Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-charge-for-bandwidth-consumed-by-ads dept.

Stuck with Comcast? You may get stuck some more!

Ars Technica , Gizmodo, ZDNet, and a host of others are reporting that Comcast claims that the FCC has no authority to limit or prohibit the internet provider from distributing web histories to advertisers.

From the Ars Technica article:

As the Federal Communications Commission debates new privacy rules for Internet service providers, Comcast has urged the commission to let ISPs offer different prices based on whether customers opt into systems that share their data and deliver personalized ads.

Comcast executives met with FCC officials last week, and "urged that the Commission allow business models offering discounts or other value to consumers in exchange for allowing ISPs to use their data," Comcast wrote in an ex parte filing that describes the meeting. (MediaPost covered the filing yesterday.)

AT&T is the biggest Internet provider offering such a plan. AT&T's "Internet Preferences" program reroutes customers' Web browsing to an in-house traffic scanning platform, analyzes the customers' search and browsing history, and then uses the results to deliver personalized ads to websites. With Internet Preferences enabled, AT&T customers can pay as little as $70 per month for 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home service, but those who don't opt into Internet Preferences must pay at least $29 a month extra.

[Continues...]

The Washington Post adds:

Consumer groups who oppose Comcast have said that Internet providers have a unique vantage point over everything an Internet user does online. For example, Netflix's intelligence about its users is largely limited to what customers do on its own platform, with little visibility into how those same people watch videos on Hulu or Amazon. (Amazon.com founder Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.) Internet providers, however, can detect when a subscriber visits all three sites.

Many analysts expect the FCC to finalize its privacy rules for Internet providers this year. But there are a lot of details to be hashed out, including whether Internet providers will be able to share subscriber data by default with marketers or whether they will be required to first obtain customers' explicit approval.

It's still unclear whether Comcast has actual, concrete plans to roll out a discount, data-driven Internet program. But what is clear is that the company has at least considered the possibility and wants looser rules for the industry that would permit such plans. A Comcast spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gizmodo puts it succinctly: "Comcast has logged yet another tally in the competition for Shittiest Company In Existence."


Original Submission

Related Stories

FCC Approves Proposed Broadband Privacy Rules 13 comments

Techraptor is reporting on the adoption of these rules:

The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) has adopted new rules which broadband providers must adhere to regarding the privacy of customer data. The FCC has published a press release as well as a fact sheet which explain some of the details of the new rules. The FCC claims authority in this area based on the Communications Act, which requires telecommunications companies to protect the privacy of their customers. The FCC has already implemented rules governing privacy for telephone companies and is now applying the same standard to broadband providers.

The FCC has implemented rules requiring notifications of how ISPs handle customer data. ISPs must tell customers what types of data are collected, the purpose of any data sharing that takes place, and what types of entities the data is shared with. Customers must be informed of the data sharing policy when they sign up for the service, and receive notifications any time the policy is updated. Additionally, the rules require that the policy is “persistently” available either on a website or a mobile app.

The rules distinguish between sensitive data and non-sensitive data. Some of the examples given for sensitive data include precise geolocation data, financial information, social security numbers, browsing history, and the content of communications. Such information can only be shared with third-parties on an opt-in basis and customers must explicitly consent to the sharing. Data like email addresses are considered non-sensitive and can be shared by default, with the opportunity for customers to opt-out. The FCC allows exemptions to the consent requirements for some purposes. For example if sharing data is necessary to provide the broadband service, to bill the customer, or to protect an ISP from fraudulent use of its network.

More information can be gleaned from TFA, and unsurprisingly, the vote and approval of these rules has been widely reported, with coverage from USA Today, Consumer Reports and The Washington Post, among others.

Do these privacy rules go too far, not far enough or are they just about right?
Is this a boon for the privacy minded or just another blatant example of government overreach? Is it both at the same time?

Related coverage:
After Setback, FCC Chairman Keeps Pushing Set-Top Box and Privacy Rules
FCC Waters Down Internet Privacy Proposal
Comcast Wants to Charge for Privacy


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:22PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:22PM (#384119)

    So do they allow you to use a VPN? Seem like if they charge more to stop violating your privacy than a VPN service, the solution becomes obvious. Just install the VPN in your router (you don't use your ISP's bugridden crap, right?) so it protects all of your traffic.

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:31PM

      by edIII (791) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:31PM (#384157)

      They can't completely. You just need a business class service with them, and at that point, VPN away to your heart's content. Moreover, if they all disallow VPNs on residential lines there will be a large scale revolt. Considering how many businesses rely on residential VPNs like remote support desks at employees homes, I don't see Comcast having much success in banning the VPN. It's not merely computers, or even just routers, but Enterprise IP phones too. Grandstream IP Phones, even at their lower level offerings, all have OpenVPN built into the firmware. Businesses use that to establish some security on the phone line, while still placing it in a relatively unsecured residential network. Perhaps the real question may be, how *many* different VPNs will the ban at once?

      Yeah, spot on with the VPN. I unfortunately have Comcast at the moment (absolutely no other options worked; Tried them all, repeatedly) and am not worried either. All of my web browsing occurs in Norway, and anything really interesting is being transported along SSH tunnels protected with strong encryption back to me on Comcast's networks. They see random noise unless they've spent millions of dollars on hardware to do DPI against encrypted traffic to make their educated guesses as to what it is.

      I'm perfectly fine with having my bill lowered by $29 to willingly share with them all of my encrypted packets. Go nuts, dudes. Truthfully, I'm just shocked they're asking for permission in the first place.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:37PM

        by Pino P (4721) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:37PM (#384159) Journal

        Considering how many businesses rely on residential VPNs like remote support desks at employees homes

        Comcast would make the excuse that such homes should subscribe to business-class service.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:48PM

          by edIII (791) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:48PM (#384168)

          They can fucking go for it. The employees will tell their employers to compensate them for the connection costs, which may or may not be covered by the employer. That puts employers against Comcast, and they actually have means to make Comcast miserable. Like compensating their employees connection... at a possibly lower rate... with a competitor that allows VPNs.

          If they make it a business issue, they will reap what they sow.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Pino P on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:55PM

            by Pino P (4721) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:55PM (#384173) Journal

            The employees will tell their employers to compensate them for the connection costs

            Provided they even are employees. If they're contractors, employer^W clients will just tell them to eat the cost.

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:38PM

              by edIII (791) on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:38PM (#384183)

              That's a good point too. I don't see IT, especially guys like me, taking down an entire OpenVPN implementation simply because Comcast wants to be an asshole :)

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:45PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:45PM (#384234)

            *ears perk up* What is this "competitor" you speak of?

            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 05 2016, @12:27AM

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 05 2016, @12:27AM (#384320) Journal

              Well, if you can handle the latency I understand that satellite access if available in most places.

              --
              Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday August 05 2016, @03:56AM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday August 05 2016, @03:56AM (#384376)

                Well, most people wouldn't want to switch to satellite if cable is available. It's not even remotely comparable, which is why it's complete nonsense when monopolistic ISPs like Comcast like to claim they're not monopolies because satellite providers exist.

              • (Score: 2) by Marand on Friday August 05 2016, @06:26AM

                by Marand (1081) on Friday August 05 2016, @06:26AM (#384396) Journal

                Well, if you can handle the latency I understand that satellite access if available in most places.

                The latency, the ridiculously low bandwidth caps, and the frequent loss of all connectivity because of weather conditions. Oh, and you also get stuck behind carrier-grade NAT, so not only is it a pain in the ass to do anything requiring you open ports (VPN or gtfo, basically), you're also randomly banned or blocked from half the internet because people still think IP addresses are a good way to verify identity.

                And for all that, you still get price gouged (worse than even the likes of comcast) and terrible service, because they know if you're using them, it's because you have even less choice than the usual comcast-or-someone-else-shitty options.

                Fuck satellite internet, seriously. You're better off tethering to your mobile phone if it gets a signal. Hell, even dialup is better to use most of the time, except for shit like OS updates. And no, I'm not just talking out of my ass on this; I'm stuck using it right now and it's the worst goddamn thing for internet access. Don't even pretend it's a viable option for anything other than "I literally have no other choice."

                • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 05 2016, @06:39PM

                  by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 05 2016, @06:39PM (#384586) Journal

                  Thank you. I have no personal experience with it, and this time is the first I have heard such unfavorable reports. Previously it was all complaints about latency.

                  --
                  Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
                  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Marand on Friday August 05 2016, @09:13PM

                    by Marand (1081) on Friday August 05 2016, @09:13PM (#384627) Journal

                    I figure I'll elaborate on this, since most people have probably never had to deal with it. Also, I promise, the grumpiness of my post was aimed at satellite internet in general, not at you for mentioning it. :)

                    The latency is the first thing you notice, so it's the one that stands out for complaints, which is why it's the one that gets brought up first. It's also a much bigger problem than most people expect before dealing with it. Obviously, it ruins things like online gaming, but it also makes remote shells virtually unusable*.

                    It also has a huge impact on browsing, because you get that latency (~750-1500ms round-trip) on every domain you hit when loading a page. First, you get the delay for the DNS query, then request the data, then start to get it, then repeat that for every resource a page uses. That becomes a nightmare on modern sites that can hit dozens of sites, so a page load can still take 20-30s (or more) despite having a (supposedly) 10mbit connection. That's for a "normal" bloated as hell site, of course; something like SN loads a lot faster since it's not loaded with third-party shit. The providers try to offer various kinds of "acceleration" tricks, like compression and caching, but that's useless for HTTPS, dynamic sites, and sometimes it's even slower than normal if their server for it is overloaded (at peak hours, for example).

                    And, of course, that's all based on good weather. It gets even worse when the weather's foul; I've seen it get up to 90% packetloss and 50,000 ms (and higher!) pings during a storm. If it's snowing that's even worse, and any accumulation on the dish kills your connection until it either melts (which can take days) or you clean it off yourself. Which, depending on where the dish has to be installed to get line-of-sight, can involve icy roof climbing. (That's the situation here, except it's sometimes possible to clean the dish off from a second-floor window with a broom.)

                    That's the shitty stuff that's just flat out insurmountable. It's just part of dealing with satellite internet, the stuff you just can't get around, and it's already a deal killer, but then the ISPs make it even worse.

                    The handful of satellite ISPs all seem to give you about the same bandwidth caps, and have for years. It's slowly improved over time, but they move in lockstep, and the caps are barely better than mobile data plans. It's actually getting worse in some ways! The general setup is that you get a certain "data allowance" for most of the day, and then a "bonus" period at overnight hours, like I think it's 2am-8am right now for me. That bonus period used to be unlimited but they started enforcing a second data cap on it, so for example, I get 10GB/mo for the majority of the day, and 50GB/mo from 2am to 8am, for something like $60/mo (USD). Doubling that 10GB to 20GB would increase the price to something like $130/mo (USD) and it doesn't even improve the overnight bandwidth noticeably (if at all). And if you go over the cap you get throttled down to barely-over-dialup speeds, while still dealing with that awesome latency.

                    The idea there is you can schedule bulk downloads overnight and do your light use stuff during the day, but it doesn't work out well. Windows 10, for example, no longer allows scheduling overnight updates; it picks a time it wants and downloads then, and fuck you if you want anything else**. You can schedule Steam games to update overnight, but if a game has an update queued you lose the ability to play it for the day. (There's an override option but it's not reliable). And Steam itself will update whenever it damn well pleases, regardless of your schedule settings. Of course, you can't pre-download stuff from Netflix or other streaming services, and random one-off viewing of things on sites like YouTube is a pain in the ass like that. Sure, you can do it, but it sucks when someone goes "hey here's a thing! check it out!" and you have to go "Okay I'll download it tonight and watch tomorrow" :P

                    As for the carrier-grade NAT, I can't remember how it is among satellite providers, but it's been in use at this one for years and it's as annoying as you'd think. The IP banning thing is less common than it used to be but it still crops up sometimes. The real problem is you can't open ports, period, which blocks a lot of useful things. I had to start using openvpn to a VPS I pay for just to get something that basic to work again.

                    The modem's shit, too, and tends to need rebooting often. Not satellite-specific but it's not as easy to switch out for another one as far as I know, so hey, have fun losing your connection at "random". And by random I mean almost always during the 2am-8am bonus period, preventing you from using that "extra" cap you're supposed to have for updates and the like.

                    This isn't the first time I've been here; I just moved back to the rural area where my grandparents are, and am stuck on it again. It's really painful now, because I just went from one of the better options (fios) to one of the worst. I used to mitigate it some by using dialup at the same time and manually routing certain traffic over satellite, other traffic over dialup.

                    Yes, it's bad enough that I preferred the dialup most of the time the last time I was here. Sure, images took forever to load, but at least I had the text parts of the page while I waited; on satellite it's just blank space while waiting on the latency. Plus using noscript and an ad blocker helped cut a lot of the fat out.

                    * The latency is so bad that not even mosh [mit.edu], an ssh alternative made to deal with high-latency connections, helps very much. I had to start using mosh --predict=experimental to enable permanent local echo (very glitchy, visually) because the default prediction methods aren't sufficient.

                    ** You can set Win10 connections to "metered" and then they won't download updates at all. Good for bandwidth but bad for security. Unless you're on a wired connection, where the setting isn't available; wifi or gtfo. There's a registry setting you can change (and reboot after), which is a pain in the ass.

                    • (Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Saturday August 06 2016, @06:38AM

                      by edIII (791) on Saturday August 06 2016, @06:38AM (#384710)

                      I've been where you are; Satellite and ready to die. Ditto on how terrible it is, which is even more fun when you have 5 people wanting to experience the terribleness. Hooking up a Wi-Fi AP for guests almost seems sadistic personally. Trying to use a SSH connection to fix remote servers? Very difficult was my experience too.

                      How far are you from a normal land-based Internet connection? You could gauge interest and start a small WISP cooperative. I'm involved in that and we have some links that are 15-20 miles apart. It's all line of sight too, so you may need relays. All said and done though? Providing 8mb/s down and 2mb/s up standard and latency is typically under 40ms for everything. Main links are gigabit and very low latency.

                      If you don't want to go the coop route, and have line of sight to a friend with Internet, get yourself a pair of Mimosa's. It'll be pricey, but you'll be able to stream HD video from your friends media center and can saturate a FIOS connection :)

                      --
                      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                      • (Score: 2) by Marand on Saturday August 06 2016, @05:56PM

                        by Marand (1081) on Saturday August 06 2016, @05:56PM (#384800) Journal

                        Yeah, I'm sharing it right now too and it makes it even worse. :/

                        I'm not completely certain but I think I'm something like five or six miles from where the landlines stop. maybe up to nine, but that's probably the maximum, since that's about the distance to the middle of what passes for a town around here.

                        The real problem is it's a hilly area, lots of trees, and most of the land between here and broadband is owned by people that are just holding the land to keep anyone else from using it for anything, or people that don't care at all about internet access. So, getting anybody to cooperate for better connectivity is basically impossible, and there's no LoS to anything. Can't even get a mobile signal for a few miles around the house. :|

                        It sucks so much.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:14PM (#384245)

        Sure, yeah, we'll knock 29$ off your service if you sign something that lets us inspect all your traffic. We're also increasing the prices of all service by 40$ that month, in a total coincidence.

        - A recent ex-employee of Cocmast

    • (Score: 1) by shipofgold on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:41PM

      by shipofgold (4696) on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:41PM (#384225)

      I would think it is pretty hard to ban openvpn over port 443. That would be like banning HTTPS.

    • (Score: 2) by gidds on Friday August 05 2016, @03:39PM

      by gidds (589) on Friday August 05 2016, @03:39PM (#384501)

      This is probably an ignorant question, but isn't that just shifting the problem?

      If ISPs aren't trustworthy (and they clearly aren't), despite being paid, then why should VPN providers be?  They have exactly the same opportunities.

      --
      [sig redacted]
      • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday August 05 2016, @07:07PM

        by butthurt (6141) on Friday August 05 2016, @07:07PM (#384594) Journal

        Some people use VPNs to avoid geoblocking but others use them specifically to increase their privacy. If a VPN provider gets a repuatation for poor privacy practices, its customers can readily change to another provider.

        I suspect that a greater proportion of an ISP's customers (as compared to those of a VPN) won't care about their own privacy. Those who do care have few other ISPs to choose from.

        • (Score: 2) by gidds on Saturday August 06 2016, @08:23AM

          by gidds (589) on Saturday August 06 2016, @08:23AM (#384725)

          few other ISPs to choose from.

          Isn't that the problem, then, rather than any inherent security/privacy advantage of VPNs?

          (Here in the UK, that's not really an issue, as we can generally choose from a wide range of ADSL, cable, and wireless broadband providers.)

          After all, your traffic must hit the general Internet at some point, whether it's your ISP's connection, your VPN provider's connection, a Tor exit node*, or whatever, so you have to trust someone.

          (* The advantage of Tor being, AIUI, that that node can't tell who you are.)

          --
          [sig redacted]
          • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday August 06 2016, @10:11PM

            by butthurt (6141) on Saturday August 06 2016, @10:11PM (#384841) Journal

            With a VPN, one's ISP can't log the sites one connects to, nor can those sites log one's "real" IP address, which could be a clue to one's location. You're quite right to point out that the VPN provider does have that information. I suppose people chain VPNs to avoid that.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:23PM

    by Ezber Bozmak (764) on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:23PM (#384121)

    Right now they are charging for privacy. They just aren't collecting the fees themselves. If you use a big corporate ISP, you should already expect that they are spying on your traffic. Not only has verizon been caught doing it, [washingtonpost.com] they keep buying companies that are all about advertising. [bloomberg.com]

    If you want privacy from your ISP you have to go with a dedicated third party privacy service, aka a VPN. And for that you'll pay somewhere in the range of $40-$200/yr. (Not to be confused with 'free' VPNs that have privacy invasion as their business model.)

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:24PM

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:24PM (#384123) Journal

    AT&T's "Internet Preferences" program reroutes customers' Web browsing to an in-house traffic scanning platform, analyzes the customers' search and browsing history, and then uses the results to deliver personalized ads

    So how do they do that without intentionally compromising SSL on a massive scale?
    And even if they duped unwitting customers into opting into such a program, wouldn't that be a DMCA violation?
    .

    Get yee to http://www.lagado.com/proxy-test [lagado.com] young man!

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:28PM (#384127)

      > So how do they do that without intentionally compromising SSL on a massive scale?

      They give you a software package like all ISPs have been doing since time immemorial. Then they slip in their own certs as part of the package. If you don't install their package your SSL content, but not meta-data, is opaque to them. But that will be a minority of users.

      > And even if they duped unwitting customers into opting into such a program, wouldn't that be a DMCA violation?

      No.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Hyperturtle on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:24PM

        by Hyperturtle (2824) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:24PM (#384153)

        I concur with this...

        Their software, when installed on an old NT 4.0 member server I had been configuring a mix of SMS 2.0 and Support.com service infrastructure on as part of my home lab (it also was a NAT gateway, before I set up a real router to do it... this was some time ago...) actually overwrote my support.com topology and installed over it with a Comcast based support initiative that actually used the support.com program.

        It allows you to push software, do remote support--lots of things, not unlike SMS but in the same vein.

        I was unbelievably pissed because the tech that did the comcast install essentially said you have to install this in order to get stuff to work.

        The next time I had a comcast install (lightning blasted the leased modem...) I showed the guy a bunch of routers and he asked where he could put the disk. I said there is no CD drive on a cisco router. He asked how I install softare on it or surf the web. I said that its a router--I connect through it, I connect to Comcast with it, but I don't use it to actively access the internet.

        Then he demanded I plug a PC into the cable modem directly because it was in violation of their terms, and I asked him to just give me the details so I can type them into the NIC settings. He wouldn't aquiese until I told him he could leave the CD with me and I'd sign off on 'customer promised to install software later'.

        I have no doubts that they now put root certs and such on people's equipment -- it's harder to push that sort of thing onto a tablet (no cd rom drive right) but the comcast xfinity app probably requires it to change channels or something, so all of your household can get targeted ads if you install their apps..

        For all we know, the in-home wifi puts you on an SSL connection via a GRE tunnel to some dark lair where they analyze everything while showing the lock on your browser, provided you even are allowed to see if you are on an https connection anymore with their defaults.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Pino P on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:44PM

      by Pino P (4721) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:44PM (#384164) Journal

      For one thing, not all sites use HTTPS yet. Nowadays, the most common excuse for not deploying HTTPS [pineight.com] is that a site relies on third-party resources not yet available through HTTPS, such as the caniuse.com API [github.com] or ad networks.

      For another thing, the ISP can still see the full origin (scheme, host, and port) by inspecting the first packet or two. All supported major web browsers send the server name in plaintext in the Server Name Indication field of the ClientHello message. This way, the server knows which virtual host's certificate to use. The only browsers in more than negligible use that don't do this are Internet Explorer for Windows NT 5.1 "XP" and Android Browser for Android 2.3 "Gingerbread".

      • (Score: 1) by toddestan on Friday August 05 2016, @03:35AM

        by toddestan (4982) on Friday August 05 2016, @03:35AM (#384368)

        And even if everything is totally encrypted, they can still see what IP addresses you connect to, how often you do so, how much traffic gets sent, what time of day, etc. Also, if you use their DNS server, they'll know what sites you look up. So they may know precisely what you are doing, they'll have a pretty good idea how much shopping you do at Amazon, or how often you check Facebook, if you like to watch videos on Youtube, or if you like to use Google or Bing, whether you use Firefox or Chrome (based upon the servers those browsers ping to check for updates), and so on.

  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:35PM (#384130)

    Whenever we hear something new to 'break' the internet it seems that comcast is always at the forefront of it.

    The whole net neutrality thing came into being *because* of this company. The rest of them then doubled down on finding ways to screw over their customers to turn them into product.

    Here is an idea ISP industry. Find ways to deliver internet for faster and cheaper instead of trying to screw over your customers.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:05PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:05PM (#384144)

      > it seems that comcast is always at the forefront of it.

      I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there is a Comcast department titled "Profit Maximizing - Shady/Antisocial/Unethical division".
      Their business cards probably have their slogan: "If you can explain what you're doing, and still be allowed to finish Thanksgiving dinner, you don't belong here"

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:16PM

        by frojack (1554) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:16PM (#384147) Journal

        "If you can explain what you're doing, and still be allowed to finish Thanksgiving dinner, you don't belong here"

        Wouldn't those be exactly the type of people they want to hire from exactly the type of families the management came from?

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:20PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:20PM (#384150)

          I hesitated when formulating it, then decided that your drug-dealing human-trafficking serial-kidnap-rape-murdering family being ashamed of you was a proper selection criteria.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:52PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:52PM (#384193)

      Here is an idea ISP industry. Find ways to deliver internet for faster and cheaper instead of trying to screw over your customers.

      What a ridiculous idea. Why on earth would they want to do this? They don't have any real competition, so what exactly is the incentive?

      This is like asking Microsoft to make Windows cheaper and more privacy-respecting and bring back the UI that everyone liked the best. Why should they? Are you going to switch to another OS? Didn't think so.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @12:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @12:16AM (#384314)

        Are you going to switch to another OS?

        Am I going to do that? I already have. All of my computers run 100% free software.

        Most people? Nope.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:40PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:40PM (#384133)

    God, won't somebody just slap these guys and say NO YOU CAN'T CHARGE EXTRA FOR NOT FUCKING US OVER AND QUIT ASKING!

    "But but but...we reeeallllly want to ignore all these net neutrality rulings. Pleeeasse?"

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:09PM

      by richtopia (3160) on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:09PM (#384199) Homepage Journal

      Your looking at it wrong: Comcast sells private internet. However, they have a promotion that will discount your bill if they can sell your information to third parties.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:30PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:30PM (#384219)

        I'm looking at it the way they don't want me to, I'll admit. Which of the two viewpoints is "wrong" is open to interpretation; namely, what you think a reasonable price for the service is.

        If you think the "base price" before the Less Privacy Discount is reasonable, it's a discount.
        If you think the post-discount price is reasonable and the original one isn't, it's...I dunno, extortion or something. Admittedly using that word is rather combative.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by http on Friday August 05 2016, @05:01AM

          by http (1920) on Friday August 05 2016, @05:01AM (#384385)

          No need to fart around policing your tone of voice. It is appropriate to be combative in this instance.

          --
          I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:41PM (#384135)

    http://www.privateinternetaccess.com/ [privateinternetaccess.com] has been reliable for us. We don't use it all the time but it's ne ver been down and we've never heard anything suspicious. Maybe it's a giant honeypot, I don't know. But apparently so is your ISP.

    • (Score: 2) by Celestial on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:50PM

      by Celestial (4891) on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:50PM (#384140) Journal

      I like IPVanish [ipvanish.com]. It's very fast, reliable, and easy to setup. Unfortunately, it's also expensive. $10 per month for two connections. I currently have two accounts for four connections at $18 per month (three month discount).

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:12PM

        by frojack (1554) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:12PM (#384146) Journal

        Without even looking at their how-to page, why would you need two accounts for 4 connections if its all going though your home router which would be the only thing directly connected to them?

         

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:20PM (#384151)

          Alternate locations?

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:22PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:22PM (#384152) Journal

          Of course only Celestial can tell, but I guess he's also using the internet when not at home, so he needs at least one further connection for that; and then his phone provider probably disallows tethering, so he needs separate connections for his different devices (laptop, phone, and possibly a tablet).

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2) by Celestial on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:50PM

          by Celestial (4891) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:50PM (#384170) Journal

          1. Home router.

          2. My cell phone

          3. Another cell phone

          4. My notebook when travelling, (which is admittedly rare).

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Friday August 05 2016, @12:16AM

        by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday August 05 2016, @12:16AM (#384315)

        Why would you recommend a VPN provider that responds to DMCA takedown notices?
        This means it is a company based in the US, which means that a NSL (that is almost certainly in effect) completely invalidates any claims of privacy they could possibly make.

        At least, that is my understanding of one important aspect when choosing a VPN provider.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:58PM (#384141)

      I do use PIA all the time. They officially let you have 5 simultaneous links from different devices. In practice I put up about 10 different tunnels (with different end-points) all originating from my router and then each device behind my router gets a different tunnel. That makes it practically impossible to correlate my web browsing from my PC with my kid's browsing from her phone. I also switch end-points on a regular basis (my PC gets a new one every couple of hours).

      Unfortunately more and more services are implementing vpn "block lists" - not just netflix, but a few months ago bank of america started blocking me from logging into my account on their website if a I use a VPN end-point inside the US (PIA's got thousands of end-points all across the globe and I can still get in through a canadian end-point). Even worse though is that BoA and other sites do not tell you why you are blocked, you just get a generic error message at some point in the authentication process. So you might spend an hour shopping on a website, but when it comes time to check out then they fail you, but they don't tell you they failed you because they don't like your IP address, you just get something meaningless. Really fucking shitty customer experience.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:27PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:27PM (#384154) Journal

      But even your VPN provider has to terminate somewhere.

      Here we have a story about an corrupt up-stream harvesting your traffic,
      With a VPN, the harvesting just moves a few states away to some company using a different corrupt upstream.

      Pretty sure Snowden documented that just about EVERY VPN was totally compromised.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:34PM (#384158)

        > With a VPN, the harvesting just moves a few states away to some company using a different corrupt upstream.

        Unlike ISPs, competition in the VPN market is intense. Most can not afford to sell their paying customer's data because just a wiff of it and users will leave en masse. That's how the free market is supposed to work when not supported by natural or artificial monopoly.

        > Pretty sure Snowden documented that just about EVERY VPN was totally compromised.

        This is about protecting your privacy from commercial exploitation, not nation-state adversaries.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:51PM

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:51PM (#384171) Journal

          This is about protecting your privacy from commercial exploitation, not nation-state adversaries.

          Ah, I see. Encryption compromises have moral judgments built in. Who knew?!

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:50PM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:50PM (#384191)

            Care to share how you would go about it? I have the exact same worries with VPNs and would welcome alternative suggestions, or at least VPN suggestions that seem more trustworthy. When it comes down to it there is no way to verify a VPN, so you just have to trust someone.

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:19PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:19PM (#384203)

              It's almost a total crapshoot. All you can know for certain is that your ISP is collecting your activity. Just need to research VPN's and find one that *might* actually be deleting all your traffic. Either way, all your eggs are still in one basket.

            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:26PM

              by frojack (1554) on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:26PM (#384251) Journal

              If i was in a position to know how the NSA goes about this, I would be prosecuted for posting it.
              So you will have to google a bit and find some reading material.

              A generic discussion exists here https://www.bestvpn.com/blog/7525/nsa-decryption-vpns-update/ [bestvpn.com]
              But its a tad short on details. Others poo poo the idea and give long technical arguments why it
              can't be so: https://nohats.ca/wordpress/blog/2014/12/29/dont-stop-using-ipsec-just-yet/ [nohats.ca]

              Needless to say, the VPN company is in a position to inspect all traffic, and sell it on surreptitiously, perhaps unknowingly.
              And the UPSTREAM of the VPN company Gets both sides of the traffic, encrypted incoming from the vpn clients, and possibly decrypted outgoing to the requested site.

              Add to that the discussion the other day about binary blobs, and there is a lot to worry about and little to go on.
              Question: Why has nobody decompiled a binary blob? Are they also encrypted?

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:15PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:15PM (#384200)

            > Ah, I see. Encryption compromises have moral judgments built in. Who knew?!

            Risk assessment is not a moral judgment.

            Nation-state adversaries have the resources to compromise VPN providers. Drag-netting traffic for advertising purposes is not lucrative enough to justify the resources necessary to do the same. You might as well be arguing that no one should lock their front doors because the military has tanks.

            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:34PM

              by frojack (1554) on Thursday August 04 2016, @09:34PM (#384258) Journal

              Nation-state adversaries have the resources to compromise VPN providers. Drag-netting traffic for advertising purposes is not lucrative enough to justify the resources necessary

              A vulnerability, once in the wild, works equally well for both sides. This is why people arguing for backdoors for government because they personally "have nothing to hide" are so foolish and dangerous to have around.

              You don't ALWAYS need a huge processing capability to crack some forms of encryption. All you need is access. And that gets easier once you can foist some malware over the wire into the user's internal network. Somebody has that router's internal interface bookmarked in their browser, and may have firefox remembering the password. There are a probably thousands of ways to do this, and most of them are plausibly deniable. Do some reading.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:49PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:49PM (#384288)

                > A vulnerability, once in the wild, works equally well for both sides.

                Again, drag-net advertisers will not be breaking the law. The squeeze is not worth the juice.
                Please graduate past your simplistic, black-and-white argumentation.

    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday August 05 2016, @01:10AM

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday August 05 2016, @01:10AM (#384330)

      PIA is a US-operating company based in London which is almost certainly compromised by a National Security Letter or the British equivalent thereof, as Britain is in an even more dire privacy situation than us. Providers based in smaller countries are not beholden to DMCA or part of the Five/Nine Eyes system.

  • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:04PM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:04PM (#384176) Journal

    If they can block email ports under the guise of teh spamz, why not require a rate plan that includes not blocking VPNs for some similar reason?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:55PM (#384194)

    While it does not excuse the practice and they are scumbags, at least they wont get any data out of you.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:00PM (#384273)

    Glad I just switched the office from Comcast Business to fiber from the local Telephone Company a couple months ago. I haven't missed them one bit.

    Too bad I move this weekend - it's maybe 10 miles from the old place, but crosses the magic line between MediaCom and Comcast territory. Residential alternatives to cable internet can't get to my area fast enough.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @03:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @03:16PM (#384497)

    that's handy. now everyone who opts out of this "slavenet" is automatically on the "probably has something to hide" list. how convenient for the fascist pigs.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @05:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @05:27PM (#384555)

    theoretically, to abide by the FCC laws, this would be possible IF a certain COMCAST program would have to be used to access the "net".
    it would then be like accessing the free-open interwebz thru a comcast VPN and its version of a browser.

    any other program, email, web, irc, etc. etc would then not work thru this "advertisement" sponsored package, of course it would be dead at birth.