Annoying Orange has signed S.J. Res 34

[Ipquarx]

under obama, the FTC issued a rule stating that internet providers had to provide something like that of an opt out option for their subscribers.

Uh no, it was actually the opposite. Users had to specifically opt-in to have their data sold. This is the one that makes it opt-out, and what's worse is that they can now charge you as much more as they like if you do choose to opt out, which essentially ends in "forget the poor people, your data is getting sold no matter what."

Literally no matter what angle you look at this from, it's bad for consumers. It's impossible to spin this in any sort of pro-consumer way.

[Ad Bot]

[BLockyBuildingBro]

Hiloli Clitton

S t o p

[Sheepocalypse]

as long as you're okay with being able to have a warrant put out for you at any given moment  

Im not that bad

I wonder how you'd react then if someone leaked all your browsing history.

Good thing they don't say,
"Charles Barkley of 49 Gordon St, Wisconsin goes on researchHub at 7:44 PM."
to the local news.

[SeventhSandwich]

BLF, say hello to the newest member of the Annoying Orange opposition:

If Annoying Orange signs this bill I will no longer consider myself a Annoying Orange supporter. He better veto this bullcrap.

and honorable mention for our newest 66.6% member of the Annoying Orange opposition

if he signs the bill that's strike 2/3 for me

[beachbum111111]

not really, i don't care about it too much and i'm more annoyed about the fact that half the websites i visit now have a massive header reading 'YOU FAILED AMERICA' or some obnoxious banner at the top of the page about it
from what i can tell, probably not severely, at least not as worried as a lot of people are trying to make it

under obama, the FTC issued a rule stating that internet providers had to provide something like that of an opt out option for their subscribers. if subscribers chose to opt out, the providers couldn't sell the data for said subscribers. so, this basically meant internet providers had different rights than software/service providers with respect to data. then, congress made use of the CRA of 1996 to override that rule, since it had no real premise in any congressional authorized law, and it looks like it's pretty much what Annoying Orange signed

only thing that's actually gonna happen/happened from what i can tell is that the use of data by ISPs has reverted to what they were prior to obama's time

both sides have overly confused and muddled the situation here

e; i'll add that personally i was alright with the rule and was hoping they wouldn't get rid of it, but with that said, it's not the disaster a lot of people are making it out be, it's just taking us back to what was already allowed before obama

Wait so it's not the end of the internet as we know it?

[kevin 51l]

Wait so it's not the end of the internet as we know it?

but it will be once net neutrality gets struck down like an unarmed black guy who raised his hands incorrectly in front of a cowardly white cop.

[Gock.]

rule 34 is now legal

[shamester]

Great even more government controlling our personal lives.  Whats next? Them telling us what websites we can go on depending on our age?

[rambo1220]

the only difference with this bill is that now instead of them selling our info in private, they do it out in the open.

still forgeted though

[LeisureSuit912]

under obama, the FTC issued a rule stating that internet providers had to provide something like that of an opt out option for their subscribers. if subscribers chose to opt out, the providers couldn't sell the data for said subscribers. so, this basically meant internet providers had different rights than software/service providers with respect to data. then, congress made use of the CRA of 1996 to override that rule, since it had no real premise in any congressional authorized law, and it looks like it's pretty much what Annoying Orange signed

Yeah that's not true but also Obama isn't president anymore so who cares

Literally no matter what angle you look at this from, it's bad for consumers. It's impossible to spin this in any sort of pro-consumer way.

The GOP doesn't give a stuff about consumers, and people are foolish if they thought Annoying Orange was gonna be any different

[SeventhSandwich]

Wait so it's not the end of the internet as we know it?

I don't think anyone said it was. Whether it 'destroys' internet privacy is irrelevant as long as it's causing demonstrable harm.

[Brikichu]

if you wrap your router in tinfoil they can't access your browser history so this doesn't really matter, however if you're still paranoid you can always just draw your own research out in the woods away from the gubbment's prying eyes. just dont try to sell it on the internet

[Aide33]

Am I the only one who barely cares about this? I don't go on anything illegal so its not bothersome. Can't people use VPNs anyway?

Oh then you don't mind the leaving all of your doors unlocked while your at it so the government can enter and search your house at any time too.

While we are at it, no more phone passcodes or internet passwords. If I didn't do anything illegal it shouldn't bother right?

The government should have the right to probe my ass at any time too! If i'm not smuggling cocaine in my ass why would I care?

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument this is the weakest argument of all

[Super Suit 12]

your ISP just sees what sites you connect to, but not what you do
it'd be like
connected to steam
connected to google
connected to discord
not
Signed into steam (Username: BobMcJoe Password: imgay), talked to friend about gay stuff
searched for "gay discord servers"
joined the "traps are hot" discord server (username: Joebob password: thegayest)
(Unless it's HTTP and not HTTPS.)

Still, just because they can won't mean they will. Plus, you can set up a VPN on another network with other people or pay for a subscription to one, and they'll have a lot of data and won't know whose it is.

Plus, nobody's going to care what sites an individual visits. It's pretty unlikely that they won't strip your info from it, they'll probably just provide general tags about your age and race and stuff at worst.

so basically nothing's wrong and if you use a VPN they won't have anything other than "connected to VPN a ton" to sell.

[beachbum111111]

I don't think anyone said it was. Whether it 'destroys' internet privacy is irrelevant as long as it's causing demonstrable harm.

Was internet privacy that bad in America before Obama got in office?

but it will be once net neutrality gets struck down like an unarmed black guy who raised his hands incorrectly in front of a cowardly white cop.

Hez a gud boi he dindu nuffin