Trump Rolls Back Online Privacy in Regulatory Shell Game

[lovinthehd]

So when she said and pushed for it, she didn't really do so? This is exactly why I need to stay away from political threads. I am a news junkie so I get enough of it there.

Hard to know what you mean by "it".

 

[Audiot]

I choose CNN over Fox as well and PBS over CNN. So you disagree that there is no agenda in CNN or Fox to sell subscribership or garner top spot for ratings?

A bit late getting back, but I'm back. The way I would put it is that Fox is the most partisan network of the major providers by far. If you want me to suggest that bias doesn't slip in at CNN and they are always professionally neutral, I can't say that. What I can say is CNN makes a fair effort to report the news factually based on the data at hand at the moment. FOX is entirely unreliable and almost always has an ax to grind.

I think conflating them as equal is a mistake. The most openly liberal network is MSNBC. They might be compared with some justification to Fox except unlike Fox, my opinion is they are not the major hypocritical, self serving talking heads. That's reserved solely for Fox who takes home the kewpie doll for perfecting propaganda masquerading as news. There are a lot more differences between news providers and they are easier to grade on accuracy than there are between most equally good amplifiers, if you get my meaning.

 

[Audiot]

A bit late getting back, but I'm back. The way I would put it is that Fox is the most partisan network of the major providers by far. If you want me to suggest that bias doesn't slip in at CNN and they are always professionally neutral, I can't say that. What I can say is CNN makes a good effort to report the news factually based on the data at hand at the moment. FOX is entirely unreliable and almost always has an ax to grind.

I think conflating them as equal is a mistake. The most openly liberal network is MSNBC. They might be compared with some justification to Fox except unlike Fox, my opinion is they are not the major hypocritical, self serving talking heads. That's reserved solely for Fox who takes home the kewpie doll for perfecting propaganda masquerading as news.

My last few sentences reflect my opinion and as you know, arguing over opinions is usually pretty fruitless. But I guess we could try!

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Not trying to argue, but if you select some respectful country and your destination is then back in the US, how does that play out especially if your origin ISP has injected a supercookie into your originating packets? All the data in the VPN stream will be encrypted, true. However, there are data packets that have to surround the data stream and there is where supercookies could and would be injected. Without the packets that surround the stream, no data would flow across the internet at all. You have to go through your ISP in the first place to get to the VPN. There is no way around that. Far fetched, perhaps, but some marketing director somewhere might request this sort of tracking for business reasons. There is nothing technically stopping it.

I completely agree with you in all respects, and this article has done the best that I have seen at giving reasons why this should never have passed.

Your isp could track your fully encrypted traffic to your VPN provider, but this would be useless as your isp will only see high grade encryption which is useless for them. Any unencrypted traffic will be flowing before your vpn and rest of Internet. Any tagged packets will be discarded by vpn as considered corrupted.

 

[everettT]

Hard to know what you mean by "it".

" it" is easy , the previous member of the board has been talking about regulating political speech on the net. This issue has been going on since 2013. I'm not here to debate the FACT that she has stated on numerous occasions. I certainly don't want to argue about the factual statements she made about it. I'm not talking about the science is settled crap that gets regurgitated as a truth, but her actual comments. It's not hard for any partisian to understand. So correct it again, it doesn't change the FACT that she said it. I'm libertarian that leans right, doesn't mean I'm not smart enough to understand what I read and verify it. Just like Shady commented on the linked article being far right or unreliable news, when it's true it's true that's all. The mob mentality is as bad as fake news. FWIW it's my last post in this thread that is a debauchery. I pray for my daughter to not get into the political BS

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I'll save you the trouble of goofu skills
https://www.google.com/search?q=fec+commisioner+regulate+politicak+speech&oq=fec+commisioner+regulate+politicak+speech&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.24117j1j4&client=ms-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Well known and not new lol... just not reported by msm and fwiw it was meant to be light harted and comical

I just puked a bit after reading the top result of google search you've linked to:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/fec_commissioner_who_fought_to_regulate_political_speech_on_internet_resigns.html
Particularly this last part:

While campaigning, the president made it clear he thinks money from big donors is not good for the electoral process. He didn't come out and say he supports campaign finance reform, but it is likely he would take a far more favorable view of at least some regulation of big contributions than a traditional Republican.

Here's another view to why actually Ann Ravel decided to resign the FEC.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170223/14592436781/federal-election-commission-member-quits-says-agency-refuses-to-address-campaign-finance-violations.shtml

As for filtering political speech on social media - I think we should be very careful here.
One thing is some people sharpen their keyboard ninjas mad skillz (ie - yours truly) using forums or other similar "water coolers" and it's absolutely clear that postings are a nothing more than a personal opinions.
On the other hand facebook wall "news" made to look like real articles, absolutely meant to confuse, dissuade or in any other way affect potential voters.
See definition of fake news, clearly defined by Don Lemon earlier.

edit: Minor grammar, spelling

 

[wiyosaya]

Your isp could track your fully encrypted traffic to your VPN provider, but this would be useless as your isp will only see high grade encryption which is useless for them. Any unencrypted traffic will be flowing before your vpn and rest of Internet. Any tagged packets will be discarded by vpn as considered corrupted.

See this.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

See this.

See this: https://thatoneprivacysite.net/
Not all VPN providers are equally good, there are many bad players. Then I said "VPN will protect your privacy", I meant to say "a good VPN will protect your privacy"