13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 13. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 29, 2017, 15:48 |
Orogogus |
|
|
| I don't see much in the United States section of that wiki article, other than some regulations pertaining to federal databases and specific states (esp. California). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 29, 2017, 15:43 |
Nimh |
|
|
Orogogus wrote on Mar 29, 2017, 15:35:
Nimh wrote on Mar 29, 2017, 10:05:
I did more reading on it.. apparently P2 data privacy rules still apply. It seems the main thing it does is allow your ISP to be like Google/Facebook now. (which still sorta sucks because using Googlebook is a choice, chosing an ISP much less so)
What's that? Are you referring to the UK's Data Protection Act?
It was basically saying that the data is scrubed of personal info per law. So I assume you become client #123456, who likes peanut butter, NASCAR and watches porn videos at 7:42 each Satuday. (not really a big difference, and you can still be targeted, just not by name/address. For now.)
Here's more on PII.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 29, 2017, 15:35 |
Orogogus |
|
|
Nimh wrote on Mar 29, 2017, 10:05:
I did more reading on it.. apparently P2 data privacy rules still apply. It seems the main thing it does is allow your ISP to be like Google/Facebook now. (which still sorta sucks because using Googlebook is a choice, chosing an ISP much less so)
What's that? Are you referring to the UK's Data Protection Act? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 29, 2017, 15:30 |
Orogogus |
|
|
maddog wrote on Mar 29, 2017, 15:04:
The way the dem bill/policy was written certain companies get to sell your info like they already do today but not others. This bill changes nothing except undoing democrats picking winners and loser in the advertising space. The spin on this is mind numbing and everybody is lapping it up. This bill is an effort to maintain free market principles.
I think that's a mischaracterization to the point of being an outright lie.
The policy designated information that was sensitive, like health information, financial information and SSNs, and made that opt-in across the board, not to be shared unless customers explicitly agreed. That protection is trash now.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1_Rcd.pdf
p13980, #178
The idea that companies like Google and Facebook were in a position to collect and sell your information the way an ISP can is just so stupid that it's hard for me to believe anyone who isn't paid would willingly regurgitate that pap. Google and Facebook use the data I choose to give them to target advertisements to me, but Charter and Comcast blatantly lobbied to take that data and sell it without asking permission. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 29, 2017, 15:04 |
maddog |
|
|
| The way the dem bill/policy was written certain companies get to sell your info like they already do today but not others. This bill changes nothing except undoing democrats picking winners and loser in the advertising space. The spin on this is mind numbing and everybody is lapping it up. This bill is an effort to maintain free market principles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 29, 2017, 10:05 |
Nimh |
|
|
I did more reading on it.. apparently PII data privacy rules still apply. It seems the main thing it does is allow your ISP to be like Google/Facebook now. (which still sorta sucks because using Googlebook is a choice, chosing an ISP much less so)
EDIT: p.i.i. (not P2)
This comment was edited on Mar 29, 2017, 15:53. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 29, 2017, 09:58 |
Agent-Zero |
|
|
Pigeon wrote on Mar 29, 2017, 09:53:
Nimh wrote on Mar 29, 2017, 09:28:
Is it just me or does this seem to really have far reaching implications? I mean now there is a physical name and address connected to everything your household generates online, and that is saved, bundled, parsed, and sold. So RIAA, MPAA? No problem. Even stuff like wholesale blackmail seems trival now, just buy a 1000 user records and send the porn users a pay-up or else letter.
HTTPS is a bit of a firewall, but really not much. And they will probably pull a Facebook/Google and pretend nothing is different and that "sharing with our partiners helps improve our service" EULA type bullshit.
Am I missing something?
Yes, Jesus was a profit, therefore profits are good and anything that gets in the way of profits are the work of the devil. If someone manages to buy the browsing histories of congressmen who voted to kill privacy rights and released that information to the public that would also be good.
but hey - at least they arent stealing the data - that would be wrong. stealing is stealing and its like, wrong and stuff.
this is just business. its totally legal, so its ok |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 29, 2017, 09:53 |
Pigeon |
|
|
Nimh wrote on Mar 29, 2017, 09:28:
Is it just me or does this seem to really have far reaching implications? I mean now there is a physical name and address connected to everything your household generates online, and that is saved, bundled, parsed, and sold. So RIAA, MPAA? No problem. Even stuff like wholesale blackmail seems trival now, just buy a 1000 user records and send the porn users a pay-up or else letter.
HTTPS is a bit of a firewall, but really not much. And they will probably pull a Facebook/Google and pretend nothing is different and that "sharing with our partiners helps improve our service" EULA type bullshit.
Am I missing something?
Yes, Jesus was a profit, therefore profits are good and anything that gets in the way of profits are the work of the devil. If someone manages to buy the browsing histories of congressmen who voted to kill privacy rights and released that information to the public that would also be good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 29, 2017, 09:48 |
Agent-Zero |
|
|
Nimh wrote on Mar 29, 2017, 09:28:
Am I missing something?
well there has been a large amount of precedent set against those kinds of litigation and blackmail trolls, so at the very least there is no leg for them to stand on in terms of legal rights in enforcing such activities
and in general that kind of thing has dwindled over the years as people learn the only necessary response is to ignore the letters and so forth..
but in terms of what kinds of "fresh new hell" will be generated from this, one can only imagine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 29, 2017, 09:28 |
Nimh |
|
|
Is it just me or does this seem to really have far reaching implications? I mean now there is a physical name and address connected to everything your household generates online, and that is saved, bundled, parsed, and sold. So RIAA, MPAA? No problem. Even stuff like wholesale blackmail seems trival now, just buy a 1000 user records and send the porn users a pay-up or else letter.
HTTPS is a bit of a firewall, but really not much. And they will probably pull a Facebook/Google and pretend nothing is different and that "sharing with our partiners helps improve our service" EULA type bullshit.
Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 28, 2017, 22:43 |
DangerDog |
|
|
| elected officials, hard at work for their constituents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 28, 2017, 22:35 |
Simon Says |
|
|
| All your data are belong to us |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Mar 28, 2017, 19:50 |
Cutter |
|
|
For those who think the parties are the same just look at the way they vote.
GOP - 215 for
Dems/GOP - 190/15 against
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Rmabo. John J.? Well what do you know? Ol' Harry here's a soldier." |
|
|
|
|
| |
13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
