I find it funny these people are taking to Facebook about this... adding another piece of data Facebook can track and sell.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, it was never intended to cover us. It really was intended to keep > the big boys from blocking competing services. Like Comcast blocking > Netflix. Network neutrality was the common name of the rules. Those same > rules said we could not throttle or use something like procera to traffic > shape. But there was a loop hole to allow for network congestion > management. > > In any event it is history. I never noticed the whole selling data aspect > of that reg. Just the throttling portion. So I guess there was some stuff > that prevented selling... but now it is gone? Meh. > > Google sells everything they get. Always have, always will. > Use adblockers and incognito mode etc if you want to attempt. Or a proxy > if you are really serious. > > Meh... meh > > *From:* Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:05 PM > *To:* Animal Farm > *Subject:* [AFMUG] Semi OT: Selling web browsing history > > Has anyone here been offered money for data on clients web browsing or > other online activity? Have you ever sought and found a company that would > buy it? Is there a known case of an ISP doing this? I'm betting all 3 are > "no". > > A couple of friends are going nuts on Facebook about the reversal of a law > that would prohibit ISP's from selling or sharing various types of data. > The law was signed under the previous administration, but never took > effect. Until now I'd not even heard of it. > > I singled out the most vehement one and told him to calm down. I told him > of all the types of data we'd be prohibited from sharing (Medical, > financial, social security etc) we don't actually have most of it to begin > with. Of all the cited things we're allegedly "allowed" to share/sell, the > only thing I conceivably could produce would be a web browsing history. > Ok, so if I wanted to sell that, who's buying? I argue that you should be > more worried about Google and Facebook....who *really do* have access to > a crapload of your data. And what is so secret in your browser history > anyway? > > One person brought up a case of a Verizon Wireless "Super Cookie" (X-UIDH > header inserted into HTTP requests). A case where incidentally the FCC > told them people needed an opt-out option and fined them $1.3mil for not > having it.......without any additional rules. And the so-called super > cookie only allowed web services to uniquely identify the device and key > their own data around it....Verizon wasn't "sharing" anything. > > Ultimately I don't care whether there's such a rule or not. It seems > irrelevant. It's like a rule telling me not to share my space shuttle with > anyone. I'm like, "Sure, no problem." > > If there's a reason I should be excited/alarmed, someone please educate me. > > -Adam >
