It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Republicans Just Voted to Kill Internet Privacy

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: BlueAjah

omg nvm. hopeless



If you are so worried about your ISP... do you use Gmail?
Gmail was not affected by the law being reversed either.

Gmail does scan all emails, new Google terms clarify


Google has clarified its email scanning practices in a terms of service update, informing users that incoming and outgoing emails are analysed by automated software.

The revisions explicitly state that Google’s system scans the content of emails stored on Google’s servers as well as those being sent and received by any Google email account, a practice that has seen the search company face criticism from privacy action groups and lawsuits from the education sector.




This is apples and oranges. Email has never been regulated OR secure. If you thought it ever was, shame on you.




posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
There is one silver lining to this law if it goes into effect:

We can now buy the internet search history of politicians.

There's already a gofundme being set up to buy Trumps browsing history and publish it online.

Also, I see some future lawsuits over who owns their data. Does it originate with the person that created it, or the entity that's storing it? Immense legal ramifications in either direction. Bills like this will only force that issue sooner or later.
edit on 29-3-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
As for Trump, I will remind the OP that the President does not make the law, so this is not 'thanks to Trump'.


Actually, it doesn't become "law" until Trump signs it, so this would definitely be "thanks to Trump" if it becomes a law.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: UKTruth
As for Trump, I will remind the OP that the President does not make the law, so this is not 'thanks to Trump'.


Actually, it doesn't become "law" until Trump signs it, so this would definitely be "thanks to Trump" if it becomes a law.


Whatever makes you feel better.

I expect you to be praising Trump for everything that goes well too.

edit on 29/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: angeldoll

This has nothing to do with medical records.
HIPAA laws are still in effect.



You aren't fully comprehending the possible repercussions and implications of this. It has everything to do with medical records, and other things you might have on the ISP that you thought were private.

I explained a little earlier in a post, that my doctor's office put all his patients lab results, etc. in a "portal" where we go in on line to see them. At the top of the page there is a shield that says "trackers blocked". Yes, it's blocked. Right?
But when I click on it, my ISP service now has that address. Does it have my password? I don't know, and neither do you.

Oh, and I saw your post about the way "to get things done". Complain about it to the ISP's, you say?

Well of course! You wouldn't want to bother Mr. Trump and the Republicans about this little sell out.
Should people complain to doctor's when their health care is taken away?
To the airlines when they can't get into the country?

Of course. No one should bother the high and mighty and strangely demented Mr. Trump with all these little nuisances of the common American.


All your ISP can see is what page you went to.
Assuming your medical service is using encryption, they are not looking at your medical records.




Weren't you the one making the attempt to 'school' me in the business section about how you've made plenty of switchovers from non-secure HTTP servers to SSL/TLS servers and you would make a statement like the above? You really think all your ISP can see is "what page" you went to? They can and do monitor every open port from origin to destination...that doesn't only include TCP ports and certainly not only port 80 and 443 but UDP, Telnet, ICMP etc...any well known, publicly available port that you can possibly communicate through is what "your ISP can see".

With respect to medical records, encrypted or not encrypted, since when do HIPAA regulations start allowing ANY medical records to be stored anywhere but in a HIPAA authorized medium, which is typically only offline at the Doctor's office and not any random online server?


Using SSL/TLS is what guards your privacy. And I did say that the medical portal should use such encryption. So, I don't see how you don't understand that this is all part of the same thing?

And of course your ISP can see what ports you use. That seemed beyond the scope of this discussion, which is regarding ISP selling your information to advertisers.

HIPAA does not restrict storing files on servers, or from providing electronic access to them. It requires protecting such data and only providing access to authorized persons. Providing a portal from a secure server with strong security and encryption meets those needs.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Whatever makes you feel better.


Deflection doesn't make your false positions correct.


originally posted by: UKTruth
The people have voted in favour of this.


No, "the people" haven't. This was not a platform issue in the election. It was never put forth for "the people" to vote upon. It's simply another in a long list of things that our representatives attempt to slip by while few are noticing.


originally posted by: UKTruth
When a President vetoes a bill he is going against the will of the people, which is why it is so rare.


What a ridiculous blanket statement. There are plenty of vetoes that have occurred directly because of "the will of the people".


originally posted by: UKTruth
Congress are responsible for creating laws and they do so in representation of the people who elected them.
To suggest that a law being passed is 'thanks to the [the President]' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of your own form of govt - a Representative Republic. Sounds like you are more up for dictatorship.


Nope, Congress creates and amends Bills, they are not Law until signed by the President. Furthermore, and more often than not, they create those Bills in representation of the lobbyists who donate to their campaigns, and not in "representation of the people" who actually elected them. A law being passed is directly 'thanks to [the President]'. Again, without a President's signature it never becomes a law.

Sounds more like you are the one with fundamental misunderstandings of our form of govt.
edit on 3/29/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Since the mid 70's (93rd Congress) there have been 11,926 enacted laws and 254 vetoes. I would call a veto rare.

Only a fool would say that all 11,926 passed laws were "thanks to the President" or that he was in full agreement with them all.

Your representatives vote on bills - that is how it works.
Under rare circumstances the President vetoes.

Here endeth the lesson.



But, like I said, whatever makes you feel better.
edit on 29/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   
It's the Republican way. Corporations are the politicians only constituent. Workers do not contribute nearly enough money to lobbyists to have a voice in this government.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Now its a big deal... when that big treaty the previous administration was pushing wanted to do it... so many people did not seem to care.

One day my pipe dream is people will realize these labels Republican, or demcorat are interchangeable when it comes to protecting the rights of the people... in other words neither party is doing anything to protect us.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: angeldoll

More to the point, the first thing anyone does when they suspect they have a medical condition is search the internet. From diabetes prevention to weight loss to depression to cancer etc. Of course data obsessed insurers will build in rate quotation models depending on what and how often you google health conditions on the internet. That's just the tip of the iceberg...did you know that airlines and travel sites have been caught charging more for airline tickets online based on the persons estimated income? The implications are massive.

It's a little sick to see trumpites defending this..but best to get folks on record for what they stand for.


I wonder how the defenders of this would react if we let citizens and consumers have this power as well?
I mean, we could pull up the post history of anyone across the internet regardless of their username or IP in order to ascertain if they are a Corporate Shill or a Pro American.

It seems they only want Big Business to have that power and everyone else to be subject to their fascism



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Since the mid 70's (93rd Congress) there have been 11,926 enacted laws and 254 vetoes. I would call a veto rare.


Mid 70s, eh?

So 254 vetoes in roughly 42 years means an average of about 6 per year, or one every 2 months... one every 2 months is not exactly "rare".


originally posted by: UKTruth
Only a fool would say that all 11,926 passed laws were "thanks to the President".


If they became laws, then it was by the signature of a President. Only a fool would deny such.


originally posted by: UKTruth
Your representatives vote on bills - that is how it works.


You got it right this time! Congress votes on bills! You're learning! Keep up the good work!

Here endeth the lesson.




I won't bother linking the Costner vid. You can just scroll up for that.

edit on 3/29/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: UKTruth
Since the mid 70's (93rd Congress) there have been 11,926 enacted laws and 254 vetoes. I would call a veto rare.


Mid 70s, eh?

So 254 vetoes in roughly 42 years means an average of 6 per year, or one every 2 months... one every 2 months is not exactly "rare".


originally posted by: UKTruth
Only a fool would say that all 11,926 passed laws were "thanks to the President".


If they became laws, then it was by the signature of a President. Only a fool would deny such.


originally posted by: UKTruth
Your representatives vote on bills - that is how it works.


You got it right this time! Congress votes on bills! You're learning! Keep up the good work!

Here endeth the lesson.


Lol, 254 vs nearly 12,000. Yep, rare.
I can see you are embarrassed by your mistake.. entrenching yourself is the give away.
Before jumping in, try and understand the numbers first, lest you look like a fool again.

But, hey, whatever makes you feel better, like I said.

edit on 29/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: redmage

Since the mid 70's (93rd Congress) there have been 11,926 enacted laws and 254 vetoes. I would call a veto rare.

Only a fool would say that all 11,926 passed laws were "thanks to the President" or that he was in full agreement with them all.

Your representatives vote on bills - that is how it works.
Under rare circumstances the President vetoes.

Here endeth the lesson.



But, like I said, whatever makes you feel better.



No, this is not true
The bills that pass are written by and for corporate and banking lobbyists
Americans on the whole have no say in our government, what does have infuence is deep pockets.

The Majority were against Obamacare, Iraq Wars, Patriot Act, Bank Bail Outs but the deep pockets were not so that is how it went for them.

act.represent.us...

This is who are government works for

Gilens & Page found that the number of Americans for or against any idea has no impact on the likelihood that Congress will make it law.

“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
Gilens & Page, Perspectives in Politics
One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a “statistically non-significant impact,” economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence.

And since the bottom 90% pay taxes, they are not being represented and is grounds to do away with our corporate fascist government



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

Well now you have a good point there, but your elected representatives do represent you even if they do it badly.
You have no one to blame but yourselves. If you cared enough you would ensure others were your representatives and you have the power to do so.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Now its a big deal... when that big treaty the previous administration was pushing wanted to do it... so many people did not seem to care.

One day my pipe dream is people will realize these labels Republican, or demcorat are interchangeable when it comes to protecting the rights of the people... in other words neither party is doing anything to protect us.


My pipe dream is people will realize corporations ARE the government.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Lol, 254 vs nearly 12,000. Yep, rare.


Nah, it's a low ratio, but not "rare" by any means. Calling an average of 1 ever 2 months "rare" is similar to calling a full moon "rare" since they only occur approximately once a month compared to all the other non-full moons that occur. Full moons, and vetoes occur fairly often, and neither can truly be considered "rare".


originally posted by: UKTruth
I can see you are embarrassed by your mistake.


Your intuition is worse than your political knowledge, and that's going to be a lot tougher to fix. At least you were making progress on the former by learning to differentiate bills from laws.

Good luck with fixing that poor intuition bit.

edit on 3/29/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: UKTruth
Lol, 254 vs nearly 12,000. Yep, rare.


Nah, it's a low ratio, but not "rare" by any means. Calling an average of 1 ever 2 months "rare" is similar to calling a full moon "rare" since they only occur approximately once a month compared to all the other non-full moons that occur. Full moons, and vetoes occur fairly often.


originally posted by: UKTruth
I can see you are embarrassed by your mistake.


Your intuition is worse than your political knowledge, and that's going to be a lot tougher to fix. At least you were making progress on the former by learning to differentiate bills from laws.

Good luck with fixing that poor intuition bit.


Low ratio, lol
Whatever makes you feel better.
I did find your analogy amusing though, in so much that it is completely misplaced. I can see you won't understand why.

edit on 29/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Whatever makes you feel better.


If you're really that concerned (since you keep mentioning it).

What makes me feel better is the fact that I was finally able to educate you on the difference between a bill and a law.

Baby steps, but keep up the good work!

edit on 3/29/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Lol, I love how you have to convince yourself. Very satisfying.
I am still laughing at your analogy by the way.


edit on 29/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
I love how you have to convince yourself.


No self-convincing needed. You provided the proof. After continually getting it wrong, you finally got it right (after repeated corrections).

See for yourself...


originally posted by: UKTruth
Your representatives vote on bills - that is how it works.


You didn't say "laws" like you repeatedly claimed beforehand.


As for the poor intuition... sorry, but you're on your own with that one.
edit on 3/29/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join