Closed Thread
Page 510 of 541 FirstFirst ... 460 500 508 509 510 511 512 520 ... LastLast
Results 10181 to 10200 of 10811
  1. #10181
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    18,263
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Aye, I've never lived in a building with multiple realistic options. This is a strange, grey area. Most people agree that records should be kept and provided to law enforcement if they can come up with the subpoena. As long as they're kept, employees can abuse the records and creepy stalker shit can occur, so that's not really the question here. The question is whether the information can be packaged (hopefully anonymized) and sold to private companies.

    I'm in favor of it not being done because I fucking hate advertisements. The real way this changes the world is that it makes your ISP the player with the most complete snapshot of you as a potential consumer. They will either sell this data (hopefully using an anonymous-but-consistent identifier) either to advertising companies directly or they'll bring the data analysis in house and sell the access to potential consumers. Not really creepy stalker shit per se (because it's unprofitable), just more "weirdly targeted ad" shit. I bet they're aiming for the second option, which would also let them associate you with a mailing/phone address. They're trying to get themselves some of that Google money.

    Right now you pay an extra $30/mo and get to opt out of having your data collected. Imagine a future where base internet costs $30/mo less, but you can also pay $100/mo more and get to avoid having every 3rd webpage load an unskippable, targeted avert. This would be analogous to moving from a classified ads model (current) to a TV ads model (future).
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  2. #10182
    C A P S UNLEASH THE FURY
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    6,939
    BG Level
    8

    Quote Originally Posted by Byrthnoth View Post
    The question is whether the information can be packaged (hopefully anonymized) and sold to private companies.
    This might have been "the question" like 20 years ago, but this is the foundation of a non insignificant portion of our economy right now.

    Why do you think 99% of Google is free, and why their name has become eponymous with Internet searching? How were they able to do this?

    They package and sell everything.
    So do almost every other service provider. I continue to fail to see how ISPs should legally be considered any different.

    Further, the illusion of choice with your ISP doesn't really do it for me either. That's a separate issue. We do have an ostensible duopoly that creates a load of concerns, but let's not pretend like it has anything to do with the data collection. That's already being done everywhere else in your life, and there is no real-world scenario where we would have healthy competition between the data collecting ISPs and the morally conscious ones who don't. The latter would cease to exist, because they can't compete, because they're generating half the revenue of the other companies. So it's either got to be acceptable for everyone or acceptable for no one.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  3. #10183
    Renegade Philosopher
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,551
    BG Level
    7

    Two White House officials helped provide the intelligence reports that Nunes saw on WH grounds.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/u...e-reports.html

    One is a guy brought on by Flynn, the other is a former staffer who worked under Nunes.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  4. #10184
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    18,263
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Quote Originally Posted by Xajii View Post
    This might have been "the question" like 20 years ago, but this is the foundation of a non insignificant portion of our economy right now.
    No, legally the question is whether ISPs can do that. I'm not saying they weren't (the FCC rule hadn't taken effect yet) or that other groups don't already do it (like Google).

    Still, we haven't seen the full extent of ISP-level advertisement yet. When it hits, which I assume it eventually will, it will be a very different ballgame from content provider-based advertisement because it has the potential to be unavoidable. Comcast could see your http request and give you back an advertisement, ignoring further requests until their advertisement is done. It's a fundamentally different advertisement model when you can make ads unavoidable. Content providers (like Hulu) have tried to go this path but adblockers have mostly thwarted them. However, they now wait with a black screen (at least for me) for the length of time the ad should take to run. Imagine if the entire internet was that way. Now imagine that you have one option for internet and it doesn't provide a reasonable "pay more to opt-out of ads" option.

    'member Cable TV?

    Pepperidge farms remembers.

    I'm sure the cable companies (now ISPs) do too.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  5. #10185
    Atheist Douchebag.
    Pony Slayer of the House of Weave

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    20,861
    BG Level
    10
    FFXIV Character
    Zetanio Breaux
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Odin

    I have found a bright spot in this (For me at least). The Acting Chairman of the CFTC and current Trump nom to run the CFTC, Chris Giancarlo, basically said they are going to simplify and actively manage enforcement of derivative products and swaps regulations. He's qualified and understands the markets. This is a big win for my company as I've spent probably 600 hours over the last 3 years attempting to jump through hoops of retardedly worded policy bullshit in order to build products. The attention to capital requirements and swap market reform is fundamental for getting markets working efficiently again. I should note that I agree with nearly all of Dodd-Frank in theory, in practice they went full Gump on the actual writing.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  6. #10186
    I'll change yer fuckin rate you derivative piece of shit
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,606
    BG Level
    10

    Hero journalist Ashley Feinberg finds James Comey's secret twitter account: https://gizmodo.com/this-is-almost-c...unt-1793843641

    (nothing particularly interesting other than the sleuthing to find it)
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  7. #10187
    Yoshi P
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    5,151
    BG Level
    8
    FFXI Server
    Quetzalcoatl

    Quote Originally Posted by Xajii View Post
    Why do you think 99% of Google is free, and why their name has become eponymous with Internet searching? How were they able to do this?

    They package and sell everything.
    So do almost every other service provider. I continue to fail to see how ISPs should legally be considered any different.
    There are fundamental differences.

    1. Google and facebook can only see what you do when you are on their sites, or partner sites (such as pages that use their services)
    2. You can choose to not use Google and Facebook.
    3. ISP has a much, MUCH deeper view of what you do than Google does, in part because of reason 1.
    4. An ISP has much deeper control of your Internet connection than Google, Facebook etc.
    5. Google and Facebook are free, unlike an ISP.

    I could agree with an ISP being allowed to freely sell your data, if the ISP was a free service.

    This ruling means the following:

    1. They can sell your data for marketing purposes. This is what everyone assumes will happen. However, it goes much deeper than that.

    2. An ISP can legally and freely hijack your searches. This means that, for example, if you search for apple, they can hijack the search to only show sponsored results. They could also redirect you instantly to Apple's website directly, instead of showing the search result.

    3. They can insert their own ads to websites based on your search history and browsing habits.

    4. It gives them the right to preinstall software and bloatware on your phone, in order to see everything you do — including messages you send, your contact list, and pictures.

    5. It gives them the right to inject undetectable trackers on all of your internet connected devices, so that they (and anyone else, for that matter) can track everything you do on the internet.

    Additionally, this puts ISP:s in the unique position of not having any oversight, nor any regulations. When Obama passed the law back in December, he passed the power to the FCC, and when the law is repealed, it does not automatically make them fall back to the old system. This new resolution also removes the law that ISP:s have to be careful with your information, and also makes it so that they do not have to inform their customers if they have any breaches or hacks, nor do they have to inform their customers if their personal information has been hacked. Essentially, they could, legally, put everything on line for everyone to see if they wanted to.

    How would you feel if your phone company worked like the NSA, but used all of the information they gathered to insert ads in the middle of your phone calls? How would you feel if you were talking to your mother about your sister's funeral, and suddenly an add for nearby funeral homes started playing in the middle of your phone call, or if you suddenly started getting brochures home about nearby cemeteries and funeral homes? This is essentially what you're arguing that your ISP has the right to do. If your ISP should have the right to do this, why should your telephone company not have the right to do the same thing?
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  8. #10188
    Pandemonium
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    7,826
    BG Level
    8
    FFXI Server
    Quetzalcoatl

    Quote Originally Posted by Quicklet View Post
    Two White House officials helped provide the intelligence reports that Nunes saw on WH grounds.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/u...e-reports.html

    One is a guy brought on by Flynn, the other is a former staffer who worked under Nunes.
    the younger guy is also the guy that the administration kept on after mcmasters wanted to get rid of him.

    this shit is all adding up to be some fucked up plot. how unfortunate that it's actually fucking real life.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  9. #10189
    Renegade Philosopher
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,551
    BG Level
    7

    It's pretty clear they're trying to derail investigations into them.

    The question is whether this ends up being a Watergate where it takes them down, or a Bridgegate where a few staffers/employees take the fall while the top people maintain plausible deniability.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  10. #10190
    Caesar Salad
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    17,801
    BG Level
    9

    Quote Originally Posted by archibaldcrane View Post
    Hero journalist Ashley Feinberg finds James Comey's secret twitter account: https://gizmodo.com/this-is-almost-c...unt-1793843641

    (nothing particularly interesting other than the sleuthing to find it)
    I believe this only because one of the few non political likes from that account is on ESPN, and wasn't it Comey that made football remarks when talking to the House last monday?
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  11. #10191
    C A P S UNLEASH THE FURY
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    6,939
    BG Level
    8

    @Byrth
    See, this is actually a perfect example of shitty governance that targets the wrong part of the problem because it's too difficult to tackle the actual issue.

    I really can't find a legal reason why an ISP shouldn't be allowed to inject advertisements in exactly the way you describe. We let every other business do it, paid service or no. (* I'm no lawyer, so there could be a caveat here about the classification of the Internet as a service, but I have done a fair bit of research on the matter and this is where I've arrived.)

    So ostensibly the reason it hasn't happened up until now is that it's not attractive to the market, and it would be a risky business move. Then why does it seem so possible right now? Because for the past 10-15 years we've seen ISPs behave the way you behave when you don't actually have any competition. Rubbin' their nipples and tellin' you they're sorry, and go elsewhere, but oh wait - there is no one else.

    What I'm trying to say is that if ISPs were actually operating within how capitalism should operate, all of this would be a non issue, because the market would say "fuck you" to anyone who tried to shove ads in their browsing without a significantly reduced price (that being said, you'd better believe some people would pay a reduced rate to see an ad-included Internet.)

    To say there is no oversight is silly. They did not abolish the FCC.

    I just don't support any legislation that targets the wrong part of a much larger problem, especially when it seems pretty basely unconstitutional.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  12. #10192
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    18,263
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Quote Originally Posted by Xajii View Post
    @Byrth
    See, this is actually a perfect example of shitty governance that targets the wrong part of the problem because it's too difficult to tackle the actual issue.

    I really can't find a legal reason why an ISP shouldn't be allowed to inject advertisements in exactly the way you describe. We let every other business do it, paid service or no. (* I'm no lawyer, so there could be a caveat here about the classification of the Internet as a service, but I have done a fair bit of research on the matter and this is where I've arrived.)

    So ostensibly the reason it hasn't happened up until now is that it's not attractive to the market, and it would be a risky business move. Then why does it seem so possible right now? Because for the past 10-15 years we've seen ISPs behave the way you behave when you don't actually have any competition. Rubbin' their nipples and tellin' you they're sorry, and go elsewhere, but oh wait - there is no one else.

    What I'm trying to say is that if ISPs were actually operating within how capitalism should operate, all of this would be a non issue, because the market would say "fuck you" to anyone who tried to shove ads in their browsing without a significantly reduced price (that being said, you'd better believe some people would pay a reduced rate to see an ad-included Internet.)

    To say there is no oversight is silly. They did not abolish the FCC.

    I just don't support any legislation that targets the wrong part of a much larger problem, especially when it seems pretty basely unconstitutional.
    How would you formalize and target the "much larger problem" there?
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  13. #10193
    C A P S UNLEASH THE FURY
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    6,939
    BG Level
    8

    Quote Originally Posted by Byrthnoth View Post
    How would you formalize and target the "much larger problem" there?
    I'd have to look into what types of antitrust suits have already come and gone, because there are a lot of them. In theory there are a slew of legislative and regulatory actions that can take place to foster competition and break up monopolies/duopolies/whatever, but this battle already has a lot of history, and I ain't gonna pretend like I know it all.

    We also have a horrible Supreme Court ruling to grapple with; NCTA v. Brand X absolutely murdered this industry, and I'm not convinced the Supreme Court realized what they did at the time. I'd love to revisit that one.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  14. #10194

    Quote Originally Posted by archibaldcrane View Post
    Hero journalist Ashley Feinberg finds James Comey's secret twitter account: https://gizmodo.com/this-is-almost-c...unt-1793843641

    (nothing particularly interesting other than the sleuthing to find it)
    Boston bombing: How internet detectives got it very wrong
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  15. #10195
    I'll change yer fuckin rate you derivative piece of shit
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,606
    BG Level
    10

    :eyeroll:
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  16. #10196

    Quote Originally Posted by archibaldcrane View Post
    :eyeroll:


    It's a single person doing some investigating as to being crowd sourced, and there's a definite train of logic that I can understand. Additionally, getting someone's "anonymous" twitter account is, in the long term, relatively harmless.

    But I retain skepticism of such things when it comes to internet sleuthing just because of how easy it is to be wrong and be sent off a pointless rabbit hole. I don't get the benefit of it.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  17. #10197
    Yoshi P
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    5,151
    BG Level
    8
    FFXI Server
    Quetzalcoatl

    Quote Originally Posted by Xajii View Post

    To say there is no oversight is silly. They did not abolish the FCC.

    I just don't support any legislation that targets the wrong part of a much larger problem, especially when it seems pretty basely unconstitutional.
    See, this is where you're wrong. Most people would believe so, yes. However, this resolution also forbids the FCC to make any regulations regarding ISP:s in the future.

    Just a little something they slipped in there. You know, because why not.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  18. #10198
    I'll change yer fuckin rate you derivative piece of shit
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,606
    BG Level
    10

    Mike Flynn offers to testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-fl...12959?mod=e2tw
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  19. #10199

    sounds tasty
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  20. #10200
    RNGesus
    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    28,636
    BG Level
    10
    FFXIV Character
    Lenette Valkyr
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh

    itsfuckinghappening.treason


    Sorry, had to steal the best comment from reddit.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  


This thread is HUEG! You might want to consider creating a new thread.


Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • Decrease Size
    Increase Size
  • Remove Text Formatting
  • Insert Link Insert Image Insert Video
  • Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
  • Insert NSFW Tag
  • Insert Spoiler Tag