In no way am I disputing the accuracy of the article, or the necessity for alarm and precautions. I will however say, that PIA sells the kind of services you might look for to combat such measures, so consider the source too.
Things like this, more than anything else, are what makes me wonder how anyone can view Republicans as anything short of working against their constituents. It just baffles me.<p>Why would <i>anyone</i> want this?
Wow, with untrustworthy politicians and super dodgy ISPs like these, who needs the CIA to spy on you? At least the CIA would keep it more or less in house.
Doesn't this data already exist in the form of ISP data brokers? I'm thinking of data that makes its way to into the hands of some marketing companies that show anonomized URL level traffic for a given website. Essentially giving you ability to see analytics on a website you don't own. Anybody know who the big players/ISP data brokers are?
Is the article overblown? I thought the bill was about removing regulations that was hard to enforce technically... I didn't thought the bill gave a black check to telcos to sell internet history without consent.
There's a certain good aspect to this. Users should be aware that networks (any, be it their FTTH or a WiFi hotspot in some cafe) can - theoretically and practically - access and analyze their traffic.<p>I'm NOT saying that such capability or legality of third parties accessing that data is a good or bad thing. It's complicated. I'm sure only that the fact that proper user awareness on this matter is a good idea.
They are oddly content with the Obama Administration having that same policy for 97% of its tenure and the same effect for 100% of its tenure (the rule to limit it was only put in a <i>week</i> before the election and had yet to take effect).