Thorgalaeg
Deity
Isnt privacy a fundamental right in the US? Having to pay a plus to some foreign VPN provider to keep your fundamental rights as an american citizen is beyond Orwell's imagination.
[RD] American lawmakers/senators voting to take internet privacy away.
- Thread starter caketastydelish
- Start date
VicRatlhead5199
King
It is and should be, which is why this thing was snuck through with barely a whisper under the cover of Gorsuch's hearings, the AHCA, the collusion investigation and the uproar over Trump's bathorsehocky tweets about the Obama "tapp".
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
And if you press the republicans about it they will probably respond with Obama wiretap, democrats sank our healthcare bill, democrats blocking our judge, Obama this, democrat that and then start chanting USA! USA! USA!
Many operate entirely in prepaid mode. It's akin to a prepaid phone number, except it's an internet connection.
Berzerker
Deity
each time I hear the GOP is rolling back an Obama regulation, its something Obama did on his way out... Why did Obama wait 8 years to protect our data? Why did he wait 8 years to tell big coal they shouldn't be dumping in streams?
Why not make it legal for business to send investigators into our homes to survey what we buy? I hate the 2 parties...
Why not make it legal for business to send investigators into our homes to survey what we buy? I hate the 2 parties...
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Give it time and they'll be arguing that companies should be able to use smart devices to moniter users at all times and broadcast commercials 24/7 and any attempts to interfere with it should be illegal. Privacy is for commies/terrorists.
Berzerker
Deity
can we get a list of the politicians taking money from these special interests
Terrible, of course. Instead there should be legislation to take monitoring powers (or split the monopoly) from major sites (google, fb etc).
Google, in particular, has become dangerous. No one voted it into power, so it is pretty messed up that it can dictate terms to sites re content, and control search results.
Google, in particular, has become dangerous. No one voted it into power, so it is pretty messed up that it can dictate terms to sites re content, and control search results.
My guess would be by "abuse" he means people using the internet to conduct illegal activities. For example: if someone is using the internet to distribute child pornography, then their ISP should have stored enough information about that person and their internet activities to allow the authorities to track them down and stop them.
Sorry for this off-topic reply but I noticed the Russel Wilson avatar. Seahawk fan? I am a Tacoma native here.
VicRatlhead5199
King
https://www.privateinternetaccess.c...nternet-history-end-fcc-online-privacy-rules/
Best I could find with a cursory search. Looks pretty bipartisan but the big names on the list are all goop. Rubio, Cruz, Rand Paul. No wonder Cruz has been pushing so hard to end net neutrality.
Best I could find with a cursory search. Looks pretty bipartisan but the big names on the list are all goop. Rubio, Cruz, Rand Paul. No wonder Cruz has been pushing so hard to end net neutrality.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
Correct, I am a diehard Seahawk fan.
Sure they can by threatening to deny sites access to AdSense or AdWords, which many sites rely on as their main revenue stream. Hell, it even happened here on CFC. We had to stop doing the Babe/Hunk threads because of a fear that Google would no longer allow CFC to run Google ads if those threads continued.
Link to the relevant thread in case you think I'm making this up or misremembering the situation: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/babe-hunk-and-similar-threads.547200/
Sure sounds like Google dictating terms to sites in order to control their content to me.
So you admit that your previous statement of "Google can't do that" was wrong then?
Sure, but there are few advertisers out there who wield the power that Google does.
And for the record, we aren't just talking about Google not displaying their own ads, we are talking about them denying access to the programs that allow sites to run ads from any advertiser that uses Google for their web-based advertising (which is pretty much all of them). So in essence, Google has the power to say "you put up content we don't like and we will kill your site's revenue stream."
I'm not making a value judgement on whether or not that's a good thing, I'm just pointing out the fact that the statement that Google is unable to control what content sites put out is false. Sure, sites can do whatever they want in theory, but with Google being as powerful as they are, any site that doesn't play by their rules has almost no chance of being successful because Google won't let them run ads and will bury their site in the search results.
