Is this really the new normal for websites ?
Also - expressing emotion and anger is valuable when the situation calls for it. Personally I would have considered something stronger than 'turd' in this case.
Oh. Here's Hitchens saying "Fuck" a lot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE
Maybe it's an American thing, but I honestly didn't notice anything odd about the headline until you complained.
Furthermore, the way these lawmakers treat us is the only crass thing occuring.
A goal of Hacker News is to avoid this though.
[1]https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-05-03-crowdfunde...
This campaign does a great job of calling out Senators who sold out their voters.
I'd like to see us also call out the companies that buy the data from the telecoms. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is right. I'm not sure how one would track down who purchased the data, but if a billboard said "X bought your data without your consent", would shaming the purchaser also be a possibility?
I don't imagine they literally package sensitive information and distribute it to anyone who pays. In which case, "they sell your data" is completely misleading.
They were unrecognizable nobodies before, and now they are unrecognizable nobodies with more money. They will become unrecognizable nobodies again, next week, or next month, or next year, and move right along with the rest of their lives.
Conceptually, this is how legislation works. You start with politicians no one cares about, and you end with politicians no one cares about selling you out, because most of what they do is boring.
The most obvious methods that comes to mind:
Isolate the purchase to some kind of shell company or chain of shell companies. The sale can go through them and end up in my hands.
Also possible that we will see the rise of a data broker, who buys the data and sells it to clients but keeps them anonymous.
That people aren't aware that the digitization this is and has been a very lucrative profession for at least 20 years is testament to how, shalll we say, shadowy they are :)
Besides the moral implications, being a data broker sounds like a cool, cyberpunk-esque gig.
Anybody who says otherwise is lying or ignorant of the law regarding CPNI.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-...
ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-congressional-move-al...
EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-you...
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/28/internet-...
> It has to do with an government agency overstepping their authority
I've seen this horseshit repeated ad naseum.The U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to regulate how customer proprietary network information (CPNI) can be used and to enforce related consumer information privacy provisions. In 2015, Broadband Internet Service Providers were reclassified as telecommunications companies, meaning that these rules will apply to them. They are not an information service. Google is an information service. They provide me with an internet connection, they do not provide me with any content at all and no consumer expects that from them.
Do you understand that an Act has to be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the president? I don't know how much more legitimate authority can get when you are granted authority by our elected representatives.
> and nothing to do with privacy.
From the very first sentence of the FCC's 2007 REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING [0]
"In this Order, the Commission responds to the practice of “pretexting” by strengthening our rules to protect the privacy of customer proprietary network information (CPNI)"
>It Has been illegal for nearly a century and it id still is illegal to sell telecommunication customers' data.
FALSE
AGAIN, from the FCC's 2007 REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING [0]
"We modify our rules to require telecommunications carriers to obtain opt-in consent from a customer before disclosing that customer’s CPNI to a carrier’s joint venture partner or independent contractor for the purpose of marketing communications-related services to that customer.117 While we realize that this is a change in Commission policy, we find that new circumstances force us to reassess our existing regulations. As we have found previously, the Commission has a substantial interest in protecting customer privacy."
"Based on this and in light of new privacy concerns, we now find that an opt-in framework for the sharing of CPNI with joint venture partners and independent contractors for the purposes of marketing communications-related services to a customer both directly advances our interest in protecting customer privacy and is narrowly tailored to achieve our goal of privacy protection"
"Joint Venture and Independent Contractor Use of CPNI. We modify our rules to require carriers to obtain opt-in consent from a customer before disclosing a customer’s CPNI to a carrier’s joint venture partners or independent contractors for the purposes of marketing communicationsrelated services to that customer."
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-...
So do you think you can link to an obtuse document written in legalese, hoping that no one will read it? These are the rules from 2015...8 years after the FCC changed how telcos may use your CPNI
Just reading the rest of your comment history, do you do this for profit or for pleasure?
[0]: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.pd...
Why on earth don't you imagine that? On this website alone, there are quite literally stories every week about various companies doing that exact thing.
E.g.: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/04/23/heartbreaking
Large ISPs like Verizon altered HTTP traffic to inject a unique identifier which linked all of your traffic across devices and sites and sold a service linking those identifiers to demographic information. Even without paying, you could use that to reliably link user activity across every plain-text HTTP service:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://arstechnica.com/security/2014/10/verizon-wireless-in...
Going further back, a number of ISPs got heat for reselling access to customer activity to various tracking services:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04...
Another interesting allegation came from Andreas Gal after he left Mozilla, claiming that Google's competitors were paying ISPs for copies of user's search activity so they could improve their search engine by using ranking closer to Google's. Given how many people search for sensitive or identifying terms, that's already a concern and, again, there's no reason to think companies with very limited competition won't expand their profits if it's safe:
https://andreasgal.com/2015/03/30/data-is-at-the-heart-of-se...
PS: Sure, if someone really annoys you then make a note to donate 20$ and to their competitor in either primary or general election depending on your party of choice.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp...
If you see your Congress people on the list you should help replace them with moderates in their primaries and call them more during the year.
Everyone needs to get to know their Congress. Even if they aren't on the list, find out who they are and how to contact them. You only have 3 of them! 2 statewide senators and your house rep. Just 3!
And they can get away with it, thanks to safe districts.
What we need to focus on is purely algorithmic redistricting for 2020, and approval voting for all ballots. Gerrymandering and FPTP voting are deliberate impediments to political competition that must be removed if meaningful change is to occur.
Your voice will not be heard on net neutrality if your rep doesn't have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on data privacy if your rep does not have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on allowing local municipal broadband systems if your rep does not have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on anything so long as your rep can safely ignore you term after term after term.
So you really need to worry about your state legislature now, so you can abolish gerrymandering before 2020, and possibly also get rid of first-past-the-post voting.
And the Republican party have become the moderate party, there is no truly conservative party anymore.
Gawker (and all of its puerile clickbait spawn) is no Chris Hitchens.
It does. But "My political opponents are [swear word]" is not judicious. (Or profanity if you prefer; most Americans would not call "turd" a swear word but it is obviously merely a more genteel way of calling someone a shit, it is a low-grade profanity.)
It's very common and hardly new. It may even be tactically or strategically sound for some desired goals. But it's not judicious, having the same root as judge, being similar to magisterial. Dignified, mature magistrates do not say "People who disagree with me are poo poo heads." If they are inclined to fling insults, they usually use a much higher grade. See, for instance: http://allowe.com/laughs/book/When%20Insults%20Had%20Class.h...
Think of some great comedians, especially Scots, like Billy Connolly and Frankie Boyle - who use a good swear word very well.
I agree with your point, and still also with OP.