Started By
Message

re: The ISP/privacy issue, the dilemma and "conservatives"

Posted on 3/29/17 at 6:44 pm to
Posted by bonhoeffer45
Member since Jul 2016
4367 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 6:44 pm to
quote:

4-5 choices traditionally doesn't equate to a free market in scope and competition. There's a ton of stuff they can signal to eachother they won't compete on, such as privacy.

You truly need wide open competition for the threat of someone crossing the ISP line to have a real impact.



And even that is not a guarantee when we saw what happened in the tech industry a few years back:

LINK

Tech giants colluded to keep labor prices artificially low by agreeing to not hire each other's workers.
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 6:45 pm
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
44120 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 6:45 pm to
quote:

And even if you don't, two wrongs make a right?


Of course not. Which is why I'm advocating all parties be subject to the same privacy requirements.

The FCC ruling did not do this. Therefore it was rightfully removed.
Posted by bonhoeffer45
Member since Jul 2016
4367 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 6:52 pm to
quote:

Not really. Maybe I want to go search what fricked up disease my buddy told me he had. The only thing the ISP sees is I went to WebMD. You need more info to tailor an add for Valtrex or whatever. Now WebMD on the other hand.....




You aren't giving enough credit to the ingenious of advertising companies and their data algorithms:

quote:

...a man walked into a Target outside Minneapolis and demanded to see the manager. He was clutching coupons that had been sent to his daughter, and he was angry, according to an employee who participated in the conversation.

“My daughter got this in the mail!” he said. “She’s still in high school, and you’re sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?”

The manager didn’t have any idea what the man was talking about. He looked at the mailer. Sure enough, it was addressed to the man’s daughter and contained advertisements for maternity clothing, nursery furniture and pictures of smiling infants. The manager apologized and then called a few days later to apologize again.

On the phone, though, the father was somewhat abashed. “I had a talk with my daughter,” he said. “It turns out there’s been some activities in my house I haven’t been completely aware of. She’s due in August. I owe you an apology.”


quote:

As Pole’s computers crawled through the data, he was able to identify about 25 products that, when analyzed together, allowed him to assign each shopper a “pregnancy prediction” score. More important, he could also estimate her due date to within a small window, so Target could send coupons timed to very specific stages of her pregnancy.


LINK
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 6:57 pm
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15899 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 6:59 pm to
quote:

The only thing the ISP sees is I went to WebMD


That's not the only thing they see if The site isn't using HTTPS. We have been over this
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 7:04 pm
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15899 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:02 pm to
quote:

You aren't giving enough credit to the ingenious of advertising companies and their data algorithms:

This^

Posted by montanagator
Member since Jun 2015
16957 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:09 pm to
Given that all 3 major ISPs also provide telephone service (2 of the 3 provide cell service as well)-- why not let them sell everyone's phone records- I mean bundling that with internet could get them even bigger profits?
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
44120 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:17 pm to
quote:

That's not the only thing they see if The site isn't using HTTPS. We have been over this




I said when they move to HTTPS. Which they will. Way before ISPs can monetize your herpes searches.
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
44120 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:18 pm to
quote:

why not let them sell everyone's phone records-


Because they're not allowed to? Just like a health care system can't sell your PHI?
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
44120 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:18 pm to
quote:

This^


Which is why you should be far, far more concerned about Google than ISPs.
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15899 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:39 pm to
quote:

I said when they move to HTTPS. Which they will.


And I said that's a shitty logic when considering privacy
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
44120 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:40 pm to
quote:

And I said that's a shitty logic when considering privacy



Logic has nothing to do with it. Historical trends do.
Posted by RBu
Birmingham
Member since Mar 2014
301 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:44 pm to
Is this a joke? ISPs already have complete access to your Internet data. They already give it away illegally. This is just so it can get even easier.
Posted by Captain Rumbeard
Member since Jan 2014
6144 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:46 pm to
quote:

Offline. If I physically drive down to the store, and use the same card to pay for groceries that I'm using to pay for my internet access, then yeah, they have that information.



You don't seriously believe that CC info isn't encrypted as it travels the intertubes do you? Sorry man, they have no idea and won't. Ever.
Posted by bonhoeffer45
Member since Jul 2016
4367 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:48 pm to
.
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 7:49 pm
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
44120 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:48 pm to
quote:

Is this a joke? ISPs already have complete access to your Internet data. They already give it away illegally. This is just so it can get even easier.



No, they don't. They have access to what IP you are immediately connecting to. That's it.

Unless you're stupid enough to transmit sensitive info via HTTP. I'm looking at you WordPress.
Posted by bonhoeffer45
Member since Jul 2016
4367 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:49 pm to
quote:


Logic has nothing to do with it. Historical trends do.


Honestly, what is your point?

Like can you lay out what your position actually is other then arguing technicalities?

Not to be a dick but I don't really even get what your point is anymore? Or if you have one you have laid out? All I can surmise from your posts is a feeling you are trying to argue that continuing to allow this is a 2 on a scale of 10 in terms of harm - instead of a 6 or 7 that you think others are selling it as - and therefore not that big of a deal or something.
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 7:54 pm
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15899 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:49 pm to
quote:

Which is why you should be far, far more concerned about Google than ISPs.
wrong. As of right now the info ISPs collect is more extensive
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15899 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:50 pm to
quote:

Logic has nothing to do with it. Historical trends do.


Yes it does bc certain private info is not protected until then.

This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 7:53 pm
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
44120 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:53 pm to
quote:

Like can you lay out what your position actually is other then arguing technicalities?


My point is that a rule was enacted that specifically targeted ISPs and held them to a higher privacy standard when it came to using user data to generate add revenue. A standard that major content providers like Google and Facebook did not have to. That is blatant abuse of government power to favor one industry over another.

I have no issue with the severity of the FCC ruling. What I do have an issue with is the FCC ruling restricting ISPs, but content providers get a free pass. Government dictating market advantage by fiat.
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 7:55 pm
Posted by bonhoeffer45
Member since Jul 2016
4367 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 8:04 pm to
quote:

My point is that a rule was enacted that specifically targeted ISPs and held them to a higher privacy standard when it came to using user data to generate add revenue. A standard that major content providers like Google and Facebook did not have to. That is blatant abuse of government power to favor one industry over another.



That is comparing apples to oranges as already explained to you.

quote:

I have no issue with the severity of the FCC ruling. What I do have an issue with is the FCC ruling providing applying to ISPs but not content providers. Government dictating market advantage by fiat.



Here you even acknowledge that the two are different categories of industry.

But basically you are mad that we don't regulate both as opt-in? So therefore we should just regulate none of them until then?

That is quite bizarre. Its like saying we shouldn't increase the hypothetical safety standards in the food processing industry that had numerous quality control problems until we address the hypothetical safety standards at the grocery stores simultaneously.

Furthermore, I think you need to explain how, if you stand by your last sentence, this creates a market advantage when one is a gateway internet company and one is a content company on the internet? Or just what market they are both operating in together that this advantages the other?
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 8:06 pm
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram