Silicon Valley isn't opposed to this one because they'd be the ones buying the data to better target their advertising.
Both Google and Facebook sell targeted advertisements on their platforms. They collect a ton of data themselves to make those ad placements as accurate as they can, but they'd love to buy even better data if it was available to them.
Not until they have a platform to distribute those ads that's as effective as embedding them in people's facebook timelines or their google search results.
It's more like selling that data is a huge revenue stream, and the inability to do so can totally fuck up some of their business models. For instance, when I used to work in education software, there was a huge revulsion about selling children's data, so legislation came about, and the industry created a pledge that said we wouldn't collect or sell any such data. https://studentprivacypledge.org/privacy-pledge/ Click on the signatories and you'll see that it includes just about everyone in the field. Well, that totally fucked up a whole bunch of startups, many of whom have now collapsed, because they had no other revenue model. It was a free service that was supposed to be paid for by that selling of data. Sales is all about lead generation, so any company that is looking to sell you something will want to get solid leads for potential purchasers. If your ISP can track your browsing well enough, it will be able to process and then sell that information to anyone looking to buy. If that ISP is also your phone provider, it could be that they will sell your personal contact info as well. For instance... if you start looking for aluminum siding online, then that information could be sold to local aluminum siding providers with your name, address, phone number, and email address... so that they can then reach out to you before you have a chance to reach out to anyone else. The invasion of privacy won't just be for them collecting the information, it will be the influx of targeted marketing and cold-calls that you'll get as a result... and the ISP could probably try to claim "previous relationship" or force "allow us or our advertising partners to contact you" as part of their EULA to get around the CAN-SPAM.
They won't need to. As per my previous post, they don't need to deal with you at all... just the people that want to deal with you. Unlike facebook or google, you are paying for their service... so they have ALL of your correct contact and billing information. They know exactly where you live because they installed your cable or internet connection. That is way more of a gold mine than what Google has. They are now allowed to sell that personal information. And to be clear, that's not just your browsing history... it's your personal information.
Oh, and to continue on down that front... "But if you use HTTPS or a VPN then they can't see what I'm browsing, right?" Correct. But they've also just repealed the FCC's Net Neutrality ruling stating that they have to let you use a VPN or HTTPS or treat your ISP connection as a neutral conduit to the rest of the Internet. They now control what access you can have. So if they want to block something, they can. If they want to charge you to access something (like Facebook or Netflix), they can. As a result, if you don't want to give them the revenue of selling your personal information, then you could very well see a "allow https" or "allow use of vpn" up-sell on your account to allow their use. They can't see your browsing data, but they won't care, because they get paid regardless, and for what is substantially less work on their end. Your politicians are fucking stupid when it comes to technology, but the ones paying them the big bucks to pass this type of shit that the average person doesn't understand sure as hell do understand technology, and they have a long game in mind. You are all frogs, and you are being boiled as fast as you can be without you really noticing it.
So is the repeal in response to the rules initiated in October 2016 and not to go into effect until December 2017, or rules extending further back as well? My understanding was that the cable providers were already doing this and becoming increasingly pervasive, ie us frogs were already boiling and republicans put the lid back on. Why is the ability to charge for specific web access tied to the VPN? I thought they had to repeal title II before actively charging access to certain sites/apps. Is it that they can do this to force you off the VPN, or can they charge you regardless?
It's about their ability to charge for network access. They can arbitrarily decide what they want to charge for... either a specific site, priority bandwidth for a streaming service (like Netflix), or specific protocols. There are no rules as to what can or cannot be charged for. As of February of this year, the FCC has stopped investigating any instances of non net neutrality. https://www.wired.com/2017/02/fcc-oks-streaming-free-net-neutrality-will-pay/ The wedge is in there, and it will be very easy to use this as precedent to upcharge for VPN usage or some other arbitrary network use.
So he might violated law by accepting money for speeches? Another misleading headline as if he wants immunity from some impeachable offense for Trump?
Okay, Nett, who exactly IS this "you" of which you speak? Are you part of this group? I keep hearing about the latest bullshit, greedy, evil, over-reaching legislation, with this accusatory tone, like there is something that I, Bandit, could have done to stop it. Well, what could the American people have done to stop this? Last time I checked, WE weren't the ones who got to vote on this stuff. And before anyone says "You should have voted for the right congressman!", as has been stated before, it's pretty obvious that neither the Republicans or the Democrats have the best interests of the American people in mind, and they're the ones making up all the rules. So I ask again, what are we really supposed to do about it?
Hashtag campaign? This is probably the very very few topics that has 100% condemnation from the public. I have yet to see a single argument for it. I mean you'll at least seem SOMEONE defend it in some capacity.
There's several reasons why he might ask for immunity, ranging from "he's clean but doesn't want to take the risk of testifying before a committee that's out to get him without immunity" to "he committed treason, the FBI has him dead to rights, and he's willing to testify to Trump's treason to spare himself." Either way it's an interesting development, and we'll see how it shakes out.
Nope... in Canada, we have a privacy commissioner that has some serious teeth... they have gone up against Facebook and Google and forced them to change the way they do shit. This selling of personal information would never be allowed in Canada like it is in the US. When was the last time you or someone you know was actively involved in politics? Have you ever called your local or State reps and talked to them or their office? Or do you just sit back and watch what other people do? Have you helped a good candidate try and get elected?
Yep... and the internet is going nuts with speculation. I like to think that good old Donny is saying "doesn't matter... did nothing wrong..." out loud, but inside he's going "shit shit shit shit".
If I had to guess, my tempered estimation is that the FBI has him pretty solidly on something related to Turkey (likely that fucky extradition plot thing), and he thinks that congressional Dems are so out for blood on anything Trump/Russia related, that he can get out of legal trouble by throwing them something that looks a bit scandalous but doesn't have any real legal bite. We'll see.
"When you are given immunity, it means you probably committed a crime" - Michael T. Flynn. Oh, the irony.
And if your cell phone is on Verizon, then it sucks to be you... they are announcing that they are installing spyware within the next couple of weeks to take advantage of the recent "sell all the data" legislation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/...e-has-already-arrived-verizon-announces-plans The AppFlash Privacy Policy published by Verizon states that the app can be used to “collect information about your device and your use of the AppFlash services. This information includes your mobile number, device identifiers, device type and operating system, and information about the AppFlash features and services you use and your interactions with them. We also access information about the list of apps you have on your device.” Troubling as it may be to collect intimate details about what apps you have installed, the policy also illustrates Verizon’s intent to gather location and contact information: “AppFlash also collects information about your device’s precise location from your device operating system as well as contact information you store on your device.” And what will Verizon use all of this information for? Why, targeted advertising on third-party websites, of course: “AppFlash information may be shared within the Verizon family of companies, including companies like AOL who may use it to help provide more relevant advertising within the AppFlash experiences and in other places, including non-Verizon sites, services and devices.”
Flynn's statements don't add up. "Highly politicized" is a pretty flimsy excuse for needing immunity. I've been skeptical about the outright collusion between Trump and the Russians, but this goes beyond innuendo.
It's kind of hard for me to get to excited about Flynn. Seriously, for the past year and half or so, every couple of days there's a new "LOOK WHAT TRUMP (Or someone Trump related) DID!" story. It's big news for a few days and just goes away as soon as they come up with another "LOOK WHAT TRUMP DID!" story. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. One of these days Dems and the media may actually come up with some dirt and no one is going to believe them because we've become so accustomed to the cycle of "FIRE!" oh wait, that's not a fire....but look over here "FIRE!"