When the ISPs start selling peoples' browser histories, I'm going to launch my first web business. It will be called "You watch one video of somebody fucking a goat."
Hmm, everyone's asking why the god botherer caucus was so eager to support this bill when there is no voter constituency outside of telecom lobbyists- and lobbyists who apparently bought their votes on the cheap. I wonder if they see it as a way to fight pr_0_n, they can't shut down the providers or mandate net nannies so they'll make sure everyone knows if they visit naughty sites they could have their name show up on Moby's goat fucking voyeur list.
I would also have a goat-fucking voyeur list.
2: I assume it's because they have no principles.
I've recently been looking into getting a VPN for streaming here because the sites I've been using are getting more and more wonky and are almost intolerable. Also the fuckers blocked Oglaf here. Unfortunately I can't seem to connect with the various VPN websites to sign up in the first place. I guess I'll have to wait till I'm back in the states to get one.
You could ask your family to print and fax Oglaf to you.
Barry, getting Algo working would be a perfectly respectable activity for a drunk, lonely night. I mean, if you don't know what the command line is, then nevermind, but if you do, it's at least as much fun as not-streaming a movie.
I do but it's been awhile. I'll give it a look tomorrow evening over some bourbon.
My understanding was that ISPs could already sell people's browsing histories, and what the jerks in congress get rid of a recent law that would have made it more difficult for them to do it.
So odds are that you're already on the goat-fucking voyeur list, assuming you were ever going to be on it.
At least that's my impression, maybe someone who pays more attention to internet privacy confirm.
9 is right. Rules were set to go into effect, now they won't. So yeah, always already screwed. The goats, I mean.
Is Mickey Kaus still alive? His trajectory seems to be that he dies alone and no one hears about it.
I'm not sure where the missing words in 9 went. I blame my ISP.
I've been running a VPN on my AWS server which I use sometimes, because its the only way to see the good jobs on the Stack Overflow job board when you are outside the United States. Also YouTube clips of SNL sketches mocking the administration, which are likewise blocked internationally (I blame Halford).
I find using a VPN to be a bit of a pain in the ass though. It adds latency, and its one more thing on your computer that can go wrong.
I had read 9/10, which makes me think the current freak out must be an overreaction. No one has ever cared about my browsing history enough to purchase it and try to blackmail me with it. Why would they start now?
My understanding was that ISPs could already sell people's browsing histories
As long as its SSL encrypted, I believe they can't see the actual pages you visited - just the domains. So "browsing history" is an overstatement. Its still bad, though.
Because you can only make a profit if you can work in volume.
Because you haven't run for office yet.
Hmmm. My understanding is that doubleclick and similar organizations have profiles indexed by cookies they issue augmented by the set of software detectable in user-agent log entries. For many people, this can be used in conjunction with say map URLs that contain location info to allow someone who has terabytes of these logs to make probably accurate guesses about the identity of a particular cookie's owner, one at a time. What the vendors sell is advertising access to people who have been browsing sweaters or hotels or both, maybe cross-indexed by approximate location.
Which ISPs that inject their own tracking cookies and also cross-index by identity are actually offering programattically individually identifiable data? It seems like doing that would create a huge liability. Basically, I'm interested to read someone who knows what is actually sold rather than what could be sold in theory. Who writes clearly about these topics? I read Schneier and Krebs every so often.
18: except I also have never seen the browsing histories of my elected officials. Or their opponents. So I'm guessing this isn't as readily put to nefarious purpose as recent analysis would imply.
Mobile providers have subscriber call lists and texts now. There was a 2006 case of corporate espionage of HP's board members where call history was used against people, but the access was gained by distinctly low-tech means.
I'm as paranoid as the next person about what might be coming. I don't like using metaphors that seem like they might be literally true, or reading them used, muddies the line between fact and possibility.
For what it's worth, pivpn is almost possible to install (assuming a raspberry pi) and send to work very well
Hmm, everyone's asking why the god botherer caucus was so eager to support this bill when there is no voter constituency outside of telecom lobbyists
This seems like one of those questions that answers itself.
There's apparently some cognitive dissonance going on at a major Trumpite subreddit, where nobody can believe Trump would possibly sign this.
26 will be true and apposite at all times for the next four years.
Oh, I guess this subject has been in multiple threads now.
I'm giggling at pivpn. For when you don't want others to know.
There's a guy who's got a kickstarter to buy the browsing history of everybody who votes for this. No idea if it's a scam or what, but he's got about fifty large so far, so if it is it's a good one. We'll see.
Trump will run for re-election in 2020 as a Democrat. You heard it here first.
He should try to restart the Know Nothing party.
It's like that RPF they ran last summer in the NYT where Ivanka was playing Eris, only real.
FWIW, the opera browser has a built in VPN option. No idea whether it's any good. And at this point, there is otherwise little difference (so I am told) between opera and chrome.
https://features.en.softonic.com/how-opera-is-different-from-chrome-and-why-you-should-try-it
FWIW, the opera browser has a built in VPN option. No idea whether it's any good. And at this point, there is otherwise little difference (so I am told) between opera and chrome.
https://features.en.softonic.com/how-opera-is-different-from-chrome-and-why-you-should-try-it
Opera's parent was purchased by a Chinese venture capital company in July 2016. Maybe Opera VPNs operating outside China are fine, I do not know.
I trust mysterious VPN providers somewhat less than I trust my ISPs.
I have a hard time seeing why I should start using a VPN if I didn't use one before the rule, which never went into effect, was passed.
35: not the Copperheads? I guess it's more of a brass colour.
if I didn't use one before the rule
Believing that the rule was coming probably kept them from maximizing collection and selling efforts. The more general answer is that it's not bad practice regardless.
27: Which thread did you mean to put that in?
33: I'm thinking some of that is going to be eclipsed by this Flynn business, but who can tell nowadays?
Isn't this a great sentence? Don't you want to just roll it around slithery on your tongue and then swallow it down so it fuels you and makes you warm?
Taken together, the increasingly strange saga of Nunes's shadowy interactions with the administration and his improper interactions with questionable White House sources suggests that the Trump White House is deliberately politicizing intelligence to defend the president's wackiest and most unsubstantiated tweets.
Whoever had "before the end of March" in the pool for when the first Trump staffer seeks immunity, you got it just at the wire.
43: I don't think they believed that since I started using the web in the mid-90s. I'm sure they have better data now, but I'm still going to assume most VPNs are sketchy until shown otherwise. My experience with them, at least ones not provided by work or school, is that the quality of the connection suffers too much to be worth it.
I will check out the run your own thing that you posted. I think there's good reasons to encrypt your traffic, but I guess I file that in a different category from using a VPN service.
I meant to write out "I don't think they believed that the rule was coming since I started using the web in the mid-90s" in 49.
47 et al: I think there is definitely a case to be made that social media has accelerated this sort of political/social upheaval a great deal. Scandals used to take years to reach this point. Protests used to take years to have an effect.
This is kind of interesting: https://labs.rs/en/browsing-histories/
51: That was Kaus's theory, but he disappeared so now it's in the public domain.