SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Full of confidence in Ajit Pai – the new boss at the FCC, America's communications watchdog – groups representing US telcos are seeking a repeal of the regulator's privacy rules.
Citing the appointment of Pai and the imminent decision to roll back the previous administration's net neutrality protections, industry groups now hope that the little requirement for an opt-in for the collection of user data will be frozen, if not done away with completely.
[...] "For over twenty years, ISPs have protected their consumers' data with the strongest pro-consumer policies in the internet ecosystem," the group writes.
"ISPs know the success of any digital business depends on earning their customers' trust on privacy."
Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/31/net_neutrality_dead_privacy_next/
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anubi on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:27AM
It is my belief that my privacy, along with copyright, is a thing of the past.
Neither are detectable, and all that can really be done are things like "poisoning the well" ( submitting false information to the info gleaners ), or obfuscation ( like encryption ).
Knowledge of how technology works, like knowledge of how to kindle a fire, is really hard to legislate control over. Whoever wants to practice this art will do it underground if rights enforcement agencies have an issue with it being done in the open. I guess what I am trying to say is I have no ability to enforce my privacy anymore, and neither does anyone else. No more ability than I have to enforce someone else they can't smoke a ciggie in their own house.
I may shake the hand of a Congressman to have it deemed illegal, but no-one can stop someone from doing it.
Trying to catch it being done is the real elephant in this room. For all of us.
Technology changes everything.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:09AM
> I guess what I am trying to say is I have no ability to enforce my privacy anymore,
You could say that about a million things.
Like food safety.
Building codes.
Air pollution.
Drug efficacy.
etc..
And yet we are able to enforce those things.
Privacy is no different
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:59AM
Quite true.
Food safety: I can detect spoiled food, trace it back to where it spoiled. Hold someone responsible.
Building Codes: I can inspect item to see if it meets requirements, if not, have them fix it or I won't sign off.
Air Pollution: Trace it back to the pipe its coming from. Hold the owner of the pipe responsible.
Drug Efficacy: Good one. No-one seems to know whether the chemical really works or not, or on who it works for. That's why we have to sign all these releases.
Anything involving our computer codes: its all "hold harmless". No one responsible. If its as much as "protected by an electronic lock", its even unlawful for us to even look at it. If you wanted to spill the beans above the table, make sure the people you do business with have agreed that you will share the info "only as permitted by law", while having Congressmen pen law that you can share it with anyone you have a "business relationship" with..... i.e. they provided you with a "valuable consideration" for the data. Simply print on your business agreement things like " can you limit this sharing? NO ".
People are incredibly tolerant of signing away anything when the salesman has done a good job, and they feel they just gotta have this thing.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @08:42AM
We aren't able to enforce those things. Enforcement is getting weaker and weaker as time goes on. There are so many products out there and the enforcement agencies get their resources cut again and again that all you need to do to get around laws is to create a company, sell an illegal product, then close the company before the law can catch up with you. Then the next day you create a new company and re-market the exact same thing but with a different logo.
Other companies that want to stick around longer swap over to legal products when the regulators are looking and then switch back to illegals when they aren't.
When was the last time you were able to verify the ingredients on something? That it had only what was listed, in that ordered quantity, with the listed nutrient quality. There are plenty of news stories demonstrating those labels aren't fully reliable.
Just like privacy, you only have the illusions. How much data does Cloudflare have on you? They're 'on' more sites than Google or Facebook.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:25AM
When was the last time you were able to verify the ingredients on something?
When was the last time you tried? Doesn't do much good to complain about something, if you're not taking the effort to do something about it.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday February 02 2017, @12:09PM
When was the last time you were able to verify the ingredients on something?
Only last week, when I found out that some fucking drug addict had cut my cocaine with Saniflush. Had to get the nurse to send the boy out to fill an RX on the double...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @12:36PM
> We aren't able to enforce those things. Enforcement is getting weaker and weaker as time goes on.
(1) Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
(2) We are able to enforce them, the fact that vested interests have been chipping away at our collective will to enforce them is not proof that they are unenforceable, they are proof that guys like anubi are useful idiots to those vested interests.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:18PM
Yeah, however bad the situation is now, the 'we can't perfectly solve every problem so let's give up completely' people are just making it even worse. I tend to think that making a problem even worse than it already was is a bad thing, for some reason.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @01:05AM
As a perfectionist, thank you for reminding me of that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by acid andy on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:54AM
+1 Depressingly Accurate.
I thought it could still be saved but the percentage of the populace that even slightly cares about this stuff is absolutely miniscule (especially when compared to the sorts of issues my sibling AC has raised). Worse than that, more of the people who actually DO care about it have been utterly and successfully brainwashed into actually WANTING the processes that are eroding these rights.
Seems like a whole new civilization is about the only way this stuff would ever be reversed now. I hope I'm wrong.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @01:34PM
Despite of thousands of years trying, we've still not managed to stop murder. People get murdered every day. Thus following your logic, all that legislation against murder is useless, right?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 02 2017, @07:34PM
Terrible analogy. The State has a real interest in deterring murder, and other such violent crimes, for many reasons (social stability, economic progress, etc.). However, the State has zero interest in protecting your privacy, in fact quite the opposite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @02:45AM
> However, the State has zero interest in protecting your privacy, in fact quite the opposite.
That's like saying the state has zero interest in the prosperity of the citizenry.
It is a short-sighted, ultra-reductive take on life that says more about your nihilism than it does about the values of a modern democracy.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 03 2017, @03:38PM
Wrong. You're making the claim that privacy for citizens will somehow necessarily result in greater prosperity. That's a specious argument, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I could make precisely the opposite claim that having no privacy at all will increase privacy, and I can point to factories throughout history where workers had no privacy from managers who watched them at all times to make sure they weren't slacking on the job.
Personally, I like my privacy, but I'm not about to make up utterly baseless claims about how it's beneficial to society, or that the state would have any interest in it when that is quite obviously a bald-faced lie, as evidenced by the current surveillance state (NSA spying, etc.). In fact, I don't know of any major government now that doesn't spy on its citizens somehow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:07PM
It is my belief that my privacy, along with copyright, is a thing of the past.
Neither are detectable, and all that can really be done are things like "poisoning the well" ( submitting false information to the info gleaners ), or obfuscation ( like encryption ).
This sounds very much like "how could the FBI have read through 6GB of emails in 1 day?" It sounds very reasonable, unless you happen to actually know the field.
For example, imagine you and 10 other people want to find out the average of how much you all earn in salary, but none of you want to tell the others how much you make. That's impossible, right? Until you know how to do it.
If you want to maintain your privacy (noting that privacy is a sliding scale, rather than a binary yes-or-no), then you can do so. Pay for things in cash, don't register on websites, use TOR/Tails or public access points like libraries, etc. Yes, it's more trouble, but such is life.
Copyright is absolutely a thing. If you doubt it, try starting a business selling unlicensed copies of Harry Potter books and see what happens.
If you were arguing from a social perspective that the general public doesn't value privacy and copyright and thus they are doomed... sure. I could potentially agree with that. If you are arguing from a technology perspective, though, I think you are (-1: Wrong).
(Score: 1) by anubi on Friday February 03 2017, @11:17AM
The very same way I search through exabytes of information on the web to glean information of how to control the solenoids on the transmission of my van. Electronic searching. In my case.... Google.
They pick someone they want to run a trace on, and they probably know everywhere that guy has been and who he's talked to.
Looks quite useful for picking someone out for special treatment - legally.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday February 03 2017, @09:28AM
all that can really be done are things like "poisoning the well" ( submitting false information to the info gleaners ), or obfuscation ( like encryption )
I like Schneier's taxonomy: avoid, distort, block, break.
I highly recommend his article Data and Goliath: Four Ways You Can Protect Yourself From Digital Surveillance. [huffingtonpost.com]