Off topic, but such a crass title makes me instantly disinterested in whatever the article has to say, even if I'm likely to agree with its content.<p>Is this really the new normal for websites ?
The title from the people who actually did the campaign is a little more morning coffee friendly[1]. If you get as upset as I do every time you see a story like this why not head over and donate today?<p>[1]<a href="https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-05-03-crowdfunded-billboards-appear-in-districts-of/" rel="nofollow">https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-05-03-crowdfunde...</a>
There are two sides to the 'value' equation here. The telecoms can now sell your data, but that also means that somebody needs to be buying it on the other end.<p>This campaign does a great job of calling out Senators who sold out their voters.<p>I'd like to see us also call out the companies that buy the data from the telecoms. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is right. I'm not sure how one would track down who purchased the data, but if a billboard said "X bought your data without your consent", would shaming the purchaser also be a possibility?
Can someone explain what "selling web browsing and app usage data" really means?<p>I don't imagine they literally package sensitive information and distribute it to anyone who pays. In which case, "they sell your data" is completely misleading.
And nothing changes.<p>They were unrecognizable nobodies before, and now they are unrecognizable nobodies with more money. They will become unrecognizable nobodies again, next week, or next month, or next year, and move right along with the rest of their lives.<p>Conceptually, this is how legislation works. You start with politicians no one cares about, and you end with politicians no one cares about selling you out, because most of what they do is boring.