[opendtv] Re: F.C.C. Proposes Privacy Rules for Internet Providers - The New York Times
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 08:05:01 -0400
On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:58 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Yeah...then we learned the NSA was collecting metadata on every
phone call in the U.S.
True enough, but this is strictly regulated. As opposed to the free-for-all
way in which these practices evolve, when greed is allowed to go unchecked.
What the NSA was doing was not regulated. It was going on without our
knowledge, maybe even without the knowledge of Congress. In theory the Feds had
to go to the FISA court to get a warrant to look at this data, but it is not
much of a stretch to believe that access was there for purposes other than
tracking terrorists.
Keep in mind that the Clinton Administration had hundreds of FBI files on
"enemies" in the White House private residence, and the Obama Administration
used the IRS to go after Tea Party organizations. Not much of a stretch to
believe that W and Cheney may have used the Patriot Act to collect information
about "threats."
This may all sound like "black helicopter" fears, but Snowden certainly gave us
good reason for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Now that the telcos are required to keep the metadata, and a FISA warrant is
required to access it, we "may" have less to fear...
But don't worry, you have nothing to fear if you are doing
nothing wrong...
I guess it all depends what you think is the greater threat. Unthrottled
greed from opportunist SOBs, or black helicopters and redcoats carrying
muskets.
I am concerned about both. Our Constitutional freedoms are precious and there
is good reason to believe they are threatened.
http://fortune.com/2015/04/28/isps-share-your-data/
You probably never read the fine print.
You probably should read the article. This sharing is something they want to
be able to do, and that's what the FCC is now wanting to prevent. THIS is the
key point, that I doubt anyone other than greedy SOBs would support:
No Bert. The sharing was clearly happening and there were discussions with the
FCC about whether they would regulate it. Now we have a NPRM to gather
comments, and the likely result will be regulation and the ability to opt out,
if you are willing to pay more. Or maybe the FCC will tell the providers they
cannot charge more for privacy...
"What Quinn seems to be ignoring is that those other ad-supported services
such as Facebook run on top of the broadband networks. AT&T is actually
proposing tapping the networks themselves and using a technology called deep
packet inspection to peek at people's web surfing as a way to improve its
marketing."
Duh...
Which of course, would include reading your emails, transmitted files,
whatever. I doubt you'll find many consumers wanting that to be allowed. I
doubt you'll find many consumers who think the FCC should ignore this
problem. (With the exception of those same yahoos that obsess over black
helicopters and those redcoats lurking about.)
What is different about that and what Google is doing?
I would also add that this kind of inspection does not necessarily mean that
they are looking at the content of every message. The metadata that the NSA and
now the Telcos are collecting does not include the content; it contains
information about the connections and location of mobile devices (the cell
tower used). packet routing metadata is very similar and sufficient to gain
information that is valuable to advertisers. For example, it can tell Amazon,
or the ISP making the connection, the page you are looking at, which may be a
category of products or a specific product.
But once again, what is different about this and Google other than the fact
that the FCC is trying to regulate the ISPs, but has no authority to regulate
Google?
It is absurd to believe we still have the privacy you think exists.
It might be absurd to think privacy is guaranteed, but it's hardly absurd to
let greedy SOBs snoop unfettered. Sorry, Craig, not too many people would
object to a presumption of privacy, for your telephone line or broadband link
itself.
It is not a question of whether people object. It is a question of whether
privacy is guaranteed or if there is "unfettered snooping." I am simply saying
that I use communications devices ASSUMING that the information IS NOT private.
To the extent that the content can be encrypted I am a big fan. This is
especially critical for financial transactions, medical data, and personal
things like using FaceTime to communicate with family.
Yes, of course, ultimately you can try to encrypt all your phone calls and
all you online activity. Too bad that as a user, you are not capable of doing
that alone, universally.
To a very large extent you can. We are moving to devices that use encryption at
the hardware and OS level to protect the device. And some of the native apps
use encryption, like Apple's iMessage.
There are all kinds of third party apps that provide secure encrypted
communications. And SOBs with decent technical skills can jailbreak devices and
write their own secure apps.
So we are once again playing the old game of Spy versus Spy. Governments may be
able to force device makers to install "back doors," but it is impossible to
stop the bad guys from using encrypted communications for which governments
cannot get a key.
What is more disturbing, is that none of this is doing much to prevent
terrorism, or other illegal activities. The ability to unlock devices AFTER
something bad has happened is useful in criminal investigations, but it's a bit
late, other than potentially providing links to other bad actors, which is
already possible with the metadata collection.
And then there is the potential for abuse, to gather information about
"enemies" who have not broken the law, but pose "political threats."
The other end of that line needs to participate, and that's usually not under
your control. But it might just come to that. Or, the FCC can make deep
packet inspection by broadband providers illegal, as it should be, and then
the problem is reduced, if not guaranteed to be solved.
All it would solve is protecting Google, Amazon, and Facebook from new
competitors. It will be interesting to see the responses to the NPRM.
As usual, broad brush, vague generalities. As much as people are fed up with
government overreach, they're HARDLY fed up with smacking down overly greedy
SOBs. Don't forget that the FCC got more mail about net neutrality than about
anything else, and that the overwhelming majority of that mail wanted
neutrality guaranteed.
It would be extremely difficult for you to successfully argue against net
neutrality, and against a presumption of privacy on broadband or telephone
lines. Get real.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: