The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

This, right here, is the consequence of the withdrawal from politics many geeks advocated very strongly in an earlier time. &quot;Everything is corrupt, it doesn&#x27;t matter&quot;... turns out to only be a viable philosophy when things <i>mostly work well enough</i>.<p>What we have in protections and freedoms were purchased through a ton of hard work by prior generations: the liberty to slack and think that it just works ok is a nice side effect of the prior sweat.

Before getting all spun up, I&#x27;d dig a little deeper on the issue than what the WaPo does in this piece.<p>These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and never went into effect. To do the regulations, the FCC reclassified the internet as basically ye olde telephone system, which then made it subject to their purview based on laws created in the 1930s. This is classic overreach. Congress never gave this authority to the FCC and is acting to put them back in line with the law.<p>It&#x27;s pathetic the the WaPo used their platform to create more heat than light on this, by selective quoting. Here&#x27;s a more full quote from Rep Blackburn that explains her position more fully.<p>“The FCC already has the ability to oversee privacy with broadband providers,” Blackburn explained. “That is done primarily through Section 222 of the Communications Act, and additional authority is granted through Sections 201 and 202. Now, what they did was to go outside of their bounds and expand that. They did a swipe at the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC. They have traditionally been our nation’s primary privacy regulator, and they have done a very good job of it.”<p>The lesson here really is that if the issue is really important, then get an actual law passed instead of trying to contort regulatory authority based on laws from the 1930s. The previous president could certainly have done this, but chose not to.

Please do not complain into the echo chamber of comments here. Please take a moment to support the EFF, call your representatives, and speak to friends and family.<p>EFF: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eff.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eff.org&#x2F;</a> Find your reps: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tryvoices.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tryvoices.com&#x2F;</a>

Something that is not mentioned in the article is that the FCC regulations in question were passed in October 2016 and have never gone in to effect. So, to be strictly accurate, the vote does not roll back any regulations which actually ever affected the internet.<p>Sources: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.usatoday.com&#x2F;story&#x2F;tech&#x2F;news&#x2F;2017&#x2F;03&#x2F;02&#x2F;fcc-sets-aside-new-net-data-privacy-rule&#x2F;98599438&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.usatoday.com&#x2F;story&#x2F;tech&#x2F;news&#x2F;2017&#x2F;03&#x2F;02&#x2F;fcc-sets-...</a> <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.usatoday.com&#x2F;story&#x2F;tech&#x2F;news&#x2F;2017&#x2F;03&#x2F;28&#x2F;broadband-rules-axed-congress-headed-trump&#x2F;99744078&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.usatoday.com&#x2F;story&#x2F;tech&#x2F;news&#x2F;2017&#x2F;03&#x2F;28&#x2F;broadband...</a>

It&#x27;s a bit disappointing to see that aside from a few abstained votes, everybody just chose to vote along party lines. Do these people just rubber stamp a bill because there&#x27;s a D or an R next to it? Even if it meant more nay votes for the bill, I really wish we had representatives that vote based on critical thought rather than what their friends were doing.<p>I mean, as long as I&#x27;m dreaming too, we should give assembly programming kits to first graders.

As someone who grew up during the early days of the internet I don&#x27;t know of any other way to describe this than utterly depressing.<p>The internet was supposed to be this bastion of knowledge, information and free exchange of ideas. Now it&#x27;s just heading towards another avenue for large-organizations monetize the individual.

One aspect of this that is being missed is how well this illustrates the inability of the Democratic party to take advantage of an obviously advantageous situation.<p>It&#x27;s a no brainer that most people would recoil at the idea of everything they do on the Internet suddenly being for sale. It would be super easy to come up with at least a dozen relatable nefarious use cases and stuff them into TV commercials and ads and tying it to the Republican party.<p>But nope, silence. It&#x27;s almost like they don&#x27;t want to be in power. It feels like I live in a de facto one-party state.

If you want an idea to get mass movement against this;<p>Start some display campaigns injecting peoples names and other personal information into ads. Have this follow people around the web. Even if data is not taken from what has been allowed here, most people will find it creepy. Link ad to a website explaining whats going on and how to contact their local member.<p>I suspect with a fairly reasonable spend you could get some strong resistance and media attention.

This thread may grow long and maybe turn to the topic of HTTPS. SSL with SNI exposes plaintext hostnames&#x2F;domainnames on the wire for anyone to read, aggregate and sell, not to mention tamper with. It should be an <i>optional</i> extension. For many users it adds no benefit. For some users, it breaks their software and adds needless complexity. Now the privacy advocates have a reason to dislike it too. Just say no to SNI.

What about COPPA?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pr...</a>

# House<p>YEAs ---215<p>R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R<p>NAYs ---205<p>D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D<p>Not Voting ---9<p>R R R R R R D D D<p>House Results - <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;clerk.house.gov&#x2F;evs&#x2F;2017&#x2F;roll202.xml" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;clerk.house.gov&#x2F;evs&#x2F;2017&#x2F;roll202.xml</a><p># Senate<p>YEAs ---50<p>R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R<p>NAYs ---48<p>D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D I D D D D D D D D D D D D I D D D D D D D D D D D<p>Not Voting ---2<p>R R<p>Senate Results - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13943060" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13943060</a><p>(I liked this format.)

While I&#x27;d definitely like to see restrictions on internet browsing being protected at least as much as library circulation records [1] and video rentals [2], as a fan of checks and balances, the mere concept of a regulatory agency passing &quot;landmark&quot; regulations on anything is troubling. Either that power is in the law giving regulatory authority to the agency, and hence, it shouldn&#x27;t be called &quot;landmark&quot;; or the power is outside the scope of what Congress intended when enacting the law, in which case it&#x27;s a a bureaucratic power grab.<p>1. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ala.org&#x2F;advocacy&#x2F;privacyconfidentiality&#x2F;privacy&#x2F;stateprivacy" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ala.org&#x2F;advocacy&#x2F;privacyconfidentiality&#x2F;privacy&#x2F;s...</a> 2. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Video_Privacy_Protection_Act" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Video_Privacy_Protection_Act</a>

Before we jump in a shock and talk about the TFW political disaster there is happening in DC at the moment I want to ask a question:<p>Is there a simple guide or steps that I can follow to make myself anonymous? I know there is TOR and VPNs, how can I go about setting it up?

Please share your VPN setups. I would like to have my VPN connection at the router level, if possible.<p>Edit: Here&#x27;s sort of an answer to my own question <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.howtogeek.com&#x2F;221889&#x2F;connect-your-home-router-to-a-vpn-to-bypass-censorship-filtering-and-more&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.howtogeek.com&#x2F;221889&#x2F;connect-your-home-router-to...</a>

To all of you who are you who are saying that it&#x27;s now vital to use a VPN I have to ask:<p>Why weren&#x27;t you running a VPN already?<p>This was a vote to head off the implementation of a regulation that hadn&#x27;t gone into effect already.

Welp, now there&#x27;s a real market opportunity for &#x27;open&#x27; ISP&#x27;s. I would gladly pay more to a smaller ISP with slightly higher latency for guaranteed privacy.<p>SpaceX&#x27;s planned satellite internet will <i>hopefully</i> fill this void for the world... until Elon dies and it&#x27;s taken over by the evil, ignoramuses of corporate greed.

I would expect that this will have an unexpected (?) side effect of further weakening the capabilities of packet inspection by intelligence agencies through increased utilisation of VPN services, especially those outside of the US.<p>At face value this is a good thing for privacy, but I am concerned that when lawmakers realise their error they will just legislate themselves out of the hole by making access to VPN services harder.

Isn&#x27;t doing this type of data collection without consent already banned under the [Wiretap Act](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;18&#x2F;2511" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;18&#x2F;2511</a>)? What part of these protections weren&#x27;t redundant?

Doesn&#x27;t this mean the government can basically buy user data through shell corps and bypass warrants all together?

Is there another side to this debate or is it really this black and white?

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.govtrack.us&#x2F;congress&#x2F;votes&#x2F;115-2017&#x2F;h202" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.govtrack.us&#x2F;congress&#x2F;votes&#x2F;115-2017&#x2F;h202</a> 215 yea, 205 nea. All yeas were Republicans.

Any clarity re: this comment[1], which seems to suggest that things are not as they seem?<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13942989" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13942989</a><p>&gt; In June 2015, the FCC reclassified the ISP&#x27;s as common carriers. Tada, the FTC rules no longer apply. So the FCC regulated them with roughly the same set of rules. Now they&#x27;ve undone this.

The underlying argument here is there is no difference between say Google and Verizon: the customer has to opt in (or pay) for both. And from a free market (aka conservative) economic perspective if this is a concern shared by the population, someone will offer it as a service that people will pay for (a VPN tax if you will).<p>This is an unfortunate example where government is not set up to address concerns of today&#x27;s environment. They are trying to apply legal constructs of 20-50 years ago to a quickly changing age. And while you can argue whether the prior administration did the right thing legislating in this environment, the one thing they did was understand that access to the Internet should be a right as opposed to a privilege. Like education, access to 911, etc. As more services move exclusively online, this fundamental access question only becomes a greater concern.<p>If individuals aren&#x27;t guaranteed access nor have any protections online, then we are heading into a very dangerous area (if the only way to lodge a claim against your internet provider is online, then they will know what you are doing).

I wonder if this has any consequences for the US EU Privacy Shield agreement.

So the GOP argues that it&#x27;s unfair because streaming services and search engines can already collect this data and ISPs couldn&#x27;t.<p>I don&#x27;t understand how they fail to recognize that ISPs will<p>a) see all of the sites you will visit and<p>b) many people can&#x27;t choose between ISPs because there are only a few in their area<p>It seems that for the GOP, as long as there is profit for corporations, they are willing to give up the privacy of the voters.<p>How is this different than the telephone company eavesdropping on your calls and selling the information gained to marketing companies?

So why is this necessarily bad? My understanding is that the Congress repealed a fiat control by the executive branch. They can now, if they are are so inclined, enshrine in law, a more durable medium than agency policy, a freer Internet. Let&#x27;s assume that the Republicans don&#x27;t. Let&#x27;s also assume that they make local municipal Internet or competition harder. The Democrats could get elected in 2018 at which point they could enshrine privacy. How is limiting the executive branch bad?

So, how should we write an daemon that pings high-advertising-value domains to poison their dataset?

I hear people say how important it is to participate in the political process. But when the process itself is broken, what&#x27;s the point of participating?<p>We can vote alright, but what we are actually voting for is the person who is the most convincing liar and makes the most appealing &quot;promises&quot;, without them being obligated in any way to actually implement their promises once elected.<p>As I see it, individuals only have a couple of effective ways to influence politics:<p>- withdraw your financial participation in things you don&#x27;t agree with. This is extremely difficult: most people are not willing to endure the sacrifices necessary, and we&#x27;re not coordinated to do it together. If everyone (or even 10%) canceled their Internet service, cable service, or whatever, for 1 month, THAT would get attention. If 10% were willing to lower their standard of living in order to reduce the government&#x27;s tax take by 10%, that would get attention.<p>- regular individuals need to donate more money to politicians than corporations and wealthy individuals. It&#x27;s a sickening thought to me that the only way to get public servants to actually serve the public is to bribe them, but obviously that works.

Can anyone explain why, when this went through the Senate, it wasn&#x27;t filibustered? I was under the impression that almost all controversial legislation had to pass the filibuster threshold, and since Democrats were united in opposition against it, I would have expected them to filibuster this. Was there some loophole preventing them from doing so, or did they not consider it important enough to filibuster?

Does anyone know if this works retroactively? Is every data-hungry company soon going to know all of our past browsing behavior?

Well, they had unlimited bullets and needed just one to hit. We needed to block everyone. But how can people follow a story let alone a lobbying effort with our current ADHD news cycle...<p>Can someone give people like me a &quot;5 things to fight back&quot; list?

Maybe someone at YC could reach out to Thiel who could convince Trump to veto? Something like that is probably the only realistic chance of this failing, and I have no idea how much Thiel personally cares about this issue anyway.

Welp, time to pipe all port 80 and 443 traffic in my home through <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;privateinternetaccess.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;privateinternetaccess.com</a> , via the OpenVPN config in OpenWRT.

Awful. I stand to profit greatly from that data being commercially available but the personal violation underlying it is unjustifiable.<p>Who will be the first to start a &quot;privacy-driven&quot; ISP with marked up prices?

Why don&#x27;t articles like this ever link to the votes so you can actually look up how your rep voted (mine? Party line, no surprise)? Took me a few minutes to find it.

What&#x27;s the immediate consequence of this ruling? What is liable to change? Who can buy &quot;my&quot; data? What kind of time-frame are we looking at? Can foreign nationals buy data en-masse directly and&#x2F;or will their purchases be proxied through &quot;US citizens&quot;? What depth of archives will be up for purchase? So man questions regarding this... I&#x27;d like to know the general fallout of this in both short and long-term results.

Time to start paying the VPN tax.

(1) This wipes out almost all the value of surveillance companies that don&#x27;t require logins. Why bother with doubleclick et al when you can get data straight from the ISP?<p>(2) HTTPS makes a limited amount of sense. Even on encrypted connections, ISPs know which domains you visit. In some situations they may also be able to MITM your certificates and read the data you transmit.<p>(3) Any semblance of privacy now requires either a reputable VPN or TOR.

Not that I&#x27;m necessarily OK with either, but what&#x27;s the difference between this and the myriad of other sites that are collecting your browser habits&#x2F;search history and selling it?<p>I&#x27;m not for this at all vote at all, and I&#x27;m not sure why Trump supporters are, I&#x27;m just trying to come up with a good argument for why it&#x27;s worse.

I wish Google would offer VPN service again (waaaay back they had some Windows utilities that would proxy your web connection).

Being that this is a pretty red vs. blue issue, there&#x27;s not a ton ton can do about it if you live in non-red states.<p>The eff is an obvious choice and I&#x27;m a member and have been for almost 20 years.<p>In my mind the big thing is people that vote for republicans don&#x27;t fully understand that they are voting for non-privacy, pro-business, and really, pro-military. Granted, there are some dems that can fall into this trap and 9&#x2F;11 pretty much ensnared all but a few into the reactionary mindset. This actually took true visionaries and leaders to overcome; few and far between.<p>So, really, local debate has to happen in the red states where these majorities are elected. This is a long uphill battle, but the message of &quot;mega-corporations are not your friends&quot; has to be paramount and when you&#x27;re not earning tech salaries, we are part of the problem.<p>For coal miners and all these higher profile ise cases, we need to re-connect with the human and community level. That&#x27;s the disconnect right there; it&#x27;s easier to get angry about &#x27;the swamp&#x27; than it is to try to take your own local municipality into your own hands or figuring out how to stay local vs. state.<p>California, New York, etc - these aren&#x27;t the battlegrounds. They are the future. The majority of their population already agrees on global warming, privacy, tech, etc. They&#x27;re one step behind bitcoin&#x2F;ethereum&#x2F;altcoins globalization.<p>But for somone in W. Varginia that&#x27;s a coal miner that has been laid off (a big Trump talking point), these things matter On a massive level.<p>So there&#x27;s our schism - how can we provide a forward thinking, longer term vision that helps the common citizenry? In my mind, everything this repubican extremist &#x27;president&#x27; represents are big interests and reducing their unfettered access to unlimited profits, regardless of what that means.<p>Your (what&#x27;s left of it) privacy and whatever else is fair game.<p>I&#x27;d advise to (of course) moving to tor, vm&#x27;s and seriously, cryptocurrencies. Currency is a great way to start hacking back towards 1:1, person:person transactions which leads to a less decentralized money system.<p>And, If course, money underpins pretty much all us entrepreneurs do.<p>So, we <i>do</i> have options. :-&#x2F; These options include vpn, tor, cryptocurrencies, ethereum, etc.<p>Edit: mobile spelling corrections.

I never cared too much for privacy, but that&#x27;s one step too far. Lawmakers probably don&#x27;t understand how this makes them a target, and how their own information will be accessible. Hopefully this will create a market for ISPs that want to protect you. I see VPN markets growing even more.

How can I as a user buy access to my own personal information? Maybe this is an opportunity for a new venture.

I don&#x27;t care whose fault it is, what can we actually do to defend ourselves?

Does anyone have suggestions on staying private that my mom could easily follow?

This indicates to me an architectural flaw with the internet. We need to start exploring other techniques to circumvent tracking, perhaps through more distributed systems. The politicians can not be trusted.

I know the political issues are different than in SOPA, but this situation reminds me of how powerful publicity is as a factor in legislation. SOPA was a mostly-unheard of bill that seemed certain to pass (had a huge number of bipartisan sponsors in the Senate [0] and the House [1]) until it blew up into a big online campaign and became mainstream with the blackout [2]. I remember many legislators&#x27; staff saying it was the most email and calls they had ever received in a day&#x2F;week, and these are for members of Congress who voted on Obamacare and the 2002 authorization of use of force in Iraq.<p>I can&#x27;t pretend I know what it&#x27;s like to be a general layperson about tech, but my base instinct is that this issue of Internet privacy protections is much more salient to the average person than SOPA. Yet even as a follower of politics, I barely heard about this until last week when the Senate voted on it.<p>I can think of a couple of factors:<p>1. Internet giants advocated heavily against SOPA. Those same companies have less incentive to argue against selling user data, even though selling data at the ISP level is, to me, substantially different than at the website&#x2F;service level.<p>2. So much political energy and attention has been spent on the Trump Administration, particularly on the recent push to repeal Obamacare. IIRC, even though SOPA didn&#x27;t get much media coverage until around the week of the blackout, it wasn&#x27;t competing with anything quite as big as this past week&#x27;s vote on Obamacare (nevermind the other issues surrounding the executive branch).<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.congress.gov&#x2F;bill&#x2F;112th-congress&#x2F;senate-bill&#x2F;968&#x2F;cosponsors" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.congress.gov&#x2F;bill&#x2F;112th-congress&#x2F;senate-bill&#x2F;968...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.congress.gov&#x2F;bill&#x2F;112th-congress&#x2F;house-bill&#x2F;3261&#x2F;cosponsors" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.congress.gov&#x2F;bill&#x2F;112th-congress&#x2F;house-bill&#x2F;3261...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA</a><p>Edit: Worth pointing out the Senate vote from last week, in which no Republican broke ranks in a 50-48 vote. 2 Republicans were not present (edit: I originally wrote &quot;abstained&quot;), including Sen. Rand Paul who is listed as a co-sponsor:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;projects.propublica.org&#x2F;represent&#x2F;votes&#x2F;115&#x2F;senate&#x2F;1&#x2F;94" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;projects.propublica.org&#x2F;represent&#x2F;votes&#x2F;115&#x2F;senate&#x2F;1...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flake.senate.gov&#x2F;public&#x2F;index.cfm&#x2F;press-releases?ID=D739A8C2-2B70-4D7B-9FFB-4E62CA992DB4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flake.senate.gov&#x2F;public&#x2F;index.cfm&#x2F;press-releases...</a>

The UK and USA engaged in a fierce battle of &#x27;hold my beer&#x27;.

Question. When were these FCC rules implemented? I know they were under Obama but right now as I try to learn the history google just keeps giving me the news of the repeal.

What are the plans to anonymize the data? Are there any standards in the advertising industry for sharing such information?

Where&#x27;s the crowdfunding to buy the navigation history of the representatives involved in the approval of the law?

What VPN provider do you guys recommend?

Just move to Europe, where there is still some semblance of reasonable regulations and politics (for now).

I hope someone buys browsing history of all Republican Congressman and publishes them on the web

Could and should have been filibustered in the Senate<p>edit: note Senate....

Isn&#x27;t &quot;https everywhere&quot; going to make this a moot point?

The Register: Your internet history on sale to highest bidder: US Congress votes to shred ISP privacy rules<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theregister.co.uk&#x2F;2017&#x2F;03&#x2F;28&#x2F;congress_approves_sale_of_internet_histories&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theregister.co.uk&#x2F;2017&#x2F;03&#x2F;28&#x2F;congress_approves_s...</a><p>&quot;Now, the really big question is: can your ISPs see the content of your online interactions? Can it read your emails? Can it read your search results? Can it store and search through the words you typed into a webpage?<p>And the answer is: yes, sometimes.<p>If the website you visit is not secured with HTTPS – meaning that any data between you and the website is encrypted – then your ISP can see exactly what you are doing.&quot;<p>Read the article for suggestions on how to protect yourself.<p>Also read: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theregister.co.uk&#x2F;2017&#x2F;03&#x2F;28&#x2F;so_my_isp_can_now_sell_my_browsing_history_what_can_i_do&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theregister.co.uk&#x2F;2017&#x2F;03&#x2F;28&#x2F;so_my_isp_can_now_se...</a>

Don&#x27;t worry, the president will veto this. &#x2F;s