Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register
The Offical Matrix Groupchat is online! >>CLICK HERE<<

Podcast: Digital Rights - US Senate votes to allow ISPs to sell your data. (Patreon)

Published:
2017-03-29 12:00:34
Imported:
2021-03

Downloads

Content

Here's another brief "what does this mean" in regards to your digital rights.


The US Senate recently voted to nullify FCC regulations that would have prohibited ISPs from selling your data.   Lets discuss.

Support the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

https://www.eff.org/


Files

Comments

Anonymous

So my understanding of this situation after reading the relevant resolutions and FCC rule is as such: When the FCC pulled their 3-2 vote last year to reclassify ISP's as 'common carriers' this moved the regulation and adjudication of internet privacy concerns under the auspice of the Communications Act of 1934 and thus the FCC and out of the hands of the FTC who prior to this were responsible for prosecuting privacy violations in a reactive fashion. The new January rule that these resolutions refer to seems to be less of an overreach in and of itself as much as it is a direct consequence of the overreach taken by the FCC last year when they decided to unilaterally classify ISP's as common carriers. In practice, there's no reason such a rule should need to exist in the first place as the rights to privacy are obvious, though given the schizophrenic nature of the courts (as well as the outright malfeasance by certain AG's) recently I can understand the need for clarification. This is complicated though by the fact that the courts are already in conflict towards the idea that regulatory agencies get to arbitrarily decide what their regulations mean and how they apply, this fight has already happened with the EPA under Obama and now it would seem to be expanding to the FCC as well. So even if this rule was intended to protect, the fact that it comes from the FCC effectively renders it a pointless measure. Rather than the FCC and other agencies trying to govern unilaterally without the consent of the governed, or Congress deciding to attack Obama era policies piecemeal in such a way that obviously benefits certain lobbyists, it would seem that the real issue is the Communications Act of 1934 as well as the scope and the role of the FCC in and of itself. The obvious problem though is that any tweaking to the current house of cards that has been built wouldn't be worth the political capital one would need to expend to actually try and fix these problems. Put more succinctly in folksy metaphors, it seems that the Obama administration tried to put another story on a building without consulting an engineer first and now that the whole thing is collapsing Trump Republicans are trying to fix the leaks in the roof.

Anonymous

I would certainly be interested in hearing more of this type of content.

Ron Johnson

Karl, Wanting to comment on this video, did in fact push me over into becoming a Patreon member of In-Range. I had been on the cusp for a while, but decided to jump in rather than having to deal with the garbage can of YouTube comments. I worked in the ISP industry as a network engineer for 20 years. I am in large enterprise now, I left that world in 2015. Some years ago, the discussion came up at the ISP I was employed by, concerning the collection of meta data for sale to an advertisement firm. The executives had been approached, and management asked us for opinions (Which is unusual ). I wrote a nice paper on this, and why I felt it was a poor idea. I couldn’t write from a perspective of wrapping myself up as a privacy advocate, but I could write on angle the executives did pay attention to, revenue. I outlined that yes, we had intercept and collection capabilities at hand because of (CALEA) requirements. However, the cost of expanding this to collect meta data from the entire user base in real time and not just the small number warrant processing we were currently doing would amount to a significant capital cost in providing the necessary hardware to archive and process the data. I also made that case that significant uplink bandwidth that otherwise could be sold to customer use would be consumed by this continuous data collection. I opinioned that Google was already the masters of this kind of meta collection and targeting, and that implementing this service would put us in direct competition of their business model. Finally sneaking in the privacy advocate angle, I broached that if this collection activity was discovered by our customer base there would be substainual erosion to monthly reoccurring revenue. I feel that my company made the correct decision and rejected the idea of collecting our customers meta data. They concluded that risk verses reward did not make a business case for proceeding. However, they did go ahead with DNS type redirection. Where if a query arrived, and resulted in NX DOMAIN the DNS would respond to that query with an IP address to a portal of targeted advertising which is less intrusive but still rankled me. I had run my own DNS server for years, so I evaded such things. Now, onto why I don’t want the FCC involved in these decisions. Given prior experience with legislation which initially feels good. It ultimately ends of fouling up the works. The prime examples are Sarbanes/Oxley which directly impacted my company, and added a whole lot of extra paperwork to my job. The expansion of the interpretation of that legislation rolled on and on into more intrusive and expensive processes. My second example of feel good turned to pile of crap is the TSA. We didn’t get better security at airports because of the TSA, we just got more onerous security. I see the interpreted expansion of the FCC rules barring an ISP from collection of meta data for even statistical reasons. Often a ISP when negotiating peering agreements would want to present what kind of traffic mix is flowing towards this peering partner, to leverage the relationship. Such as showing how many users of their network use Netflix. Another possible expansion of this regulation would be to stymie methods used to trace malfeasance of the ISP’s network. Such as theft of services or DDOS, or SPAM. Things that would not have a law enforcement warrant, but the company would want to stamp out in their own interests. My final point is that no good regulation goes unpunished. Government regulation of a business is almost always a reverse Midas touch, or as the saying goes, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. Regards, Ron Johnson

Anonymous

Good talk Karl I think myself and others in the gun community could learn form these. keep doing please.....

Anonymous

Very helpful, these kind of videos are very valuable to the 2a community as we often believe in the sovereign individual over government control

Anonymous

What does it mean? That we are fucked, and the election of Donald Trump meant nothing because they will keep wiping their asses on the Constitution.

Anonymous

Absolutely Karl, keep it up