The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Internet Privacy and Consumer Protection in Trouble? Options
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:32:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,730
Neurons: 34,381
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-votes-let-isps-sell-your-data-without-consent-n737921

Is this important?



A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:14:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,730
Neurons: 34,381
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I thought more people would be interested in this issue.

A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, March 26, 2017 12:01:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,796
Neurons: 41,146
Hi Hope,

I think it all depends on the type of data collected. It is an already established fact that our usage is collected and sold for advertising dollars. Many people download apps onto their phones that fulfill just that purpose. That's why many of the apps ask permission to use location services in order to work properly. But those doing the collecting say that no personally identifying info is attached, and I'm sure they wouldn't lie...Anxious

I wish I had caught his name, but just a day or so ago, I saw an interview with a man who worked 30 years in the intelligence field and at the NSA (National Security Agency) who said there was NO privacy anymore and hasn't been for quite some time; that ALL data is being collected and stored by the NSA.

That doesn't bother me so much as the idea that at some time in the future, that information could be used against us. But the government wouldn't spy on us would they? Or ever use it against us, would they? N-a-w-w. We can trust them. After all, they never lie.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:35:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,730
Neurons: 34,381
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
So nobody except FD was interested in this. Is that because there is nothing we can do about it anyhow? Or it has been accepted as FD says that everything is being collected anyhow by the NSA? All data in the world?

But this vote is to rescind rules passed last year during Obama's administration - in effect T is removing a regulation put in place to protect consumers.

"Lawmakers voting in favor of the resolution want to keep the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing rules passed last year that would ban internet, cable, and mobile providers from selling your data without your consent."


Is it just US ISP's or will it affect the whole internet?

"A controversial measure that would allow internet service providers to sell your browsing history and habits — without your consent — is being put to a vote on Tuesday in the U.S House of Representatives.

But internet privacy advocates are framing this as a battle between privacy and profits."

They vote tomorrow and then all it needs is T's signature.

Once again money wins if this passes and I bet it will. It already made it through the Senate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/house-set-vote-whether-isps-can-sell-your-data-without-n739166

A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
will
Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 5:07:40 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
It interests me, Hope.

However the issue is not new, it’s not even the thin end of the wedge. We have already given away our rights to privacy and anonymity pretty much completely and in most cases unconsciously.

The only good thing that can be said about this is that, at this moment in time, most of the information gathered is data accumulated for no other reason than it’s so easy to do. The majority of the ‘abuse’ (it’s hard to call it abuse because ‘we’ have consented) of this data is fairly benign.


.
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:17:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,796
Neurons: 41,146
Re: the NSA.

Not all data, Hope. But my understanding is all the data passing into and out of the US, and within its borders is collected.

But what the article says is that law-makers want to give internet, cable and mobile providers permission to sell the data they collect.

What is boils down to is this: can we trust them to keep personally identifiable information about us out of the data they sell? They say they do that, so you can't be harmed by it.

If it's bulk data, no harm is done. But if you can be identified, and that information can, or is, used against you, then there is a problem.

Do you trust them and the government law-makers? That is the question.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:37:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,730
Neurons: 34,381
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Re: the NSA.

Not all data, Hope. But my understanding is all the data passing into and out of the US, and within its borders is collected.

But what the article says is that law-makers want to give internet, cable and mobile providers permission to sell the data they collect.

What is boils down to is this: can we trust them to keep personally identifiable information about us out of the data they sell? They say they do that, so you can't be harmed by it.

If it's bulk data, no harm is done. But if you can be identified, and that information can, or is, used against you, then there is a problem.

Do you trust them and the government law-makers? That is the question.


No, I don't trust them. That is why I am upset that they are removing the rules put in place last year.

Some Canadian content passes through the US.





A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:59:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,796
Neurons: 41,146
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Re: the NSA.

Not all data, Hope. But my understanding is all the data passing into and out of the US, and within its borders is collected.

But what the article says is that law-makers want to give internet, cable and mobile providers permission to sell the data they collect.

What is boils down to is this: can we trust them to keep personally identifiable information about us out of the data they sell? They say they do that, so you can't be harmed by it.

If it's bulk data, no harm is done. But if you can be identified, and that information can, or is, used against you, then there is a problem.

Do you trust them and the government law-makers? That is the question.


No, I don't trust them. That is why I am upset that they are removing the rules put in place last year.

Some Canadian content passes through the US.

But you trust the government with the most intimate details of your health and medical conditions. You trust them with the details of your finances, you employment, and a host of other information about you. Why do you get concerned about the internet and cable information?

Isn't it nut jobs like me that are supposed to be suspicious of government? Liberals seem to think government is the savior for all that ails one. Had a change of heart?...Whistle




A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 5:46:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,730
Neurons: 34,381
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I saw the tongue-in-cheek but I'll answer seriously. No change of heart. It is your government I don't trust, especially now.

I would not be concerned except that some CDN ISPs route through NY, I believe.

Besides, the internet is a whole new ballgame without laws and rules. Obama put the rule in place in the first place perhaps to prevent the opportunity for misuse. Makes me wonder why Trump sees a need to get rid of it. d'oh!

I know my government is obviously not perfect but it has never given me any reason to suspect that my personal data has ever been used by them or given to anyone else. And yes, I have lots of reasons for trusting them until they ever give me reason not to.

So how did your government give you personal reason to not trust them?

My government has prosecuted healthcare workers who snooped into private files.

Laws are being enacted right now because a Quebec police department hacked into a journalist's phone to try to get information about his source. There was a BIG uproar when Canadians found out about that.

My government was sanctioned (lost the election as well) by citizens for disclosing information to the US government that caused 3 innocent Canadian citizens who were incorrectly on a no-fly list to end up being tortured. We don't torture. I think they just got a big settlement from our government.

As for reasons to trust generally - The mainstream media in Canada continuously does investigative journalism of the government and the money laws we have keep our government relatively free of corruption.

Well mostly - the big scandal - lol - in Canada right now is that our PM as a gift, took his family on a helicopter ride from a boat to the private island of a long time family friend. I guess they were supposed to swim. (The opposition triggered an investigation because the cost of the trip to the taxpayer including all security was a "whopping" $127,000 after he paid the cost of the public transportation he is not allowed to use. (Contrast that with $3M a weekend, many weekends. We're just a mickey mouse operation here. 😀) The Conservative leader raised the issue in Parliament just to get at Trudeau. But it was really funny when it came out that she had also taken a travel gift that same holiday.

I'm not the only one. Many Canadians HAVE lost their respect and trust for the US. When Obama was president Canadians didn't think it was a big deal that the government at that time agreed to keep the border moving smoothly in exchange for two more pre-clearance airport locations to the US. American customs officers with their guns would be allowed on Canadian soil. Now since Trump, in spite of all the grumbling by Canadians, this Liberal government is going ahead with it, making many Canadians furious, including me.

BTW - I'm a social liberal. As for this topic of governments, I have voted both ways. We are allowed to vote for policies, not loyalty to parties.

I'm not sure what "Liberals seem to think government is the saviour for all that ails one" has to do with trusting your information to your government. Whistle




A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:15:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,730
Neurons: 34,381
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Addendum,

FD, it should go without saying that I don't believe every MP, MPP, Senator, and bureaucrat is honest, moral and ethical. Of course they aren't. But what I do trust is that the laws and rules and unwritten rules are in place and if any are broken, there are consequences that are bad enough to act as deterrence and the leaders see that is done.

There were 2 or 3 separate instances of healthcare people snooping, and after they lost their jobs and were prosecuted, although it doesn't mean somebody won't try again, none have been caught since. They were using them to get names to sell products to parents of newborns etc.

Those consequences were brought about swiftly and every person whose chart had been accessed was notified.



A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:43:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,730
Neurons: 34,381
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I wondered if the fact I didn't know much about it was influencing my opinion about the internet. Even if it does not affect me personally, it is the principle.

There was a chance to limit the spread of the loss of privacy with this rule, but that is now gone - at least for a while.

However, I am not the only one who is upset by this.


http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39427026

Anger as US internet privacy law scrapped

Edited to Add -

https://openmedia.org/en/canadian-internet-traffic-travelling-through-us-making-canadians-even-more-vulnerable-nsa



A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:25:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,796
Neurons: 41,146
Hope123 wrote:
I saw the tongue-in-cheek but I'll answer seriously. No change of heart. It is your government I don't trust, especially now.
I don't trust them either. That's why the people in government need to be watched and replaced often - something we don't do often enough. Like the old joke: politicians are like diapers -- they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons.

I would not be concerned except that some CDN ISPs route through NY, I believe.
So what is the problem with that? Again, if it is bulk data being collected and sold, and no personally identifiable information is contained, where is the problem? My only concern is: can we trust them (ISP providers, cell phone carriers, gov't. employees, et al.) to keep personal info from being used against us at some future time? Right now, it doesn't seem to be a problem, but the future -- who knows?

Besides, the internet is a whole new ballgame without laws and rules. Obama put the rule in place in the first place perhaps to prevent the opportunity for misuse. Makes me wonder why Trump sees a need to get rid of it. d'oh!
This is always true of any new invention. Laws are always passed in a reactionary way - after we discover how things are used to abuse people. It would be impossible to foresee how this could happen in the beginning of any new thing invented. As to why Trump rolled that back, I don't know. I haven't heard anything about it. Here it is the constant drumbeat about some alleged Russian connection, but still no evidence to back it up, just allegations. It all looks like kabuki theater to me.

I know my government is obviously not perfect but it has never given me any reason to suspect that my personal data has ever been used by them or given to anyone else. And yes, I have lots of reasons for trusting them until they ever give me reason not to.
What reasons do you have for suspecting your personal data will be given to anyone else now, simply because it crosses the border?

So how did your government give you personal reason to not trust them?
Well, it all began in 1776...no, seriously. For me, it started with my experiences in the war. I experienced the hypocrisy, the stupidity and lies of political leadership over military leadership, and the foolishness of not permitting our forces to do the job they were trained and sent to do, resulting in the maiming and death for far too many, both military and civilian, for the ego of one man - Lyndon Johnson. Read Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster. I wish I could say I read it. I only began, and had to quit in disgust.

My government has prosecuted healthcare workers who snooped into private files.

Laws are being enacted right now because a Quebec police department hacked into a journalist's phone to try to get information about his source. There was a BIG uproar when Canadians found out about that.

My government was sanctioned (lost the election as well) by citizens for disclosing information to the US government that caused 3 innocent Canadian citizens who were incorrectly on a no-fly list to end up being tortured. We don't torture. I think they just got a big settlement from our government.

As for reasons to trust generally - The mainstream media in Canada continuously does investigative journalism of the government and the money laws we have keep our government relatively free of corruption.
Well, our media seem to be interested only in Trump. Nothing came of the use of the IRS under Obama when it refused to do its job for conservative groups. No investigation ever was conducted. Nothing came of Hillary selling out 20% of our uranium to the Russians for millions in cash donations to their foundation, or the half million dollars in speaking fees for Bill right after she approved the deal. No investigation there either, nor of the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, meeting with Bill while Hillary was being investigated and absolved over her illegal email deletions. But that's just government people covering their butts, as usual, and is a bit of a digression from the topic at hand.

Well mostly - the big scandal - lol - in Canada right now is that our PM as a gift, took his family on a helicopter ride from a boat to the private island of a long time family friend. I guess they were supposed to swim. (The opposition triggered an investigation because the cost of the trip to the taxpayer including all security was a "whopping" $127,000 after he paid the cost of the public transportation he is not allowed to use. (Contrast that with $3M a weekend, many weekends. We're just a mickey mouse operation here. 😀) The Conservative leader raised the issue in Parliament just to get at Trudeau. But it was really funny when it came out that she had also taken a travel gift that same holiday.

I'm not the only one. Many Canadians HAVE lost their respect and trust for the US. When Obama was president Canadians didn't think it was a big deal that the government at that time agreed to keep the border moving smoothly in exchange for two more pre-clearance airport locations to the US. American customs officers with their guns would be allowed on Canadian soil. Now since Trump, in spite of all the grumbling by Canadians, this Liberal government is going ahead with it, making many Canadians furious, including me.
You lost me here. Going ahead with what -- keeping the border moving smoothly in exchange for two more pre-clearance airport locations? Why is that a problem?

BTW - I'm a social liberal. As for this topic of governments, I have voted both ways. We are allowed to vote for policies, not loyalty to parties.

I'm not sure what "Liberals seem to think government is the saviour for all that ails one" has to do with trusting your information to your government. Whistle
Our Liberals seem to think government is the savior for all that ails you. Have a problem? Look to the government. No need to depend on yourself. They always have a program to solve any problem. Just apply.




A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:58:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,796
Neurons: 41,146
I see you posted this while I was typing.

Hope123 wrote:
I wondered if the fact I didn't know much about it was influencing my opinion about the internet. Even if it does not affect me personally, it is the principle.
I would agree with you on the principle. People should have their privacy and it should be protected.

There was a chance to limit the spread of the loss of privacy with this rule, but that is now gone - at least for a while.
Ok, I'm playing catch-up here. And there seems to be a good deal of inconsistency in what I'm reading.

You said this was a chance to limit the spread of the loss of privacy with this rule. So that means privacy has already been lost, and we're just trying to limit the spread...Think That seems a bit like being a little pregnant. We either have privacy or not. It can't be limited.

In the article you linked, I read: "The repeal was strongly backed by major providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, who argued that ISPs were being subject to stricter privacy laws than companies like Google or Facebook." [emphasis mine.]
So that means Google and Facebook have had less restrictions than ISP's, which would indicate they can share personal data, and this law simply expands the group who can share, or sell, personal data.

The law "would have forced ISPs to get clear permission from users to share personal data such as "precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications”.
So it would seem that Google and Facebook aren't currently forced to obtain that permission, but ISP's would be.

But then I read that Ajit Pai, the new head of the FCC says: "Moving forward, I want the American people to know that the FCC will work with the [Federal Trade Commission] to ensure that consumers’ online privacy is protected though a consistent and comprehensive framework.
So that has to be a lie if GOOGLE and FACEBOOK, and now ISP's can share personal data. So we're back to government lying again. Sounds familiar, huh?

However, I am not the only one who is upset by this.


http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39427026

Anger as US internet privacy law scrapped

Edited to Add -

https://openmedia.org/en/canadian-internet-traffic-travelling-through-us-making-canadians-even-more-vulnerable-nsa
Well, it is called The Worldwide Web after all, so it's no surprise traffic is routed from one country to another, and since it was invented here, that shouldn't be surprising at all.

So we're back to government and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for it to be involved. If it helps folks protect their privacy, that's a good thing. If it defeats privacy, or restricts freedom of speech, that's a bad thing.

The only thing to do is demand privacy and freedom be protected, and vow to vote out any who countermand that.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:40:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 25,202
Neurons: 131,196
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
In my mind - I don't care whether my ISP provider knows that I use Google more often that FF on one computer and FF more often on another, and that I rarely look at a news-site and rarely watch a film (only occasionally adventure or comedy). It doesn't matter if they sell that to someone.

If it were my debit-card number or something, then I'd complain.

I can't see my individual data being worth buying. Bulk data would help companies advertise more effectively, but not my individual preferences.

Why might anyone want to know when I last saw my doctor about my corns?

*************
On another subject:
I don't get how this can be political (as in Democratic/Republican).
I can see some dyed-in-the-wool Republican farmer in Alabama being more annoyed about someone spying on his internet use than a Democrat schoolteacher in NYNY. Or vice-versa - it depends on what they use the internet for and why they might be embarrassed by someone knowing!
It doesn't seem to bear any relation to one's politics.

As I mentioned on another topic - the person making most noise about internet privacy at the moment is D Trump Esq.
His rants about 'tapping' seem to indicate that he supports privacy.
He wants privacy on the internet, so the only reason he can have for cancelling this law is "because Obama approved it".

This seems to be his reason for a lot of his actions. "If Obama did it, I'll reverse it."
Rather like the Senate a couple of years ago "It doesn't matter what it's about, if Obama is trying to do it, we'll stop it."

************
It doesn't really matter to me - I just don't like big government, whether it's the Worker party, the Preservative party or the Loose Voters party - Republican or Democrat.
It's not so easy for me to see within the UK (you all can probably see the UK better than we can) but I can see more easily what's happening in the USA - It doesn't matter which government you have, they work for the industrialists. Maybe the Republicans are owned by a different consortium than the Democrats, but it makes little difference.

*************
There seems to be another difference between the American and British 'worlds'.

American (FounDit style) "Our Liberals seem to think government is the saviour for all that ails you. Have a problem? Look to the government. No need to depend on yourself."


British (The style I see in "Vote for Me" ads this week)
Conservative - "The English government will handle everything for you, just don't vote Scottish Nationalist".
Labour - "The English government will handle everything for you, just don't vote Scottish Nationalist".
SNP - "When we're free of the English, the GermanEU government will handle everything for you"
Liberal - "More independent choice, but still within the UK".


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Listening . . .
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:53:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 917
Neurons: 3,702
One word. Snowden.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:54:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,796
Neurons: 41,146
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
In my mind - I don't care whether my ISP provider knows that I use Google more often that FF on one computer and FF more often on another, and that I rarely look at a news-site and rarely watch a film (only occasionally adventure or comedy). It doesn't matter if they sell that to someone.

If it were my debit-card number or something, then I'd complain.

I can't see my individual data being worth buying. Bulk data would help companies advertise more effectively, but not my individual preferences.

Why might anyone want to know when I last saw my doctor about my corns?
Your point about bulk data is valid. It's the personal data that everyone is concerned about precisely because it could very well contain your debit card number if everything you do online is collected and/or sold for profit.

Also, since all our medical records are now kept on computers, data sent or stored there could be used as blackmail (treatment for an STD, for example, or a significant health problem) against a political/business opponent.

*************
On another subject:
I don't get how this can be political (as in Democratic/Republican).
I can see some dyed-in-the-wool Republican farmer in Alabama being more annoyed about someone spying on his internet use than a Democrat schoolteacher in NYNY. Or vice-versa - it depends on what they use the internet for and why they might be embarrassed by someone knowing!
It doesn't seem to bear any relation to one's politics.

As I mentioned on another topic - the person making most noise about internet privacy at the moment is D Trump Esq.
His rants about 'tapping' seem to indicate that he supports privacy.
He wants privacy on the internet, so the only reason he can have for cancelling this law is "because Obama approved it".

This seems to be his reason for a lot of his actions. "If Obama did it, I'll reverse it."
Rather like the Senate a couple of years ago "It doesn't matter what it's about, if Obama is trying to do it, we'll stop it."
This is exactly how it becomes political. As said above, if data is collected on an opponent illegally or legally, it can be used against someone, even if untrue, the accusation may be all that is needed if doubt can be sown.

************
It doesn't really matter to me - I just don't like big government, whether it's the Worker party, the Preservative party or the Loose Voters party - Republican or Democrat.
It's not so easy for me to see within the UK (you all can probably see the UK better than we can) but I can see more easily what's happening in the USA - It doesn't matter which government you have, they work for the industrialists. Maybe the Republicans are owned by a different consortium than the Democrats, but it makes little difference.
True, but there is an influence here that has been traditionally held as a tenet of faith about government. That is, that government is dangerous and needs to be kept limited (power corrupts, remember Lord Acton). Over the last century our government has increasingly grown in power and scope to the point that traditionalists such as myself, are concerned and want its regulations and laws rolled back, or at the least, circumscribed to the benefit of the people. This was partly what propelled Trump to the White House.

*************
There seems to be another difference between the American and British 'worlds'.

American (FounDit style) "Our Liberals seem to think government is the saviour for all that ails you. Have a problem? Look to the government. No need to depend on yourself."

As written above concerning the growth of gov't.

British (The style I see in "Vote for Me" ads this week)
Conservative - "The English government will handle everything for you, just don't vote Scottish Nationalist".
Labour - "The English government will handle everything for you, just don't vote Scottish Nationalist".
SNP - "When we're free of the English, the GermanEU government will handle everything for you"
Liberal - "More independent choice, but still within the UK".


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:31:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,730
Neurons: 34,381
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
This article was on the CBC this morning about Canadian ISPs having to get permission. Canada will not follow suit to the US bill if signed into law.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/us-fcc-internet-privacy-legislation-marketing-ads-canada-1.4046512

What I was wondering about was that by crossing the border, CDN info is available to NSA, Homeland Security, and any other groups that listen in the US. There it is illegal to listen to Americans, but quite legal to listen to Canadians, I assume. Bulk ads are not a problem. But identity theft could be a possibility. (Often American companies do require a SSN as identity, not a good idea in my opinion.)

FD, I learned to mistrust your government from reading on the Forum about the lack of regulations of money in politics. Changing up the government will not do any good as long as the leniency with money in politics stays the same - or gets worse as in now, with all white wealthy men in the cabinet and the conflict of interest of the Trump Organization being actively preserved by the GOP.
:::::
Whenever there have been studies about the percentage of people who take advantage of policies meant to help the less advantaged, they find that it is often a lot lower than that perceived by a cynical public that accuses liberals of not wanting to take responsibility for themselves, and thus there's an excuse that all government social aid is to be eschewed.
:::::

To answer your question about what I meant about the border issue with Canada right now -

In order to make the border easier to cross, Canada wanted two more pre-clearance airport sites. Instead of just granting that under the existing rules, the US demanded that Canada allow US Customs agents much more authority on Canadian soil than previously. They could detain people who changed their minds, sometimes for hours. Many other concessions were added, including the permission to wear guns on Canadian soil. Canadians do not like guns, as you well know. Pretty much the only thing they can't do is make arrests. And coupled with the fact that Customs agents already have complete authority to make decisions when one enters into their realm, that made Canadians leery of trusting the increased authority in other areas.



A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:46:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,730
Neurons: 34,381
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Perhaps not as high as in Canada, but Americans pay a hefty monthly price for ISPs already. Why should ISPs also get remuneration from passing on info for ads too? Even so, all they were being asked to do was get permission first.

The difference is that ads are the price we all pay for getting Facebook and Google (and Photobucket, TFD, apps, and other services) FREE. There are choices for privacy on FB and one can choose what to post. Or not use FB at all!

Instead of rescinding the rule for ISPs they could have put Google and Facebook under the same restriction, that they too had to get permission. That is, they could have done the opposite to what they did but still make them equal, but they did not consider that.
::::::::
FD,

There are lots of ways to limit invasion of privacy. It is not like being a bit pregnant to me.

As for Ajit Pai lying to you - of course! He's a Republican. (Joke)

Seriously, here's the REST of what he said - Pai said the FCC and FTC will work together to reinstate some form of privacy protections for broadband customers.

"In my view, the best way to achieve that result would be to return jurisdiction over broadband providers’ privacy practices to the FTC, with its decades of experience and expertise in this area.”

Quote FounDit - "The only thing to do is demand privacy and freedom be protected, and vow to vote out any who countermand that."

Agree! But too late now for at least four years in the US unless Trump vetoes it.

There was a lot of anger yesterday about the internet privacy vote. Groups are now calling on Trump to veto the bill, make good on his populist campaign rhetoric, and show that he is on the side of the people, that he is not just a president for CEOs.





A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 12:05:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 25,202
Neurons: 131,196
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
FounDit wrote:
Over the last century our government has increasingly grown in power and scope to the point that traditionalists such as myself, are concerned and want its regulations and laws rolled back, or at the least, circumscribed to the benefit of the people. This was partly what propelled Trump to the White House.

Well, I suppose it means that instead of covert ownership of the government by industry, it's now totally overt.
The Trump family consortium and the fossil-fuel energy companies rule the day!


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:40:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 7,796
Neurons: 41,146
DragOnspeaker wrote:

FounDit wrote:
Over the last century our government has increasingly grown in power and scope to the point that traditionalists such as myself, are concerned and want its regulations and laws rolled back, or at the least, circumscribed to the benefit of the people. This was partly what propelled Trump to the White House.

Well, I suppose it means that instead of covert ownership of the government by industry, it's now totally overt.
The Trump family consortium and the fossil-fuel energy companies rule the day!


Ownership?...Think I’m not sure what to do with this description. I certainly never thought of the government as being “owned” by the Kennedy’s, the Bush’s, or the Clintons, although I’m sure they would have like that. But since this is the first time any of the Trump family has ever been in politics at the national level, as far as I know, I don’t think of them as “owning” the government either.


So which industry ownership does Trump represent? Real Estate, construction, or golf courses? Maybe all three?...Think



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.