Why Do Republicans Want ISPs to Spy on Their Customers

After the recent spying on President Trump one would expect Republicans to be sensitive to privacy issue. Apparently not. People should be aware of the following and share with you friends.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/...s-are-disregarding-their-own-privacy-policies

The really shocking thing to me is that people don't understand the ramifications of the spying the Republicans are going to allow. If they did understand, this would not be happening. Down the road, allowing ISPs to sell browsing history can provide the means to blackmail people, facilitate political roundups of dissidents, be given to law enforcement to identify "suspects" (for example a visit to the high times web site may provide the basis for a no-knock search warrant), be used to deny insurance coverage, be used to make hiring decisions, etc. Have you ever researched divorce laws/lawyers and if so if this something you would like your husband or wife to be able to obtain from background investigation companies who will buy this information from ISPs? If anyone thinks what I am saying is hyperbole, think about the possibility of any person being able to have access to any and all Internet sites you have ever accessed. Think about all searches you have ever done now being linked to your identity. People will buy this information and then resell it. I guess those who are pure as the driven snow (or is often said by the ignorant "have done nothing wrong") have nothing to fear.

 

Didn't see anything in the OP or the bogus article linked presenting the context that these types of issues are and should be matters of STATE, NOT FEDERAL, LAW. Of course that's not included because it doesn't fit the anti GOP lie narrative.

Oh, I'm not a Republican btw, but an anti Democrat. Tired of the constant lies and crookedness of the "political machine" party and its hordes of media shills.

 

Republicans just grew the government over shrinking it. Good job, how Democratic of you.

 

So the internet isn't a NATIONAL entity?

 

Nothing bogus about a Senate vote to remove Internet privacy protections provided by the FCC. The FCC is part of the Federal government. Trying to regulate telecom providers whose networks cross State lines with State by State regulations is absurd. Oh, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat - rather an independent who votes based on issues. Privacy is an important issue or don't you think so?

 

"

Why Do Republicans Want ISPs to Spy on Their Customers"

That's Freedom.
Free market.
Government control bad.

The GOP mantra in brief form.

 

No, it isn't. Being hauled into many different state courts with state juries can have much sharper teeth than federal regulators that only take one brown bag to fix (ask big tobacco for just one of many examples). Look how Clinton handily suspended the antitrust laws in the 90s by "turning off" the FTC for all the megabanks and their megamergers. Just took one switch not 50. But of course the anticompetitive TRUE function of the regs was still there to thwart upstart competitors who didn't "pay up" or couldn't afford to pay to play in the big merger game. Couple decades later, Clinton's a decamillionaire from "speaking fees" paid by the same "too big to fail banks" that were prime components in 2008. But I guess that's just a coincidence.

In many cases, decentralized law is better. Net privacy is one of those cases IMO. YMMV of course, as may a reasoned opinion differ. But again... WE DIDN'T EVEN GET THERE... you and your biased source UTTERLY IGNORED the state v fed issue entirely in a DISHONEST bid to paint this as the GOP selling all the net libertarians down the river.

So which? Dishonest or dumb? or incredibly naïve?

 

No, it isn't. 99% of it (the self-supporting portions anyway) is composed of creatures of state law, privately owned spaces and entities like this forum for example.

They should make ten years of employment in the private sector a prerequisite for any government position, the level of knowledge of the private sector and how commerce works in this country is ABYSMAL among the street level, union label denizens of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-lawyer-MSM Complex, which is ironic because it's the private sector that pays for most of the Complex. But I guess the tick doesn't really care how the dog works so long as the blood keeps flowing.

 

You're trying to schmooze an obvious reality

 

This post is very interesting. I had not thought about all the possible complications of loss of internet privacy. Obviously, federal standards for internet privacy are needed. What would happen if one state had no standards? That would mean that the standards in the other 49 states would have little effect. On the other hand, if there were no internet privacy, maybe people would behave better (this is a joke).

 

You are brainwashed by your media source. Just a little time reading other news sources will tell you that their point is to reduce duplication of regulations. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the one responsible for business/consumer regulations, not the FCC. In addition, the FCC has been highly partisan in their decisions during the Obama administration.

In other words, why do we have "16 other intelligence services" when one should do the job?

Steve

 

The FTC also has the "Do Not Call" list that is supposed to keep unwanted advertisers from calling your phone. If you think they are doing a bang-up job protecting your phone with that, you'll love what they do for your internet privacy. Of course, this vote was never about protecting the consumer. It was about ISPs being able to sell your data to advertisers and make billions… and the corporations that donated to political campaigns to make this happen.

 

Exactly right! The Republican Party of Corporations make no bones about what and who they stand for and the nitwits that stand to lose the most continue to support these thieves and swindlers.

 

WRONG! It was about the FCC picking business winners and losers. Ask yourself without laughing, why do we have "16 other intelligence services" when one should do the job?

Steve

 

That doesn't even mean anything.

I spent a few minutes looking into this issue this morning. It is not a black and white issue. I stand by my assessment of state v federal law earlier in the thread, and that the OP version of this issue is slanted and out of context.

For anyone interested in the barest facts surrounding this issue, the O Administration, in a midnight lame duck action (all Presidents do these, just a term of art, there may even be another term of art for it) increased FCC authority over the internet at the expense of FTC authority. The instant regulation was a -part- of that. Whether or not the GOP should reverse that, and who should regulate the internet are the very basic expressions of a complex issue which READERS SHOULD RESEARCH FOR THEMSELVES... and NOT from slanted, hysterical and dishonest sources like in the OP. For starters, this issue isn't "the GOP authorizing internet businesses to spy on you," that's a lie narrative.

Don't be lazy. Do your own -comprehensive- research and form your own opinion. Brick and mortar has been selling customer information for as long as there have been databases kept in ledgers. Individuals can prevent this in their negotiations with said companies, or the practice can be regulated in several ways at several levels. The reason the net is a sore spot for this activity is because people are under the ILLUSION, and it is a total ILLUSION, that your activities on the net are anonymous and will generally remain so. They aren't and they won't. There are specific rights to privacy in various case law and specific statutes like HIPAA and statutes relating to credit and debt collection. Other than that, when you go into PUBLIC places and behave in a PUBLIC fashion, you have no guarantee or expectation of privacy.

IMO, rather than whine inaccurately about the GOP authorizing "spying," internet users should take occasions like this to act like adults and form an adult understanding of the distinctions between public and private actions in whatever jurisdiction they live, and to address the protection of their private information on an INDIVIDUAL level, rather than running to Big Brother (O the irony) for the ILLUSION of protection.

If you are laboring under the misconception that government generally is there to "protect" you, know this, you have it backwards. You are there to protect -them-. Thus it has always been and thus it shall ever be. Are they fooling you?

 

You do need to dis-associate all members of congress from the people of their respective parties. When politicians vote for something, there are always hidden agendas and political obligations that cause them to do things that their constituents would not agree with- and they are usually hidden as much as possible, or wrapped in some cloak of justification to make them seem logical. The democrats are just as guilty of selling out our privacy as the republicans. Politicians are in a particular position which compromises their personal values and ethics with absolute consistency. As the old saying goes- "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". It's quite clear that one of the primary motives of politicians in to keep increasing the level of their power- and thus, their ability to corrupt. Seems to go with the territory. Should be a high crime.

 

Have to agree with the left on this one. There is no public interest in letting internet providers to sell their clients data...It is simply about greed.

 

Been going on a long time before Obama's 2016 law that favored Google and Facebook. If you use either Obama's law still allowed it.

 

It's called advertising. Something Google and Facebook could still do under Obama's law.

 

An invasion of privacy is an invasion of privacy

 

Tell me this, just which constituents went to their Representative or Senator and asked for this legislation? Who said, "Please allow my ISP to sell my browser history to the highest bidder, and be sure to not give me a way to opt out?" Did you? No one I know did, and they are all angry about it, even staunch Republicans. This was not a situation of Congress acting as representatives of their constituency. It was Congresspeople doing what their donors said because $$$. The FTC used to enforce the privacy rule made by the FCC. Now there is no rule to enforce, because the ISP doesn't have to protect your privacy. They can sell it. Of course, if you feel the need to defend the Republican party for this travesty, you might see it differently.

As to the intelligence agencies... The FBI is America only. The CIA is foreign entities only. Then, each branch of armed services has their own investigative agency. Homeland Security, ICE, BATF and others are specialized. It's really no different than a police department having different divisions for homicide, major crimes, traffic investigation, etc. Do you really think the FBI can investigate every single crime that takes place? Just how large a bureaucracy do you think that would take, and wouldn't they have to divide up the responsibilities according to type and specialization, sorta like they are now? I don't think you thought this through. If one could do the job, it would be a monsterously large and still need divisions for efficiency, so it wouold function just like multiple agencies do now.

 

They are private companies that offer a free service. You do not have to use their sites. If you do, then you accept their terms of service, and that includes being part of the algorithms that target advertising.

If you pay your ISP for access, it's your access. They should not have the right to charge you for the service and sell your privacy too. If they are going to infringe on your privacy and make money selling your data, the access should be free.

 

You do not have to use an ISP either. That too is a choice.

 

There is no privacy on the internet. The truth of the matter is, this ONLY affects ISPs. The real offenders; google, facebook, etc.. are wholly unaffected by this law, and/or its repeal. In fact, those company's very business model is based around what this law is supposed to protect us from.

Partizans will spin this as you have; "republicans want to end your privacy". The truth of the matter is, you never had any privacy because the law was flawed to begin with; it was limited to only ISPs.

 

Sure. I could use a well for water and make my own solar panels for electricity too. Or I can expect those elected by the people to do as the Constitution says and represent the will of the people, not their corporate donors. Put this to a referendum and see how much support it gets.