The 265 ALL REPUBLICAN members of Congress who sold you out to ISPs

Nomad

Nomad

Every trumper is a N4T.
Click on article title link to see entire list of REPUBLICANS who just allowed ISP's to sell your browsing history to anyone who wants it, and how much money they sold us out for.

Life in the Trump era. :palm:

The 265 members of Congress who sold you out to ISPs, and how much it cost to buy them

They betrayed you for chump change

Republicans in Congress*just voted to reverse a landmark FCC privacy rule*that opens the door for ISPs to sell customer data. Lawmakers provided no credible reason for this being in the interest of Americans, except for vague platitudes about “consumer choice” and “free markets,” as if consumers at the mercy of their local internet monopoly are craving to have their web history quietly sold to marketers and any other third party willing to pay.

The only people who seem to want this are the people who are going to make lots of money from it. (Hint: they work for companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.) Incidentally, these people and their companies routinely give lots of money to members of Congress.

So here is a list of the lawmakers who voted to betray you, and how much money they received from the telecom industry in their most recent election cycle.

Note on the data below: donations include contributions from corporations in the telecom industry and employees of those corporations (individual and non-individual contributions). The largest donors tend to be corporations which contributed funds to the candidate and*/*or the candidate’s leadership organization (PAC). All figures only reflect donations tallied for the candidate’s most recent election — many have received total sums much larger than the figure reflected over the course of their career in Congress. Figures are from federal election data*compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics (www.followthemoney.org).

Additionally, it’s important to note that the communications industry is one of the largest lobbying groups in US history; internet providers and the telephone companies before them are notorious for*spreading wealth across the aisle. Regardless, one party seems more responsive to the industry’s demands.
Click to expand...
 
cawacko said:
They aren't selling your browsing history to individuals.
Click to expand...

Learning how to read might be something that would be beneficial to you...

From the linked article:

Lawmakers provided no credible reason for this being in the interest of Americans, except for vague platitudes about “consumer choice” and “free markets,” as if consumers at the mercy of their local internet monopoly are craving to have their web history quietly sold to marketers and any other third party willing to pay.
Click to expand...
 
christiefan915 said:
Do you support this?

It figures our hack Toomey voted yes.
Click to expand...

When I first heard about it I was pissed. Then I read a VOX article on it today and I'm not as bothered. My concern would be individuals having access to each one of our browser histories. Since that's not the case and it's more about aggregate data it doesn't concern me as much. This law was passed the last month of the Obama Administration and hasn't even gone into effect so nothing is going to change from what we already experience.
 
Nomad said:
Learning how to read might be something that would be beneficial to you...

From the linked article:
Click to expand...

Irony is ironic isn't it. I read an article on it today from the liberal VOX and they don't sell your individual data to other individuals. It's about the aggregation of data. How about you do a little more research next time before showing your ignorance while trying to insult others.
 
cawacko said:
Irony is ironic isn't it. I read an article on it today from the liberal VOX and they don't sell your individual data to other individuals. It's about the aggregation of data. How about you do a little more research next time before showing your ignorance while trying to insult others.
Click to expand...

Speaking of showing one's ignorance, what is it about "any other third party willing to pay" that you don't understand?
 
I realize it's only aggregate data, and at the risk of making a slippery slope argument I'm... making a slippery slope argument lol.

The fact they can make money off the data means they're going to collect as much of everything they can. The next logical step for them to make even more money, is get more and more personal with the data.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
I realize it's only aggregate data, and at the risk of making a slippery slope argument I'm... making a slippery slope argument lol.

The fact they can make money off the data means they're going to collect as much of everything they can. The next logical step for them to make even more money, is get more and more personal with the data.
Click to expand...

I hear you on that so I don't want to act as if I have no concerns.
 
yeap

and they dont have to stop and think one second about their CUSTOMER


just how the corporate whores love it
 
I heard last night that the bill also waives the requirement that they have to try to protect their customers from online fraud and hacking as well.

That should add a pretty penny to their bottom line.
 
this current incarnation of the republican party sees the Customer as a dupe and not a business partner



kinda like Putin
 
evince said:
this current incarnation of the republican party sees the Customer as a dupe and not a business partner



kinda like Putin
Click to expand...

When the Repukers look at the people they were elected to serve, this is what they see....

moneysack.jpg


They dupe their idiot sheep followers with the false claim that they want to save people money by lowering taxes, but any reasonably smart human knows that the tax cut savings for the average person is chump change compared to the billions the big corps save.

Then of course, those big corps return the favor by shoveling nice big piles of it back to them.

Truly amazing how the wing nut voters are perfectly happy with this arrangement just because the Repukes send them strong signals that they will always do whatever they can to keep as many tax dollars as they can out of the hands of non-white minorities.
 
Nomad said:
When the Repukers look at the people they were elected to serve, this is what they see....

moneysack.jpg


They dupe their idiot sheep followers with the false claim that they want to save people money by lowering taxes, but any reasonably smart human knows that the tax cut savings for the average person is chump change compared to the billions the big corps save.

Then of course, those big corps return the favor by shoveling nice big piles of it back to them.

Truly amazing how the wing nut voters are perfectly happy with this arrangement just because the Repukes send them strong signals that they will always do whatever they can to keep as many tax dollars as they can out of the hands of non-white minorities.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if we could tax businesses to oblivion and have no economic repercussions but it doesn't really work that way.
 
Yep; in liberal loony land, one can always rely on a Marxist web site like "follow the money" to report the facts.

:rofl2:
 
The FCC's Privacy Ruse

Excerpts:

Wheeler went on a media tour pitching the regulations, the latest in a series of increasingly interventionist policies in his sprint to the finish line before the election. After an opening salvo of op-eds in the Huffington Post and Re/code, Wheeler did a round of broadcast interviews. His pitch is simple, offering to “empower the people,” and give them tools to control their data online, because, “hey, it’s your information.”

Sounds nice enough. But now the proposed rules are out, and the public has access to the full details instead of the media-friendly varnish. In the light of day, it’s clear the recent proposal is not so much about empowering consumer choice, and more about taking business models off the table. These new rules, specific to ISPs, will do little to change consumers’ ability to control the flow of their information and, what’s worse, will kill new uses of data that could help make broadband faster and cheaper.

Conclusion:

Curtailing innovation here would be an especially bad outcome. Virtually no one foregoes broadband because of privacy concerns. (Pew Research puts the population not adopting broadband because of ISP privacy concerns south of 1%.) A much more substantial impediment to adoption is broadband cost—which could potentially be addressed through ad-supported broadband. Instead of taking business models off the table under dubious pretexts, we should be nudging consumers towards allowing innovative uses of broadband data that could help make service cheaper.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/04/27/the-fccs-privacy-ruse/#4fe73d174da5
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top