has been trying to get the internet classified outside the jurisdiction of the FCC and non-telephone. Where dies it land? Uncontrolled except by your ISP.

 

Seems what's on the hard-drive is worth the time in jail. Win-win, he keeps his right of self-incrimination and we keep him in jail for kiddie porn. If you need to encrypt your goodies use the double decrypt kind. One password decrypts to flowers and kittens, the other password decrypts to what you want to hide. Guess which one the government gets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption

How does being imprisoned without being charged because you assert your 5th Amendment rights constitute letting you keep that right?

If that's acceptable, then it should be acceptable to imprison any person that exercises their right to remain silent or to not testify at their trial for failing to do so on identical grounds: Well, it seems that keeping what they would have said quiet is worth time in jail. They got to exercise their rights and we keep them in jail for whatever it is that we think they did without ever charging them.

The right to not incriminate yourself is only meaningful if there are NO legal penalties whatsoever for exercising it.

 

"It's more like when you are cashing a check, a bank teller sees you have $20,000 in your deposit account and refers you to an investment adviser. That would be using your data for a targeted ad."

But if there is no personally identifiable information, how can the bank teller know it's me with $20K?
There must be identity information in order to deliver the ad to the target.
Meanwhile, there is no identifiable person, therefore there are no targeted ads.
Make sense?

Yeah. About as much sense as New Coke. "It's exactly the same, and better, simultaneously."

 

How does being imprisoned without being charged because you assert your 5th Amendment rights constitute letting you keep that right?

If that's acceptable, then it should be acceptable to imprison any person that exercises their right to remain silent or to not testify at their trial for failing to do so on identical grounds: Well, it seems that keeping what they would have said quiet is worth time in jail. They got to exercise their rights and we keep them in jail for whatever it is that we think they did without ever charging them.

The right to not incriminate yourself is only meaningful if there are NO legal penalties whatsoever for exercising it.

Your 5th Amendment rights don't give you absolute protection at any time you invoke them.
John Doe was a fool, he open the door wide to the jail cell door that slammed shut behind him by providing some passwords but not the ones Doe 'forgot'.

"Doe voluntarily provided the password for the Apple iPhone 5S, but refused to provide the passwords to decrypt the Apple Mac Pro computer or the external hard drives"
...
The Magistrate Judge hearing the initial case, however, did not believe the defendant's claim. The judge "found that Doe remembered the passwords needed to decrypt the hard drives but chose not to reveal them because of the devices' contents."

The appeals court found that forcing the defendant to reveal passwords was not testimonial in this instance because the government already had a sense of what it would find.

Courts currently distinguish between acts of production – being compelled to reveal evidence – and acts of testimony – being compelled to reveal information in the mind – except where the testimony would not provide new information. In some courts at least, this distinction allows courts to demand a fingerprint to unlock a device but not to demand a password.

 

"It's more like when you are cashing a check, a bank teller sees you have $20,000 in your deposit account and refers you to an investment adviser. That would be using your data for a targeted ad."

But if there is no personally identifiable information, how can the bank teller know it's me with $20K?
There must be identity information in order to deliver the ad to the target.
Meanwhile, there is no identifiable person, therefore there are no targeted ads.
Make sense?

Yeah. About as much sense as New Coke. "It's exactly the same, and better, simultaneously."

Of course there is personally identifiable information the teller sees and the ISP, they just can't sell that personally identifiable information to a third party.
Make sense?

 

they just can't sell that personally identifiable information to a third party.

So why pass a law to allow it?

Edit: I once had a county building inspector make me swear in writing that the conversion from watt hours to BTUs is at least 3. I suppose you could make a law that square circles are not a crime, but what's the point? Congress looking like it's busy doing something?

 

So why pass a law to allow it?

What law is being passed to allow it? There is no law being proposed, being voted on or being repealed that affects personally identifiable information disclosure.