Congress just cleared the way for internet providers to sell your web browsing history. It just needs Trump’s signature and I am guessing he will go ahead and sign it. I doubt he would veto it.
So, I was thinking, what about setting up an org that perfectly legally purchases the browsing history of all the politicians who voted for this rule and publish it on a website.
I’m sure this could be crowdfunded.
I wonder if they would re-think this ruling if it came home and bit them.
Thoughts?
Wow, that was quick. Thanks for pointing it out.
Great minds think alike.
To be precise, Congress just elected to retain the status quo. From your link:
Not saying it’s the right decision, but the distinction is real - ISP’s have always had the option to sell your browsing info.
As much as I hate coining post-XXXX words to describe the current situation, we do live in a post-privacy world.
Not exactly framed as a debate, but if the OP would like to debate please reach out. Until then I’ll move from Elections to IMHO.
[/moderating]
Unless I’m mistaken, I think the author and the Cards Against Humanity person are talking about two different things. That is, the CAH guy is talking about what’s going on right now and the author of the article is calling it Net Neutrality.
Like I said, I could be mistaken and there could be some overlap between Net Neutrality and ISPs being allowed to sell browser history, but not that I’m aware of.
Also, that’s another thing, the article says ‘browser history’, I assume what they actually mean is ‘items that you’ve requested and/or have been sent to you’, entirely (kinda) different than my browser history.
Would routing all traffic through a proxy eliminate any information to be gleaned from such data?
You need a private VPN in order to strip all identifying data from your entire Internet connection (all apps and ports)
And you need a proxy provider you can trust to not sell the same information you’re hiding from your ISP.
It comes down to a choice between who you know you can’t trust and who you only suspect you can’t trust.
Can you expand on this? I’m not sure I understand the difference
Yes, the new Law has changed nothing as it currently stands. It knocked down a admin ruling that had not yet taken force.
So the Title of this thread is wrong and alarmist… as are most of the artiles and blogs i have seen about it.
Mind you, I agree that such protection is important.
How long will it be until some elected official is claiming to have been hacked because they would never [insert unsavory thing here]?
Net Neutrality is basically just the concept that everyone that touches data shouldn’t do any more with it than check to see where it’s going and send it on it’s way, period. People against it argue that anyone that handles data (namely ISPs) should be able to do what they want with the data. For the majority of people what this comes down to is that you can get a 20mbps connection and everything will be perfect. You’ll be able to play games with your friends, everyone in your house can stream youtube and vimeo at the same time, but Netflix will never quite work. You’ll always feel like the picture could be better or maybe you never quite get through an entire show or movie with out it stopping to buffer. The reason being that they’re throttling the connection in hopes that you use their on demand selection instead OR that Netflix gives in and pays them to stop.
TLDR, Net Neutrality states that all data is treated equally, without it, an ISP gets to choose based on anything (including bribes/pay for play) which data gets priority.
What’s being discussed above isn’t net neutrality. I don’t know if it has a name, but it’s not that.
My impression was that ISPs required your consent if they wanted to sell your browsing history.
Whereas that consent would no longer be required under this ruling. So wouldn’t that indicate a big difference?
To be fair, there are those of us who think that Net Neutrality goes to far, and that there are some specific cases in which ISPs, various websites, and end users ought to be able to treat some data differently than other data.
It’s a nuanced point, but there are plenty of positions between “all bits are equal” and “corporate shill”.
Well, not really, see at no time have ISPs required your consent if they wanted to sell your browsing history. This was *going to be *a rule. But never actually was. The GOP got rid of the rule before it took effect. 
I am sure there will be great demand for ISP plans that will offer “we do not ever save your browsing history” for an extra $10/mo.
Do you think there will be such demand? I very much doubt it (though I am sure it will be offered).
What specific cases? What data could be treated differently? And why?