Now, what did Trump do?
(03-01-2017, 09:56 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(03-01-2017, 09:32 PM)chuck white Wrote: Yes, respect the office of the President, but question the guy in the chair.



(Like respecting a loaded revolver, but not the guy on the trigger)

Whatever.
I think Mr. Trump is a buffoon. 
But if he entered a room I was in I would stand and address him as Mr. President. 
And I'm not sure any demonstration while he addresses a joint session of the congress is appropriate.
That I think he is a buffoon does change the fact that millions of people voted for him and for reasons I don't understand, admire him. 

It's our system. He is my president.

The man with his finger on the trigger.
(Don't make his day a bad one.)
Reply
Well it certainly appears "The Liar Chief" has instructed his entire cabinet to follow suit. Luckily SOME of them have honor and integrity and THEY will be the ones that put this farce to bed. At least you will still have Pence and at least he has SOME integrity, making a deal with the devil excluded.  Laughing 

[Image: blog_zuma_kislyak_sessions_0.jpg]
Reply
When it rains...

Mad
Reply
Quote:In just 40 days, Trump has made it easier for coal miners to dump their waste into West Virginia streams, ordered the repeal of Clean Water Act protections for vast stretches of wetlands, proposed massive job cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency and prepared to begin revoking the Obama administration’s most ambitious climate change regulations.

Trump is also expected to overturn Barack Obama’s moratorium on new federal coal leases, and is considering automakers’ pleas for relief from a scheduled tightening of vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. Obama's pledge to send billions of dollars to United Nations climate programs is also likely on the chopping block. And Trump hasn’t ruled out withdrawing the United States from the 200-nation Paris climate agreement, a step that could undercut the international effort to confront global warming.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/tr...ons-235596
Reply
(03-01-2017, 10:57 PM)Valuesize Wrote: Well it certainly appears "The Liar Chief" has instructed his entire cabinet to follow suit. Luckily SOME of them have honor and integrity and THEY will be the ones that put this farce to bed. At least you will still have Pence and at least he has SOME integrity, making a deal with the devil excluded.  Laughing 

[Image: blog_zuma_kislyak_sessions_0.jpg]

What farce? Some of us don't keep up?
Reply
(03-02-2017, 02:56 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(03-01-2017, 10:57 PM)Valuesize Wrote: Well it certainly appears "The Liar Chief" has instructed his entire cabinet to follow suit. Luckily SOME of them have honor and integrity and THEY will be the ones that put this farce to bed. At least you will still have Pence and at least he has SOME integrity, making a deal with the devil excluded.  Laughing 

[Image: blog_zuma_kislyak_sessions_0.jpg]

What farce? Some of us don't keep up?

The Trump presidency. Try to keep up.  Razz

farce
färs/
noun

  1. a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.
Reply
Quote:Congress sent proposed legislation to President Trump on Tuesday that wipes away landmark online privacy protections, the first salvo in what is likely to become a significant reworking of the rules governing Internet access in an era of Republican dominance.

In a party-line vote, House Republicans freed Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast of protections approved just last year that had sought to limit what companies could do with information such as customer browsing habits, app usage history, location data and Social Security numbers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...f18deb1702
Reply
(03-28-2017, 07:59 PM)chuck white Wrote:
Quote:Congress sent proposed legislation to President Trump on Tuesday that wipes away landmark online privacy protections, the first salvo in what is likely to become a significant reworking of the rules governing Internet access in an era of Republican dominance.

In a party-line vote, House Republicans freed Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast of protections approved just last year that had sought to limit what companies could do with information such as customer browsing habits, app usage history, location data and Social Security numbers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...f18deb1702
Fake news, nothing of the sort is happening. The FTC took care of the privacy, and has for decades, of the consumer. In 2015 the FCC stripped them of that and tried to take it on themselves. What that did is create a more hostile environment for some companies while leaving others to their own devices. All this does is pass it back to the FTC.
Reply
(03-28-2017, 09:40 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-28-2017, 07:59 PM)chuck white Wrote:
Quote:Congress sent proposed legislation to President Trump on Tuesday that wipes away landmark online privacy protections, the first salvo in what is likely to become a significant reworking of the rules governing Internet access in an era of Republican dominance.

In a party-line vote, House Republicans freed Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast of protections approved just last year that had sought to limit what companies could do with information such as customer browsing habits, app usage history, location data and Social Security numbers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...f18deb1702
Fake news, nothing of the sort is happening. The FTC took care of the privacy, and has for decades, of the consumer. In 2015 the FCC stripped them of that and tried to take it on themselves. What that did is create a more hostile environment for some companies while leaving others to their own devices. All this does is pass it back to the FTC.

Your claim of Fake News, reminds me of the star wars,' these are not the droids you're looking for'

Laughing

So, your alright with
Quote: If Trump signs the legislation as expected, providers will be able to monitor their customers’ behavior online and, without their permission, use their personal and financial information to sell highly targeted ads — making them rivals to Google and Facebook in the $83 billion online advertising market.

The providers could also sell their users’ information directly to marketers, financial firms and other companies that mine personal data — all of whom could use the data without consumers’ consent. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission, which initially drafted the protections, would be forbidden from issuing similar rules in the future.
Reply
(03-28-2017, 10:14 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(03-28-2017, 09:40 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-28-2017, 07:59 PM)chuck white Wrote:
Quote:Congress sent proposed legislation to President Trump on Tuesday that wipes away landmark online privacy protections, the first salvo in what is likely to become a significant reworking of the rules governing Internet access in an era of Republican dominance.

In a party-line vote, House Republicans freed Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast of protections approved just last year that had sought to limit what companies could do with information such as customer browsing habits, app usage history, location data and Social Security numbers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...f18deb1702
Fake news, nothing of the sort is happening. The FTC took care of the privacy, and has for decades, of the consumer. In 2015 the FCC stripped them of that and tried to take it on themselves. What that did is create a more hostile environment for some companies while leaving others to their own devices. All this does is pass it back to the FTC.

Your claim of Fake News, reminds me of the star wars,' these are not the droids you're looking for'

Laughing

So, your alright with
Quote: If Trump signs the legislation as expected, providers will be able to monitor their customers’ behavior online and, without their permission, use their personal and financial information to sell highly targeted ads — making them rivals to Google and Facebook in the $83 billion online advertising market.

The providers could also sell their users’ information directly to marketers, financial firms and other companies that mine personal data — all of whom could use the data without consumers’ consent. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission, which initially drafted the protections, would be forbidden from issuing similar rules in the future.
So why should google and farcebook be able to sell customers information?
Reply
(03-28-2017, 10:14 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(03-28-2017, 09:40 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-28-2017, 07:59 PM)chuck white Wrote:
Quote:Congress sent proposed legislation to President Trump on Tuesday that wipes away landmark online privacy protections, the first salvo in what is likely to become a significant reworking of the rules governing Internet access in an era of Republican dominance.

In a party-line vote, House Republicans freed Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast of protections approved just last year that had sought to limit what companies could do with information such as customer browsing habits, app usage history, location data and Social Security numbers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...f18deb1702
Fake news, nothing of the sort is happening. The FTC took care of the privacy, and has for decades, of the consumer. In 2015 the FCC stripped them of that and tried to take it on themselves. What that did is create a more hostile environment for some companies while leaving others to their own devices. All this does is pass it back to the FTC.

Your claim of Fake News, reminds me of the star wars,' these are not the droids you're looking for'

Laughing

So, your alright with
Quote: If Trump signs the legislation as expected, providers will be able to monitor their customers’ behavior online and, without their permission, use their personal and financial information to sell highly targeted ads — making them rivals to Google and Facebook in the $83 billion online advertising market.

The providers could also sell their users’ information directly to marketers, financial firms and other companies that mine personal data — all of whom could use the data without consumers’ consent. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission, which initially drafted the protections, would be forbidden from issuing similar rules in the future.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...acy-rules/

House Republicans Revoke Obama Internet Privacy Rules

[Image: House-Vote-J.-Scott-Applewhite-640x480.jpg]J. Scott Applewhite/AP

by Sean Moran28 Mar 20172,014
House Republicans voted unanimously Tuesday to revoke the Federal Communication’s (FCC) broadband privacy rules, sending legislation to the White House that would undo duplicitous regulation around consumer privacy.
Republicans passed the measure, 215-205, that eliminates regulations set under former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s reign over the FCC to block internet service providers from using consumer data.
Video Five Outrageous School Assignments

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Internet service providers argued that the rule subjected them to harsher regulations, while social media companies such as Facebook faced lighter regulations. Opponents of the House bill argued that it violated consumers’ right to privacy without their consent.
Congresswoman Blackburn (R-TN) told Breitbart News that the regulations were unnecessary; the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not the Federal Communications Commission, should regulate consumer privacy. She explained, “I think that people should realize that the FTC is the primary regulator of privacy, not the FCC. They have the history and the expertise to regulate consumer privacy, and having more than one agency regulate the same agency creates abuse and government overreach. Businesses need regulatory clarity in order to properly operate.”
Congresswoman Blackburn also said, “These rules are unnecessary and just another example of big government overreach.”
TechFreedom president Berin Szoka argued, “The FCC’s rules were unwise and unnecessary. The FCC will soon return broadband privacy policing to the Federal Trade Commission, where it belongs, like all online privacy. In the meantime, enacting this CRA will simply mean that the FCC will police broadband  privacy case-by-case — just as it had done under Democratic leadership after the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order deprived the FTC of its consumer protection power over broadband by reclassifying broadband as a common carrier service.”
Steven Titch, an R Street Institute associate fellow, also argued that former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler abused his authority by regulating consumer privacy. He said, “As much as progressives might wish it, government regulatory agencies cannot simply do what they want. Just because the FCC regulates wide portions of ISP business doesn’t mean it may regulate every portion of ISP business. It is not the FCC’s job to write rules on privacy regulation. That role, by law, falls to the FTC.”
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai commended the House for passing this legislation, saying:
Last year, the Federal Communications Commission pushed through, on a party-line vote, privacy regulations designed to benefit one group of favored companies over another group of disfavored companies. Appropriately, Congress has passed a resolution to reject this approach of picking winners and losers before it takes effect.
It is worth remembering that the FCC’s own overreach created the problem we are facing today.  Until 2015, the Federal Trade Commission was protecting consumers very effectively, policing every online company’s privacy practices consistently and initiating numerous enforcement actions.  However, two years ago, the FCC stripped the FTC of its authority over Internet service providers.  At the time, I strongly opposed usurping the FTC, and the FCC’s struggles to address the privacy issue over the past couple of years (along with its refusal to recognize consumers’ uniform expectation of privacy) has only strengthened that view.
Moving forward, I want the American people to know that the FCC will work with the FTC to ensure that consumers’ online privacy is protected though a consistent and comprehensive framework.  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.

[url=http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/28/house-republicans-revoke-obama-internet-privacy-rules/][/url]
Reply
(03-28-2017, 10:17 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-28-2017, 10:14 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(03-28-2017, 09:40 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-28-2017, 07:59 PM)chuck white Wrote:
Quote:Congress sent proposed legislation to President Trump on Tuesday that wipes away landmark online privacy protections, the first salvo in what is likely to become a significant reworking of the rules governing Internet access in an era of Republican dominance.

In a party-line vote, House Republicans freed Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast of protections approved just last year that had sought to limit what companies could do with information such as customer browsing habits, app usage history, location data and Social Security numbers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...f18deb1702
Fake news, nothing of the sort is happening. The FTC took care of the privacy, and has for decades, of the consumer. In 2015 the FCC stripped them of that and tried to take it on themselves. What that did is create a more hostile environment for some companies while leaving others to their own devices. All this does is pass it back to the FTC.

Your claim of Fake News, reminds me of the star wars,' these are not the droids you're looking for'

Laughing

So, your alright with
Quote: If Trump signs the legislation as expected, providers will be able to monitor their customers’ behavior online and, without their permission, use their personal and financial information to sell highly targeted ads — making them rivals to Google and Facebook in the $83 billion online advertising market.

The providers could also sell their users’ information directly to marketers, financial firms and other companies that mine personal data — all of whom could use the data without consumers’ consent. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission, which initially drafted the protections, would be forbidden from issuing similar rules in the future.
So why should google and farcebook be able to sell customers information?

You don't have to set up a google or farcebook account.
Your ISP is limited.  They have more direct information. try to find more then a few providers.

If they want to sell that info, then they shouldn't charge me for the internet.
Reply
OL_ "So why should google and farcebook be able to sell customers information?"

Your simple mindedness never ceases to amaze me. Do you really not see any difference from Google and Facebook and companies you purchase services from? With financial information you trust them with because they are not legally allowed to share? WOW! You imbeciles piss me off more and more everyday for putting this POS in an office he clearly is incapable of comprehending.  Mad
Reply
(03-28-2017, 10:35 PM)Valuesize Wrote: OL_ "So why should google and farcebook be able to sell customers information?"

Your simple mindedness never ceases to amaze me. Do you really not see any difference from Google and Facebook and companies you purchase services from? With financial information you trust them with because they are not legally allowed to share? WOW! You imbeciles piss me off more and more everyday for putting this POS in an office he clearly is incapable of comprehending.  Mad
You dumbshits act as if one entity selling a persons information is any different than another. It's a good thing kkkillary wasn't elected or she would have sold your dumbass, ignorance and all, to the highest bidder. Your dumbass might be speaking russian and/or arabic now if kkkillary was elected.
Reply
(03-28-2017, 10:38 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(03-28-2017, 10:35 PM)Valuesize Wrote: OL_ "So why should google and farcebook be able to sell customers information?"

Your simple mindedness never ceases to amaze me. Do you really not see any difference from Google and Facebook and companies you purchase services from? With financial information you trust them with because they are not legally allowed to share? WOW! You imbeciles piss me off more and more everyday for putting this POS in an office he clearly is incapable of comprehending.  Mad
You dumbshits act as if one entity selling a persons information is any different than another. It's a good thing kkkillary wasn't elected or she would have sold your dumbass, ignorance and all, to the highest bidder. Your dumbass might be speaking russian and/or arabic now if kkkillary was elected.

What? I don't give my financial info to "Entities" like Facebook OR Google. Wise up and get your head out of the ass of these people controlling you man. What will it take to get you assholes to think for yourselves?
Reply
A brain might help.
Reply
(03-29-2017, 12:08 AM)bbqboy Wrote: A brain might help.

[Image: 1f5c23ebfe04c589262a331f99c05103.jpg]


OL, you don't happen to live in Springfield, do you?
Reply
So how do you asshat loons think you have been affected by something that was just passed at the end of 2016? Uninformed, compliant, and stupid is how your handlers describe you, they seem to be right, again.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonb...79d420372a

We Should Welcome Trump's Reversal Of FCC Digital Privacy Rules

Feb 2, 2017 @ 06:45 AM

The Trump administration is moving quickly to undo many regulations of the Obama era. The speed and breadth of these policy reversals are generating considerable angst among voters across a wide political spectrum. Americans should not fret, however, about the elimination of any ill-conceived rule.

Take the Federal Communications Commission’s recently enacted privacy rules, which place restrictions on digital advertising for one type of Internet firm but not others. Before the FCC nosed in, the Federal Trade Commission protected our digital privacy. The FTC’s privacy rules established a comprehensive set of consumer protections that applied to all firms on the Internet.
Passed on a party-line vote in October 2016, the FCC’s privacy rules subject Internet service providers (ISPs) to a stricter standard of scrutiny than their online advertising rivals. When it comes to using your data from web browsing and app usage, the FCC requires that an ISP’s customers “opt in” to any information-sharing program. In contrast, the FTC’s privacy rules governing dominant edge providers like Google and Facebook require their customers to “opt out” of any arrangement that monetizes personal data.
Active Management Reemerges As Economic Trends Shift
The FCC’s rationale for adopting a stricter standard was that ISPs allegedly enjoy a unique and pervasive visibility into broadband customer information that the edge providers do not have. A study by professor Peter Swire of Georgia Tech shattered that basis, however, showing that “non-ISPs often have access to more and a wider range of user information than ISPs.” If you can't help checking Facebook or Twitter during the workday, of if you initiate every search from Google, this shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
The FCC’s privacy rules were needed to fill a temporary void in consumer protection created by—wait for it—the FCC. That’s right: By reclassifying ISPs as common carriers in February 2015, the FCC’s Open Internet Order divested the FTC of its statutory authority to regulate ISPs, as the FTC is barred from regulating common carriers. So one regulatory overreach begets another. This is how bureaucracies spin out of control.
Some in the tech community have argued that undoing the FCC’s privacy rules would lead to a parade of horribles. Consumer advocates at Free Press breathlessly asserted that the repeal would “punish industry users,” and would result in “extensive harm caused by breaches or misuse of data.” Writing in Motherboard, Sam Gustin claimed that “Federal regulations protecting consumers from broadband industry privacy abuses will soon be eliminated if the nation’s largest Internet Service Providers and their Republican allies on Capitol Hill have their way.”
But the notion of any gap in consumer protection is pure myth. With a change of administration, the FCC’s reclassification decision and its klugey set of privacy regulations are now back on the table. Assuming both are withdrawn—a highly likely outcome under new Chairman Ajit Pai—enforcement of privacy protections would revert back to the FTC, an agency that has the authority and expertise to police future privacy violations.
It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in behavioral economics to understand that consumers typically elect the default choice, because doing otherwise requires effort. And we are lazy and easily distracted by our president’s tweets. What seems like a subtle difference in the rules—opt in for ISPs versus opt out for edge providers—has significant competitive implications in the online advertising market.
By impairing an ISP's ability to collect data and thereby compete for online advertisers, the FCC’s asymmetric rules perversely would cement Google’s and Facebook’s dominance. As of the first half of 2016, Google and Facebook collectively accounted for 70 percent of online advertising. And their combined share is increasing: In the first quarter of 2016, 85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising went to Google or Facebook. According to Digital Context Next, the two behemoth Internet intermediaries accounted for nearly all of the growth in online advertising in 2016.
Why would Obama’s FCC promulgate asymmetric rules to protect these advertising duopolists? The agency was captured.
Had it secured a third vote, the FCC’s set-top-box rule would have given Google free access to programming paid for by cable distributors. The FCC’s common carrier designation and regulation of interconnection will put downward pressure on interconnection fees in the next round of negotiations between Google's YouTube and ISPs. And the privacy rule shielded Google from competition from ISPs in the online advertising arena.
None of these giveaways was subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, which would have ignored the private benefits to Google (transferred from ISPs) and focused instead on the gains and losses to consumers. With respect to the privacy order, the FCC never sought to estimate, relative to an FTC-based standard, the cost of the rules (in terms of compliance costs and higher broadband access prices) to the benefits (in terms of fewer privacy violations).
That these rules could now be replaced by a symmetric, FTC-driven privacy framework is no reason for consumers to be worried. If anything, it means more competition for online advertisers and a level-playing field for privacy protections. Now we can redirect our collective angst to more pressing problems.
Reply
(03-29-2017, 07:57 AM)orygunluvr Wrote: So how do you asshat loons think you have been affected by something that was just passed at the end of 2016? Uninformed, compliant, and stupid is how your handlers describe you, they seem to be right, again.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonb...79d420372a

We Should Welcome Trump's Reversal Of FCC Digital Privacy Rules

Feb 2, 2017 @ 06:45 AM

The Trump administration is moving quickly to undo many regulations of the Obama era. The speed and breadth of these policy reversals are generating considerable angst among voters across a wide political spectrum. Americans should not fret, however, about the elimination of any ill-conceived rule.

Take the Federal Communications Commission’s recently enacted privacy rules, which place restrictions on digital advertising for one type of Internet firm but not others. Before the FCC nosed in, the Federal Trade Commission protected our digital privacy. The FTC’s privacy rules established a comprehensive set of consumer protections that applied to all firms on the Internet.
Passed on a party-line vote in October 2016, the FCC’s privacy rules subject Internet service providers (ISPs) to a stricter standard of scrutiny than their online advertising rivals. When it comes to using your data from web browsing and app usage, the FCC requires that an ISP’s customers “opt in” to any information-sharing program. In contrast, the FTC’s privacy rules governing dominant edge providers like Google and Facebook require their customers to “opt out” of any arrangement that monetizes personal data.
Active Management Reemerges As Economic Trends Shift
The FCC’s rationale for adopting a stricter standard was that ISPs allegedly enjoy a unique and pervasive visibility into broadband customer information that the edge providers do not have. A study by professor Peter Swire of Georgia Tech shattered that basis, however, showing that “non-ISPs often have access to more and a wider range of user information than ISPs.” If you can't help checking Facebook or Twitter during the workday, of if you initiate every search from Google, this shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
The FCC’s privacy rules were needed to fill a temporary void in consumer protection created by—wait for it—the FCC. That’s right: By reclassifying ISPs as common carriers in February 2015, the FCC’s Open Internet Order divested the FTC of its statutory authority to regulate ISPs, as the FTC is barred from regulating common carriers. So one regulatory overreach begets another. This is how bureaucracies spin out of control.
Some in the tech community have argued that undoing the FCC’s privacy rules would lead to a parade of horribles. Consumer advocates at Free Press breathlessly asserted that the repeal would “punish industry users,” and would result in “extensive harm caused by breaches or misuse of data.” Writing in Motherboard, Sam Gustin claimed that “Federal regulations protecting consumers from broadband industry privacy abuses will soon be eliminated if the nation’s largest Internet Service Providers and their Republican allies on Capitol Hill have their way.”
But the notion of any gap in consumer protection is pure myth. With a change of administration, the FCC’s reclassification decision and its klugey set of privacy regulations are now back on the table. Assuming both are withdrawn—a highly likely outcome under new Chairman Ajit Pai—enforcement of privacy protections would revert back to the FTC, an agency that has the authority and expertise to police future privacy violations.
It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in behavioral economics to understand that consumers typically elect the default choice, because doing otherwise requires effort. And we are lazy and easily distracted by our president’s tweets. What seems like a subtle difference in the rules—opt in for ISPs versus opt out for edge providers—has significant competitive implications in the online advertising market.
By impairing an ISP's ability to collect data and thereby compete for online advertisers, the FCC’s asymmetric rules perversely would cement Google’s and Facebook’s dominance. As of the first half of 2016, Google and Facebook collectively accounted for 70 percent of online advertising. And their combined share is increasing: In the first quarter of 2016, 85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising went to Google or Facebook. According to Digital Context Next, the two behemoth Internet intermediaries accounted for nearly all of the growth in online advertising in 2016.
Why would Obama’s FCC promulgate asymmetric rules to protect these advertising duopolists? The agency was captured.
Had it secured a third vote, the FCC’s set-top-box rule would have given Google free access to programming paid for by cable distributors. The FCC’s common carrier designation and regulation of interconnection will put downward pressure on interconnection fees in the next round of negotiations between Google's YouTube and ISPs. And the privacy rule shielded Google from competition from ISPs in the online advertising arena.
None of these giveaways was subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, which would have ignored the private benefits to Google (transferred from ISPs) and focused instead on the gains and losses to consumers. With respect to the privacy order, the FCC never sought to estimate, relative to an FTC-based standard, the cost of the rules (in terms of compliance costs and higher broadband access prices) to the benefits (in terms of fewer privacy violations).
That these rules could now be replaced by a symmetric, FTC-driven privacy framework is no reason for consumers to be worried. If anything, it means more competition for online advertisers and a level-playing field for privacy protections. Now we can redirect our collective angst to more pressing problems.

My ISP does not subject me to ads.
Comparing it to Google or Facebook is oranges and apples.

How about the phone company, should they be allowed to sell information on who you called and how long you talked on the phone?
Reply
(03-29-2017, 12:50 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(03-29-2017, 07:57 AM)orygunluvr Wrote: So how do you asshat loons think you have been affected by something that was just passed at the end of 2016? Uninformed, compliant, and stupid is how your handlers describe you, they seem to be right, again.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonb...79d420372a

We Should Welcome Trump's Reversal Of FCC Digital Privacy Rules

Feb 2, 2017 @ 06:45 AM

The Trump administration is moving quickly to undo many regulations of the Obama era. The speed and breadth of these policy reversals are generating considerable angst among voters across a wide political spectrum. Americans should not fret, however, about the elimination of any ill-conceived rule.

Take the Federal Communications Commission’s recently enacted privacy rules, which place restrictions on digital advertising for one type of Internet firm but not others. Before the FCC nosed in, the Federal Trade Commission protected our digital privacy. The FTC’s privacy rules established a comprehensive set of consumer protections that applied to all firms on the Internet.
Passed on a party-line vote in October 2016, the FCC’s privacy rules subject Internet service providers (ISPs) to a stricter standard of scrutiny than their online advertising rivals. When it comes to using your data from web browsing and app usage, the FCC requires that an ISP’s customers “opt in” to any information-sharing program. In contrast, the FTC’s privacy rules governing dominant edge providers like Google and Facebook require their customers to “opt out” of any arrangement that monetizes personal data.
Active Management Reemerges As Economic Trends Shift
The FCC’s rationale for adopting a stricter standard was that ISPs allegedly enjoy a unique and pervasive visibility into broadband customer information that the edge providers do not have. A study by professor Peter Swire of Georgia Tech shattered that basis, however, showing that “non-ISPs often have access to more and a wider range of user information than ISPs.” If you can't help checking Facebook or Twitter during the workday, of if you initiate every search from Google, this shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
The FCC’s privacy rules were needed to fill a temporary void in consumer protection created by—wait for it—the FCC. That’s right: By reclassifying ISPs as common carriers in February 2015, the FCC’s Open Internet Order divested the FTC of its statutory authority to regulate ISPs, as the FTC is barred from regulating common carriers. So one regulatory overreach begets another. This is how bureaucracies spin out of control.
Some in the tech community have argued that undoing the FCC’s privacy rules would lead to a parade of horribles. Consumer advocates at Free Press breathlessly asserted that the repeal would “punish industry users,” and would result in “extensive harm caused by breaches or misuse of data.” Writing in Motherboard, Sam Gustin claimed that “Federal regulations protecting consumers from broadband industry privacy abuses will soon be eliminated if the nation’s largest Internet Service Providers and their Republican allies on Capitol Hill have their way.”
But the notion of any gap in consumer protection is pure myth. With a change of administration, the FCC’s reclassification decision and its klugey set of privacy regulations are now back on the table. Assuming both are withdrawn—a highly likely outcome under new Chairman Ajit Pai—enforcement of privacy protections would revert back to the FTC, an agency that has the authority and expertise to police future privacy violations.
It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in behavioral economics to understand that consumers typically elect the default choice, because doing otherwise requires effort. And we are lazy and easily distracted by our president’s tweets. What seems like a subtle difference in the rules—opt in for ISPs versus opt out for edge providers—has significant competitive implications in the online advertising market.
By impairing an ISP's ability to collect data and thereby compete for online advertisers, the FCC’s asymmetric rules perversely would cement Google’s and Facebook’s dominance. As of the first half of 2016, Google and Facebook collectively accounted for 70 percent of online advertising. And their combined share is increasing: In the first quarter of 2016, 85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising went to Google or Facebook. According to Digital Context Next, the two behemoth Internet intermediaries accounted for nearly all of the growth in online advertising in 2016.
Why would Obama’s FCC promulgate asymmetric rules to protect these advertising duopolists? The agency was captured.
Had it secured a third vote, the FCC’s set-top-box rule would have given Google free access to programming paid for by cable distributors. The FCC’s common carrier designation and regulation of interconnection will put downward pressure on interconnection fees in the next round of negotiations between Google's YouTube and ISPs. And the privacy rule shielded Google from competition from ISPs in the online advertising arena.
None of these giveaways was subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, which would have ignored the private benefits to Google (transferred from ISPs) and focused instead on the gains and losses to consumers. With respect to the privacy order, the FCC never sought to estimate, relative to an FTC-based standard, the cost of the rules (in terms of compliance costs and higher broadband access prices) to the benefits (in terms of fewer privacy violations).
That these rules could now be replaced by a symmetric, FTC-driven privacy framework is no reason for consumers to be worried. If anything, it means more competition for online advertisers and a level-playing field for privacy protections. Now we can redirect our collective angst to more pressing problems.

My ISP does not subject me to ads.
Comparing it to Google or Facebook is oranges and apples.

How about the phone company, should they be allowed to sell information on who you called and how long you talked on the phone?

While the phone company is at it... maybe they could sell his text info as well... who he texted and what the texts said???
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)