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 There is no law being proposed, being voted on or being repealed that affects personally identifiable information disclosure.

What? What hole has your head been buried in? Read the news.

 

What? What hole has your head been buried in? Read the news.

Please tell us, I know you want to.

kv

 

Please tell us, I know you want to.

kv

Sorry, I have no idea what hole his head was in - So I can't tell you.

 

What? What hole has your head been buried in? Read the news.

If your referring to the FCC Reg's Obama created their not in place, so I'm not sure where your heads at either.

kv

 

If your referring to the FCC Reg's Obama created their not in place, so I'm not sure where your heads at either.

kv

Their, there, they're.

They're different words but I'll let you use the same one for everything - that way, like a stopped watch, you'll be right occasionally. Oh, wait, there is one you got right. Shall we play "the guess which one game?"

Try again. Once those corrections are made, I might be able to understand your question.

 

There are plenty of cases where Privacy is being lost, the bogus “Fake News” Internet provider stories in the news is lower than whale crap in those cases. All ISP browsing data, as well as data regarding app usage on mobile devices is still subject to the same privacy requirements as sensitive or private personal information. Nothing changes

Companies like Google were completely unaffected by the scrapped rule because they are classified as services, not common carriers like the ISP's would have been and would have been able to use aggravated data as usual with virtually no limits using the services personal information from browser, device and program usage. The fact that Google and the Facebook's pushed this rule to the FCC with their known slant of political support says a lot about how money and power are being used to actually reduce true communications privacy and scrutiny by the large data companies.

Read about IPsec if you're really worried about the large data and services companies looking into your life.

 

Try again. Once those corrections are made, I might be able to understand your question.

Told you guys he has a reading disability regarding context and implied sentence meanings.

At least he now admits he can't get proper context from a simple sentences even over a simple spelling error.

Maybe if he reads things out loud to himself or has someone read to him things might make enough sense for him to join an intelligent conversation and keep up?

(I'm still betting on him just being a high functioning autistic or mid range socially functional retard. 'Corks on all his forks for safety's sake' if you know what I mean. )

 

Told you guys he has a reading disability regarding context and implied sentence meanings.

At least he now admits he can't get proper context from a simple sentences even over a simple spelling error.

Maybe if he reads things out loud to himself or has someone read to him things might make enough sense for him to join an intelligent conversation and keep up?

(I'm still betting on him just being a high functioning autistic or mid range socially functional retard. 'Corks on all his forks for safety's sake' if you know what I mean. )

You're just mad that I fired you as my drool-bucket emptying boy.

 

Their, there, they're.

Thanks Mr, Grammatician for the suggestion butt, I don't think it would help to correct them for you. I think I've read a few of your mistakes and you're calling me out?

What ever.

kv

Edit: Sorry now for the spelling error too!

 

I'm sure GopherT can cite the applicable sections of 47 USC that will be affected by whatever is proposed.

Of course, he might stick with "getting the internet out of the jurisdiction of the FCC" and not know the extent of the FCC's jurisdiction, according to the law.

 

"It was recently revealed that the city of New York plans to install facial recognition tech on its bridges and tunnels to scan and identify people driving in and out."

Actually using Easy Pass the city of NY and pretty much every toll on the east coast knows when I come and go. January we were down in Florida and were on the Sunshine Highway. I exited and somehow ended up in a sunshine pass only lane. I don't have one so after someone was behind me I blew through. During February I got a lovely picture of my truck and a $3.00 bill from Florida for the thirty cent toll I ignored.

Here in Cleveland, Ohio the city street corners have cameras, matter of fact there are cameras everywhere. The Ohio Department of Transportation) has traffic cameras everywhere:
.http://www.ohgo.com/dashboard/cleveland
Just click Cameras on the right side. I can watch the Interstate behind my house.

On another note I did a Google of myself. The worst offender for having information out there about me was The Ohio BMV (Bureau of Motor Vehicles). No longer is anything sacred. Privacy is a thing of the past.

Ron

 

I'm sure GopherT can cite the applicable sections of 47 USC that will be affected by whatever is proposed.

Of course, he might stick with "getting the internet out of the jurisdiction of the FCC" and not know the extent of the FCC's jurisdiction, according to the law.

Is there a question in there? Do you have any idea what the Obama change to the FCC was supposed to do and how the Trump-era partial reversal of the Obama-change is a smoke-and-mirror show that leaves everyone with no pants at all.

Read the DETAILS in the garbage passed last week and compare to the Obama changes - it may not jump out at you but it is there.

 

Of course, he might stick with "getting the internet out of the jurisdiction of the FCC" and not know the extent of the FCC's jurisdiction, according to the law.

Here are some minor difference once the Internet could be Governed by the FCC once declared a Utility and Obama Regulations. (Which are not being enforced, yet)

No laws created, as was suggested in Post#121. Sorry to be redundant but.....

Congress, and only Congress, creates laws. Federal executive departments and administrative agencies write regulations to implement the authority of laws. Regulations (as well as Executive Orders and Proclamations) are ancillary or subordinate to laws but both laws and regulations are enforceable.

kv

 

KV,

If true, then you can point to the specific CFR ... Code of Federal Regulations, being changed. The US Code gives the authority to do something. The CFR is the Agencies "directives" as they read the Code.

The CFR's directives can be challenged as there is no supporting USC ... Law from Congress.

So, you and GopherT are more than welcomed to cite the USC or the CFR .... not some draft BS that hasn't been vetted.

 

No laws created, as was suggested in Post#121. Sorry to be redundant but.....

kv

KV,

The CFR's directives can be challenged as there is no supporting USC ... Law from Congress.

If I'm not correct please let me know, what I could see cited elsewhere or in the news was baseless for post #121.

kv

 

You're just mad that I fired you as my drool-bucket emptying boy.

Oh don't fire him. @tcmtech has worked very hard insulting people smarter and more successful than himself to work his way down to that job.

 

If I'm not correct please let me know, what I could see cited elsewhere or in the news was baseless for post #121.

Personally Identifiable Information is covered in multiple US Codes.

47 USC 551 is one concerning subscriber privacy ... cable companies.
18 USC 2110 concerns renting video tapes ...
34 USC 99.3 concerns biometric data

and that was just from the first page using the search terms +"personally identifiable information" +"USC" which produced 2,100,000 results.

Congress has to pass a bill and the President must sign it, to modify the U.S. Codes. Otherwise, it's just political banter and serves to keep the base firmly entrenched and riled up.

or the adult version ...

 

If I get a VPN I have to trust the service not to share that Info. Seems in this day and age it's futile to stop internet control or data collection.


kv

 

If I get a VPN I have to trust the service not to share that Info. Seems in this day and age it's futile to stop internet control or data collection.


kv

Or just not use the Net for things you don't want people to see. Back in the 80's a lot of people used a certain color of ink pens when writing out their checks, because the banks scanners wouldn't pick up the color. But pretty sure the banks found better scanning technology. Paladin Press sold a bunch of books on how to "keep your privacy", made a business on it.

 

But pretty sure the banks found better scanning technology. Paladin Press sold a bunch of books on how to "keep your privacy", made a business on it.

Actually, their have been some things presented even on this site as suggestions I might want to look at, became useful when I was required to turn in papers in a class I took.

Yes, I'm still taking classes at 60, but I also still get ads with previous internet looks which have a Reverse Osmosis brand I liked and plan to purchase e.g. one of those list of projects when the money presents itself.

Anyway, unless they fill my web browser so full of content I'll treat it like the guy in the next car flipping me off. Press the ignore button, face forward act as if he doesn't exist.

It's worked for years, and usually it's not my fault I'm just driving the speed limit.

kv