By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Republicans Vote To Allow Internet Providers to Sell Your Browsing History

VGPolyglot on 30 March 2017
fatslob-:O said:
VGPolyglot said:

So, you just agree with whatever the courts tell you to?

Well considering that the United States practices the separation of powers to a fairly extreme degree and that the judicial branch is separate from the executive or the legislative branch and that the US is one of the countries with the most judicial independence along with the fact that they rule in accordance to precedent then yeah the courts are fair enough to agree with ... 

At least the court rulings in the US are more fair to agree with than with whatever communist country like China or North korea ever will be because the dominant party are literally the courts themselves! (Communism doesn't care about precedence and that's bad as far as governance goes.) 

Let's play a little game called Look at the Names of the Countries!

People's Republic of China...Hmm, I see republic, but I don't see communist

Democratic People's Republic of Korea...I also see republic, and it even says democratic, but I still don't see socialist

Union of Soviet Socialist Republic...I see the word republic yet again, there seems to be a pattern here!

 

Now, let's look at the names of the parties:

Communist Party of China - Hey, the word communist is actually there!

Communist Party of the Soviet Union - There it is again!

 

Now, what are/were the stated goals of the parties:

http://en.people.cn/206215/206216/7997750.html

Now, there is a little quirk that is mentioned there: "socialist society will inevitably replace capitalist society and ultimately develop into communist society." Do you notice the "will" there? That means that they do not yet consider China to be a communist society, instead their goal is to reach communism (which is obviously a lie, as they are pursuing a capitalist economic system). However, that's one thing that is conveniently ignroed. A lot of people use the Soviet Union and China as examples of communism when they themselves did not consider their society to be communist.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 30 March 2017
palou said:

Explicitely informing the consumer what information they are giving away would be a bare minimum, however. This is a price that they demand, the price must always be apparent to the consumer.

 

Information does not belong to those that are paid to spread it. If you send, let's say, a product prototype by mail, Fedex would have no right to sell your ideas to a company, for example. 

 

You pay for information to be given transmitted. This does not give an automatic right to the messenger to your information.

Except this time your messenger is digital so there's no penalty if they get access to your raw data when you have to rely on their network for service. It's a federal offense for mail carriers to open a physical mail ... 

If you use an ISps network they have every right to know what the hell is going on in their servers ... 



fatslob-:O on 30 March 2017
VGPolyglot said:

Let's play a little game called Look at the Names of the Countries!

People's Republic of China...Hmm, I see republic, but I don't see communist

Democratic People's Republic of Korea...I also see republic, and it even says democratic, but I still don't see socialist

Union of Soviet Socialist Republic...I see the word republic yet again, there seems to be a pattern here!

 

Now, let's look at the names of the parties:

Communist Party of China - Hey, the word communist is actually there!

Communist Party of the Soviet Union - There it is again!

 

Now, what are/were the stated goals of the parties:

http://en.people.cn/206215/206216/7997750.html

Now, there is a little quirk that is mentioned there: "socialist society will inevitably replace capitalist society and ultimately develop into communist society." Do you notice the "will" there? That means that they do not yet consider China to be a communist society, instead their goal is to reach communism (which is obviously a lie, as they are pursuing a capitalist economic system). However, that's one thing that is conveniently ignroed. A lot of people use the Soviet Union and China as examples of communism when they themselves did not consider their society to be communist.

Notice that you ignore the word "people's" which is highly associated with the Marxist-Leninist ideology of common rule ... 

If that's not a supposed hint of communism then I don't know what is ... 

And if that's not what their goals are like you say then why is it so hard to establish a communist court when that's one of the easiest things to do ? 



palou on 30 March 2017
fatslob-:O said:
palou said:

Explicitely informing the consumer what information they are giving away would be a bare minimum, however. This is a price that they demand, the price must always be apparent to the consumer.

 

Information does not belong to those that are paid to spread it. If you send, let's say, a product prototype by mail, Fedex would have no right to sell your ideas to a company, for example. 

 

You pay for information to be given transmitted. This does not give an automatic right to the messenger to your information.

Except this time your messenger is digital so there's no penalty if they get access to your raw data when you have to rely on their network for service. It's a federal offense for mail carriers to open a physical mail ... 

The question of debate here is if it should be an offense to "open" digital mail. I think that the equivalency can be made, and this is why it should be an offense.

 

What I believe to be necessary is that they tell you what information is given to whom. This is part of the price that you pay for using their service, so you must be informed of the price BEFORE it is collected.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

VGPolyglot on 30 March 2017
fatslob-:O said:
VGPolyglot said:

Let's play a little game called Look at the Names of the Countries!

People's Republic of China...Hmm, I see republic, but I don't see communist

Democratic People's Republic of Korea...I also see republic, and it even says democratic, but I still don't see socialist

Union of Soviet Socialist Republic...I see the word republic yet again, there seems to be a pattern here!

 

Now, let's look at the names of the parties:

Communist Party of China - Hey, the word communist is actually there!

Communist Party of the Soviet Union - There it is again!

 

Now, what are/were the stated goals of the parties:

http://en.people.cn/206215/206216/7997750.html

Now, there is a little quirk that is mentioned there: "socialist society will inevitably replace capitalist society and ultimately develop into communist society." Do you notice the "will" there? That means that they do not yet consider China to be a communist society, instead their goal is to reach communism (which is obviously a lie, as they are pursuing a capitalist economic system). However, that's one thing that is conveniently ignroed. A lot of people use the Soviet Union and China as examples of communism when they themselves did not consider their society to be communist.

Notice that you ignore the word "people's" which is highly associated with the Marxist-Leninist ideology of common rule ... 

If that's not a supposed hint of communism then I don't know what is ... 

And if that's not what their goals are like you say then why is it so hard to establish a communist court when that's one of the easiest things to do ? 

People's is referring to the elected people being representative of the working class, rather than the bourgeosie. However, that is not communism, as communism is stateless, so as long as the PRC exists it cannot be communist. Also, where did I say that establishing a communist court was easy? Also, they're not going to establish a communist court (whatever that's supposed to be) because it's not in their interest to do so.



Around the Network
roadkillers on 30 March 2017

Well, looks like im done with the internet



fgsduilfgasuklwgefidslzfgb4yiogwefhawi4fbielat5gy240bh3e

jason1637 on 30 March 2017
roadkillers said:
Well, looks like im done with the internet

This really isnt new. Providers have already been able to check peoples internet usage and share this info with advertisers.



fatslob-:O on 30 March 2017
palou said:

The question of debate here is if it should be an offense to "open" digital mail. I think that the equivalency can be made, and this is why it should be an offense.

 

What I believe to be necessary is that they tell you what information is given to whom. This is part of the price that you pay for using their service, so you must be informed of the price BEFORE it is collected.

No, an equivalency can't be made because with digital mail you have to use the infrastructure directly which passes through an ISPs network whereas mail carriers cannot open the packaging in physical mails because they do not own that property ... 

And for anyone thinking that VPNs are any different with ISPs they should think again because like ISPs, users have to trust that VPNs also won't breach your personal privacy in the same way in the end ... 



rolltide101x on 31 March 2017

All of these people griping about this REALLY need to know that EVERY (major) cellular carrier already does and even goes a step further and sells your GPS location as well. Also ever wonder how Facebook makes money? (Google as well) Now you know........

Yet people blindly use these services. This is why I use a VPN and my phone is untrackable and on a VPN.



RenCutypoison on 31 March 2017
Baalzamon said:
Isn't our data already utilized? I thought that is how we got targeted ads. How is this different than that?

It's used through cookies : when you use a website, they register your habit to use it as feedback and on big websites, to commercial ends. Except every company has its own database, even if big companies can buy other's databases (it's illegal to sell personal data in a lot of countries, so it's mostly anonymous).

The difference here is full access : ISPs see everything, only going to websites that respect your privacy won't change anything.