This is terrible and allows the government to legally buy your browse history data.
It allows advertisers to buy data~government already has it if what has been divulged by Snowden and others this week is true (I think it is.)
I am not familiar with this website, Inverse. Do you have any other sources?
Actually, someone told me about this legislation today, so I would like to know more.
ALso, the website, Inverse, does not have any bill numbers or resolution information...Do you?
But but
Republicans are the good guys.
/ultra sarc
87274 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 232/Friday, December 2, 2016/Rules and Regulations
I refuse to believe Obama was protecting us. There has to be more to this story than what has been stated. There is no way the Obama Administration would do more to protect our privacy than the current Senate will. Not that I trust the GOP one bit, but I don’t buy that the original regulation protected our privacy as is simply stated.
I want to know the real scoop on this.
Isn’t that wonderful.
Just like in Minority Report..
Two aspects to consider:
Sometimes your smartphone knows exactly where you are.
Sometimes your smartphone is totally mistaken on where you are. My Android often has me at places 0.5 to 1.5 miles away from where I really am including always has my home 0.5 miles from where it is on the edge of downtown Atlanta. Once my phone had me in Illinois when I was in Atlanta GA.
My phone tells me where I am. Then I go to google maps and it has me at a different place than my phone does. Often they both are wrong.
Apparently the algorithms are tuned for certain levels of probability and levels of advertiser financing. My phone seems to be more accurate in upscale parts of Metro Atlanta than in lower income areas where I often find myself.
It knows how to get me from Turner field to the Georgia dome quite accurately. But it is clueless how to get me from my home near Turner field to my office near the Georgia dome.
The only change is that the government may be paying for what they have been scooping up for free. The 4th amendment does not speak to communication. Communication means sharing information with some other entity. If we expected privacy on the internet, we would not need spam filters. If you want Internet privacy elect people who will write better laws. Until then, typewriters, dead drops and codes will have to do for the secret squirrel.
The problem is that from the beginning, an Internet “conversation” was not considered the same as a telephone conversation, in terms of the privacy of it and how it was expected that your phone company was NOT selling your calling history and/or content of your conversation to anyone.
NOTHING about the Internet being “open” enough that you can locate anyone else that has an address on the Internet REQUIRES that your connections and “conversations” be data your ISP can sell.
A famous NYTimes columnist (William Safire) back at the dawn of the Internet age, in one of his last editorials, argued, correctly in my book, how “opt in” should be the standard for every single form of “data sharing”, “cookies”, ect. relative to your Internet communications. He was right.