back to article As Trump signs away Americans' digital privacy, it's time to bring out the BS detector

President Donald Trump has rescinded America's digital privacy protections over what ISPs can do with their subscribers' data, signing into law on Monday a joint resolution of Congress. The resolution passed a controversial vote in the House last week by 215 votes to 205, which followed a vote in the Senate a few days earlier …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

    You say ISP's charge and therefore want their cake and to eat it, to get some of the filthy lucre that Google, Facebook etc make. ISP's profit on providing a hardware service is surprisingly slim, Big G & F buy servers, not laying cables in the ground everywhere, so why shouldn't they do a Facebook and sell your soul to advertisers to make a profit?

    I'm going to post this anonymously due to the influx of down votes by people who can't understand the financial reasons.

    And yes, I'm totally against the idea personally which is why I don't use things like Facebook (but do use Google as a search engine) since no one should be able to sell online users data about anything. In my humble(-ish) opinion.

    1. Youngone

      Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

      @ A/C

      While you make a good point, and I'm not going to downvote you, the big ISP's have been paid massive subsidies to lay that cable in the ground, and in at least some cases have failed to provide the services they promised.

      They want to be paid multiple times for providing the same service.

      1. Dr Stephen Jones

        Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

        Are you confusing the Universal Service Fund which has been around for years and which subsidises voice services, every the Connect Broadband initiatives, an Obama initiative that gives money to Telcos to provide broadband?

        You are right that Big Telco collected money from consumers and spent it very efficiently creating voice services. Then it collected money from the taxpayer and spent it very inefficiently on broadband. It kept quite a bit along the way for itself.

        But both funds are a drop in the ocean compared to the $1 trillion spent on internet infrastructure privately. Do you think the public owns this private infrastructure? Maybe you don't, but I see this argument being used to justify government control, as if the taxpayer paid for everything. Perhaps you can clarify.

        1. asdf Silver badge

          Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

          >Do you think the public owns this private infrastructure?

          No but when governments grant a regional monopoly to cable companies for them and only them to build that infrastructure then the cable companies have an obligation to provide common carrier like has be the law for generations and was the case for the Telecoms. Big Cable took advantage of the US moving hard to crony capitalism towards the end of the last century and skirted this responsibility and it has been very lucrative for them.

    2. joed

      Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

      TBH, ISP are not just bit pushers. The also offer email, web portals (Verizons owns AOL and Yahoo) and services like Exfinity provide plenty of insight on customer activities without the need for snooping on traffic going to 3rd parties. But since Americans are OK with everyone inspecting their $hit (government, Google, MS and now ISP) I just cant's see things getting any better in the Land of Free (Promises).

      1. Eric Olson

        Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

        For the most part, ISPs are bit and cable TV pushers. The reality is that we don't have "clean" ISPs; almost all were born of and subverted a cable (Comcast) or telephone provider (AT&T and Verizon). They used subsidies and legal monopolies provided by the FCC and state laws to string a bunch of copper (and later fiber) across the land, then took the subscription fees and ad dollars to buy out many of the regional providers for a pittance.

        OTT providers like Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc., are using that infrastructure to make money, but they also have to make major infrastructure outlays in order to keep up with demand. The barriers to entry are high and require a massive investment. No one in their garage is going to put together a couple of networked boxes and claim measurable market share from any of them.

        I frankly don't care if ISPs can aggregate data and sell it... just get rid of the franchise laws that protect them from competition. If a small shop wants to link a neighborhood to a backbone and charge for the privilege, great. Living in a large metro area, I have two options for ISPs, and a single provider of TV. Of course, I could hang a large HD antenna on my roof and stream the rest, but I still have to deal with one of two ISPs, neither of which are known for customer service, or frankly, service.

        Make 'em compete. Make 'em fight. Hell, televise their executives beating each other over the head until they go down, alive or dead. Don't really care. Just make them actually have to work and spend money on service, rather than resting on laurels or crying poverty because some popular network is exacting a higher user fee in the next round of negotiation.

      2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        @joed

        My ISP used to provide a web server accessible via ssh, but then cancelled it without warning and outsourced it to a company that only provided sftp. What they did not say was free for one year only, so a year later the site became unmodifiable and still causes trouble when people find it instead of the replacement.

        My ISP used to provide email with the option to run my own email server. Then they <sarcasm>upgraded</sarcastm> to Microsoft exchange, so I lost push email, and adding an account required spending ten minutes interacting with a web interface instead of just typing two words of CLI. Later, email disappeared without warning, with the option of paying per account. (I name accounts after the company I am corresponding with and delete the account if I get spam from it.)

        So far I have stayed with this ISP because they have demonstrated competence as a bit pusher. I fully expect that in future they will use deep packet inspection to find out how I access my web server and how I send and receive email so they can block it and make their defective overpriced spying services compulsory. That will be the day I dump them and hope there is still a bit pushing service available.

        1. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: @joed

          What they did not say was free for one year only, so a year later the site became unmodifiable and still causes trouble when people find it instead of the replacement.

          You might consider hitting them with a take down notice for infringement and then following it up with legal action just because.

        2. Gene Cash Silver badge

          Re: @joed

          the site became unmodifiable and still causes trouble

          Yeah, when Comcast bought local ISP MagicNet, that happened to me as well.

          A phone call did nothing, but a DMCA takedown notice worked wonders. I still own copyright on the site content.

      3. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

        But since Americans are OK with everyone inspecting their $hit (government,

        It's not just the USA who's ok with this. It's come down to anyone using FB, Google, et al. Other than techies, no one seems to give a crap what FB or Google knows about them and sells. They don't seem to get the concept that they are a product to be sold to the highest bidder.

        The Internet is a very powerful tool for good and evil just because it is pretty wide open to all who use it. There's two generations who have grown up with the Internet as part of their lives and don't seem to care. Telling them I don't do FB and use other sites for search than Google is a mortal sin apparently and I should be burned at the stake for heresy. At some point, the populous will wake up to what they have lost, but it will be too late.

        1. asdf Silver badge

          Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

          >At some point, the populous will wake up to what they have lost, but it will be too late.

          I honestly believe that will have to be some future generation because I don't think Millennials will ever even understand the basic concept of privacy. They are not only more than happy to give theirs away but actively undermine it for everyone else as well.

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

      "ISP's profit on providing a hardware service is surprisingly slim, Big G & F buy servers, not laying cables in the ground everywhere"

      I think you're confusing two separate activities here. Telecoms companies lay cables in the ground and/or sling them overhead. The ISP service is one of several that runs over the the telecom infrastructure and it may well be that your telecoms provider will sell you - or attempt to - such services over that provision; companies are apt to muscle into adjacent lines of business to add value profit. But your ISP doesn't have to be your telecoms provider.

      So ISPs, like the social network companies, are buying servers and internet backbone access. It's true Google tried to get into the infrastructure business but seems to be back-pedalling from that. The difference between ISPs and free services is that the one sells you a service and the other sells you.

    4. Just Enough

      Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

      "ISP's profit on providing a hardware service is surprisingly slim, .. so why shouldn't they .. sell your soul to advertisers to make a profit?"

      If they don't think they are making enough profit in the ISP business, then their solution is to either put up their prices, and see if the market will bear it, or get out of the ISP business.

      What they are wanting to do here is bolt-on a side-line business that their customers have no option but to co-operate in. One that benefits them, but makes their service worse for their customers. If it wasn't for the fact that all the other companies want the same, no company would dare try it.

      It's like employing a painter to paint your house, only to find that he's also going to secretly run a fast-food restaurant out your kitchen. Because the profit margins in painting are slim and why shouldn't painters get some of those fast-food profits too?. And you don't get any choice because all other painters are likely to do the same.

    5. tacitust

      Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

      >I'm going to post this anonymously due to the influx of down votes by people who can't understand the financial reasons.

      Or maybe, just maybe, it's you who doesn't have a good grasp of the financials involved, and are afraid to be called on it personally.

      The reality is that it's never been cheaper for ISPs to deliver a gigabyte to customers, and investment in infrastructure has been declining and is lagging other nations. Costs are down, prices (and profits) keep going up. Near monopolistic control of the gateway to the web isn't a great incentive to keep investing.

    6. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Devils advocate (from the right side of the pond)

      "it's time to bring out the BS detector"

      Yes, BS 10012 seems appropriate?

  2. Ketlan
    Thumb Down

    We'll follow as usual

    Brit here and expecting our crappy government to follow the US as it always does. Thank God or the deity of your choice for VPNs/Tor and so on.

    Whatever happened to freedom?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: We'll follow as usual

      "Whatever happened to freedom?"

      It is bought and sold on K Street in Washington DC, USA. For about US$6000 you can purchase one vote of influence from either of the two crook "parties." Personally, I'd like to see that street burnt to the ground. But, then I would be the bad guy for cheering or causing it. Go figure.

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: We'll follow as usual

        If only there were a presidential candidate who promised to 'drain the swamp' ...

        1. DougS Silver badge

          Re: We'll follow as usual

          If only there were a presidential candidate who promised to 'drain the swamp' and had even the tiniest intention of doing so.

          1. Slartybardfast

            Re: We'll follow as usual

            Drain the swamp - and fill it full of shit.

            1. Mark 85 Silver badge

              Re: We'll follow as usual

              I think the swamp was filled shit some time ago and now it's too late to drain it.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Some perspective

                As bad as the swamp can be all one has to do is listen to world news to realize how people in the first world win by default simply by having things like deeds to things that mean something and not having tribalism come before law. Yes there are countries that perhaps do things better than the US and UK but there are a hell of a lot of them are simply self destructive shitholes drawn with imaginary lines that mean nothing. Just a little perspective. Not having to stand in line for bread or water today in a refugee camp means it was a pretty good day all things considered.

                1. tacitust

                  Re: Some perspective

                  You make a very good point. There are way too many people in the west who seem to believe their nation is about to turn to shit, when in reality they're living in a society that has never been as stable or peaceful as it is today (in spite of all that is still wrong with it). Even in the US, people don't remember how fearful the 1950s were, how turbulent the 1960s were, or how much malaise there was in the 1970s.

                  However, that's no excuse for just accepting the situation without doing anything to improve it -- even in the most stable of countries. Apathy is a dangerous thing over the long term, and we shouldn't take our good fortune for granted. Just because we have things far better than the poor people of war-torn Somalia, is no excuse for inaction when it comes to fighting injustices, poverty, and discrimination here at home.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Some perspective

                    >However, that's no excuse for just accepting the situation without doing anything to improve it

                    That ship sailed in US when we didn't just let the South be another 3rd world country south of us bleeding unskilled economic refugees.

      2. asdf Silver badge

        Re: We'll follow as usual

        >street burnt to the ground.

        Well way things are going Seoul may be the first thing burned to the ground.

    2. asdf Silver badge

      Re: We'll follow as usual

      >of your choice for VPNs/Tor and so on.

      Its better than nothing but neither are ideal. VPNs and Tor both can cause problems with internet TV like Netflix (due to performance and or Geolocation rules). Tor's performance is damn spotty and with the VPNs you are just moving who has your data to another company. I guess you can at least sign a contract to enforce your rights but again a VPN can very quickly make the Cloudflare list as well.

      1. BebopWeBop Silver badge

        Re: We'll follow as usual

        At least VPNs are effectively (well somewhat) disaggregating your amazon (for example) data from unit spankwire (to use another one). ps if there is someone native reading this (probably not), don't look up the last on a work computer....

  3. G Mac
    Big Brother

    The one way this will be stopped quick smart...

    ... is if the browsing history of say a Supreme Court nominee gets out into public view.

    Just ask Robert Bork and the Video Privacy Protection Act for VHS rental history:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act

    Of course if it only will happen to the great unwashed public then say sayonara to your data.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The one way this will be stopped quick smart...

      Amazing how much has already been raised to see this happen: https://www.gofundme.com/searchinternethistory

      1. DougS Silver badge

        Re: The one way this will be stopped quick smart...

        I'm hoping a brave anonymous ISP employee gets the search history of a bunch of congressmen. From both parties, because let's be bipartisan. And gives them to someone who will post them online. I don't believe we can trust Wikileaks to not be partisan after last year, now that it is known Assange was in communication with Roger Stone (at the very least...probably others from the Trump campaign too) thereby explaining how they always seemed to get new dumps of Hillary material when they needed it, and knew about it in advance.

        Someone needs to fork Wikileaks...

        1. MrDamage

          Re: The one way this will be stopped quick smart...

          No need to fork Wikileaks. Crytpome.org is still up and running, just putting the data out there without the egotistical editorialising that Wikileaks is prone to.

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: The one way this will be stopped quick smart...

          "Someone needs to fork Wikileaks..."

          Spelling!

          1. Fatman Silver badge
            Joke

            Re: The one way this will be stopped quick smart...

            <quote>"Someone needs to fork Wikileaks..."

            Spelling!</quote>

            NOPE!!!!

            Grammar!: Someone used the wrong verb.

  4. bombastic bob Silver badge
    Devil

    I'm not convinced it's BULLSHIT yet

    not 'BULLSHIT' yet, i.e. the idea that the FTC already has protections in place for BASIC privacy. Like banks, credit cards, and merchants, for example. They're the ones that are supposed to be making THOSE kinds of rules.

    The FCC rules were more restrictive, for sure, but didn't apply to Facebook, Google, etc.. It was also a serious OVERSTEPPING OF AUTHORITY, which is why I am glad it's GONE. It's _NOT_ the business of the FCC to suddenly re-classify the internet as "something else" and REGULATE CONTENT and its usage.

    But the next phase might just be to MAKE IT RIGHT, by having the FTC put the ISPs under the SAME privacy and data protection rules that financial institutions already are, regarding "the things we access". Same with Face-b[itch,ook] and Google, for servers located in the USA at any rate. A simple privacy policy [that's enforced] and an opt-out will do (just like my bank has to honor). FTC, yeah.

    And as long as there are no 'man in the middle' attacks going on, I think https might be sufficient to protect you the rest of the way. Just make sure you don't use a "poisoned" DNS (from your ISP) that begs you to install new certs... it adds credibility to using google's free DNS service, or your own bind implementation.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Bombastic bob - Re: I'm not convinced it's BULLSHIT yet

      You're so naive! Yeah, next phase, might etc. Anyway you're free to believe but please don't hold your breath. Still no down-vote from me.

    2. P. Lee

      Re: I'm not convinced it's BULLSHIT yet

      Sorry, Facebook and Google are not in the same industry as communications carriers, that is why they don't fall under the rules.

      Essentially, its wire-tapping that was forbidden and now isn't.

      Should F&G fall under the rules? Google shouldn't be able to tap their ISP cables, but gmail and search is voluntarily handing over data and there are alternatives.

      Now Mozilla, where's that Tor client?

    3. Ben Tasker Silver badge

      Re: I'm not convinced it's BULLSHIT yet

      > The FCC rules were more restrictive, for sure, but didn't apply to Facebook, Google, etc..

      Who are in a completely different business to the one ISPs are supposed to occupy? Colour me surprised.

      More importantly, you pay your ISP for a product. You don't pay Google, Facebook etc, because you are the product.

      > But the next phase might just be to MAKE IT RIGHT, by having the FTC put the ISPs under the SAME privacy and data protection rules that financial institutions already are

      Seems unlikely. But it's possible (if overly complicated). If that's the case, though, then taking the approach that's just been taken is a truly bone-headed move. It'd have been better to arrange a hand-over of jurisdiction.

      > it adds credibility to using google's free DNS service, or your own bind implementation.

      Fairly trivial for an ISP to intercept outgoing queries and direct to their own servers (and there are ISPs that do this). If you want to be sure, you need to use DNSCrypt (either to your own server elsewhere, or with a provider you trust)

    4. Hollerithevo Silver badge

      Re: I'm not convinced it's BULLSHIT yet

      I'd cheer if that next phase, making it right, were to happen. But who will make it happen?

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm not convinced it's BULLSHIT yet

      @bombastic bob

      Google pwnd the FCC so it wrote a rule to stop ISPs doing what Google does. That allowed Google to carry on doing what it liked.

      Maybe we'll get stronger privacy from the FTC, maybe we won't, but it is more likely to be a level playing field when Google doesn't write the rules.

  5. Gravis Ultrasound

    I see THE RESISTANCE is alive and kicking in Reg's SF office.

    Looking at the issues in a more objective manner, there's is much to be said for FTC handling ISPs privacy issues.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't get that detector too close to Trump...

    ...the nuclear winter from the fallout of the detector exploding like a gigatonne bomb will leave that part of the planet devoid of life for centuries.

    *Cough*

    But then again, we're talking about Washington DC, so turning it into a glowing molten glassine crater might not be such a bad thing.

    *Cackle*

  7. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    From this side of the pond the only effect on me is that that Privacy Figleaf is withering a little more.

    However I wonder if it's possible that a telecoms provider also acting as an ISP could be caught under the telecoms provisions.

  8. Alistair Silver badge
    Windows

    dear lord

    "What contributions get companies is a foot in the door and a meeting with the legislator. Then it's up to the lobbyists legislator to make sure that their company's version of events is heard loud and clear and as many times as possible.

    FTFY.

    @BB

    "re-classify the internet as "something else" and REGULATE CONTENT and its usage."

    The FCC rules did nothing to *regulate content*. Your bombasticity is showing as usual.

    Part of the issue on this side of the pond, both in your yard and mine is that the internet is *regarded* as a service, regulated as little as possible and effectively regarded as the future of our financial evolution, essentially, ye olde wilde west, but with new technology. For libertarians it is the holy grail of "don't touch this".

    I personally know what can be done when one has access to CDR data from the cell masts, IUM data from the modems, and the relevant keys from IMEI's and IPdm macs. I have this pool of data. And, yes, yes indeed we can, in many cases, differentiate between Mummies PC and little Johnnie's PC.

    The FCC rules are needed or you lot are relying on *individuals* like me who will take the stand of making sure that pool of data is cleaned up *BEFORE* it is assembled, or at the *very* minimum ensure that there is some minimum level of anonymization applied to the data pool, and then serious access restrictions on the anonymization keys.

    There are *very* good legal reasons for having this data pooled, sorted, analysed. And for much of this data there are legal obligations to collect the data and store it for some period of time. This (the collection and storing of said data for legal obligations) is *expensive* as there is rather a lot of data to store. Pai, and several of the FCC objector Congresscritters acknowledged that, and believed that the ISP's deserved to use that data to generate income to pay for the collection of legally obligated data. Selling on the advertising targets was what the ISP's wanted because "GOOGLE". Look at how RICH google got off advertising. Look at the wealth it *CREATED* (hearing a certain freemarketeer there anyone?) Look at what it did for the STOCK MARKET....

    I am serious here. I and one of the data scientists decided to demonstrate to our security head *just what* we can determine from this data. This demonstration is the only reason that we have a dedicated security analyst that reports to an entirely different division of the company on the platform. You really, really, really do not want this crap leveraged against your kids. Whose internet history will be detailed from birth to death if the ISP's, Google, Facebook, Snap, etc get their way.

  9. Derichleau

    From a UK perspective

    It's unlikely that a UK data controller will obtain consent from a non-UK data controller as consent has to be obtained fairly. As such, if any UK companies are buying personal data from the US then they'll unlikely have the consent required to target the individuals with direct marketing. And of course, when obtaining information indirectly for direct marketing, they'll need to provide you with a fair processing notice first.

    My policy now is to claim £750 in compensation from any UK data controller that fails to process my information fairly or claim compensation in court. Some settle while some opt for court.

  10. Herbert Meyer

    make up a "Bullshit" rubber stamp

    Apply it to anything out of TrumpLand.

  11. SoCinderella

    It's Obama's fault, not Trump's

    Obama was the one giving your internet privacy, not Trump. Geez people are woefully uninformed because they soak up every lie the MSM throws at them and they don't seem to know how to do unbiased research.

    THE MEDIA IS LYING: TRUMP IS NOT ENDING PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET. HE IS DISMANTLING A SOROS AGENDA.

    https://youtu.be/XF1QdaDIIT8?list=WL

    America gives up Internet Control To the UN and China!

    http://thepoliticalinsider.com/icann-control-un/

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: It's Obama's fault, not Trump's

      Welcome SoCinderella.

      Just a little word. We're techies here. We're probably better informed than you so try not to bullshit too obviously.

    2. tacitust

      Re: It's Obama's fault, not Trump's

      You appear to have taken a wrong turning.

      Infowars is that-a-way ------>

  12. Mike Moyle Silver badge

    "First the FCC will have to unravel its legal authority over net neutrality, and then it will have to figure out how to persuade the FTC to adopt new rules."

    ...because "Repeal and Replace" has worked out so well...

  13. OffBeatMammal

    Comcast vs Google isn't Apples to Apples...

    a lot of comments are saying that Google has an unfair advantage when it comes to monetizing user data. that's wrong, for a couple of reasons:

    - I'm already paying my ISP to provide 'carriage' for my data, if they're not making money they can always shut down ... as it is they keep upping my monthly bill for no improvement of service

    - Google make money by making their services attractive. unlike the ISP I have choice when it comes to search or email

    - my ISP (potentially) has visibility of every packet in and out of my house, no matter what site I am visiting

    - Google (or Facebook or whoever) only get visibility over what I do when I am on their site, interacting with their services or viewing a page that has chosen to include one of their ads in.

    by allowing unlimited spying and additional monetization of the traffic I put over my ISP this ruling potentially exposes things I don't want shared with advertisers ... for instance I have just had surgery on my spine so there's a bunch of research I've been doing on the procedure, the recovery, and the various drugs that I'm being prescribed along the way, as well as interactions with the medical staff via their website (nicely SSL'd so less concerned in this case)... I hate to think what spam I'd start getting as a result of this for recuperative products, ambulance chasing lawyers, drug dependency rehab clinics etc...

    so, the outcome is this drives users to HTTPS, Encrypted DNS requests, TOR, or VPNs... all of which add overhead but also obfuscate the data on the network even more thoroughly... which in turn makes their efforts to find the terrorists and kiddy fiddlers harder.

    another great example of why politicians should not be allowed to make policy!

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Comcast vs Google isn't Apples to Apples...

      - Google (or Facebook or whoever) only get visibility over what I do when I am on their site, interacting with their services or viewing a page that has chosen to include one of their ads in.

      Not quite... or maybe I'm wrong... Rumor had it at one point that the "Follow us on FB" tag was supposedly tied back to a "tracker". Not sure of the reality. Maybe I'm just a little paranoid... probably serves me right for being heavy into IT.

  14. MonsoonX

    Who cares what it "was designed to do"?

    Intent means nothing, it's what the law accomplishes that matters.

    And in this case it gave a free pass to Facebook and Google.

  15. MonsoonX

    Of course this stinks. But it stunk when it was "just" social media raping us for our personal data, and barely a fuss was raised as the law makers gave free reign to social media while handcuffing the companies that make the internet work.

    The republicans did so because they are for big business. The democrats did so because Google and Facebook are heavy contributors for the democrats.

    So now the door has been flung wide open, and Facebook and Google are about to get some stiff competition for advertiser dollars.

    I'll be interested to see if they respond with some tricks designed to put a separation in between their market share and the ISP's.

    1. John H Woods

      "I'll be interested to see if they respond with some tricks designed to put a separation in between their market share and the ISP's."

      They are ideally placed to offer budget or even free VPN. They can blind the ISPs within months.

  16. ma1010 Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Coming next from the U.S. Government

    Where you stand on the issue can be determined by answering this simple question: do you trust companies to do what they say, or do you believe they will do whatever they can get away with in order to make more profit?

    Obligatory Dilbert: here

    Tomorrow's news: House Republicans introduce bill allowing employers to harvest internal organs of redundant employees.

  17. 101

    Kieren McCarthy, Thanks!

    Kieren McCarthy: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great article. You walked us through the pasture and let us smell our boots....good job.

  18. Ropewash

    This should be fun.

    I do wonder at the mindset of the government bodies sometimes. They bitch and moan about how encryption and tunneling are making their law enforcement (spying) more difficult and then they go and put in (or remove) rules that make it so more people who otherwise would never have bothered are going to encrypt and tunnel.

    I wonder if they'll wake up soon, or if it will only happen after 90% of the network is dark.

    I'm looking forward to the next decade or so being a good horserace between business/government and the folks writing new encryption tech. Place your bets now.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Comcast opt-out

    I followed the link to opt out of Comcast advertising. Funny thing. From my profile, I clicked on Manage Advertising Preferences", and was rewarded with a dialog:

    Your request could not be processed

    An error occurred while processing your request.

    Please try again later.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020