Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Jason McKemie]

pages to go and I don't have time for it.
>
> The privacy protections stated in the existing US Code section 222 (
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222) seem clear and sufficient
> to me.  What additional protections would the overturned FCC order have
> provided consumers.  What additional burdens would it impose on ISP's?
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mark Radabaugh" <m...@amplex.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','m...@amplex.net');>>
> To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> Sent: 3/31/2017 2:21:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
> This is the order that was overturned by Congress, and will go away if the
> President signs the CRA: https://apps.fcc.gov/
> edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf
>
> There are many more issues with this rule than the press is making noise
> about.  The rules would impose significant cost and liability on small
> providers.
>
> WISPA signed onto a stay request with the FCC asking the agency to put
> implementation of the rules on hold while the issues with the new rule were
> address.   In supporting the stay request WISPA signed onto the letter from
> many other groups and stated that we would be requesting our members to
> support the below “Privacy Principals” while the stay was in effect.  The
> ‘stay’ request was granted by the FCC.
>
> WISPA was not the driving force behind the “Congressional Review Act” that
> Congress used to overturn the rules this week.  I’m surprised that it
> passed.  I’m sure there was some serious lobbying from the large providers
> behind it’s passage.
>
> The rules that Congress overturned were not the only rules that applied to
> Privacy from the FCC and, as others have pointed out, had never taken
> effect.   As ISP’s we are still under common carrier regulation and Section
> 222 “Privacy of Customer Information” applies.
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222
>
> These are the principals we are asking our members to follow:
>
>
> ISP Privacy Principles
>
> ISPs understand the trust our customers place in us, and we are committed
> to protecting our customers’ privacy and safeguarding their information.
> For 20 years, we have implemented policies and practices that are
> consistent with the FTC’s widely respected and effective privacy framework
> and other federal and state privacy laws. This framework helped drive the
> success of today’s Internet ecosystem by balancing consumer protection with
> the flexibility necessary to innovate. We understand the importance of
> maintaining our customers’ trust. That is why we will continue to provide
> consumer privacy protections, while at the same time meeting consumers’
> expectations for innovative new product solutions to enhance their online
> experiences. Regardless of the legal status of the FCC’s broadband privacy
> rules, we remain committed to protecting our customers’ privacy and
> safeguarding their information because we value their trust. As
> policymakers evaluate the issues, we will maintain consumer protections
> that include the following:
> Transparency. ISPs will continue to provide their broadband customers
> with a clear, comprehensible, accurate, and continuously available privacy
> notice that describes the customer information we collect, how we will use
> that information, and when we will share that information with third
> parties.
>
> Consumer Choice. ISPs will continue to give broadband customers
> easy-to-understand privacy choices based on the sensitivity of their
> personal data and how it will be used or disclosed, consistent with the
> FTC’s privacy framework. In particular, ISPs will continue to: (i) follow
> the FTC’s guidance regarding opt-in consent for the use and sharing of
> sensitive information as defined by the FTC; (ii) offer an opt-out choice
> to use non-sensitive customer information for personalized third-party
> marketing; and (iii) rely on implied consent to use customer information in
> activities like service fulfillment and support, fraud prevention, market
> research, product development, network management and security, compliance
> with law, and first-party marketing. This is the same flexible choice
> approach used across the Internet ecosystem and is very familiar to
> consumers.
>
> Data Security. ISPs will continue to take reasonable measures to protect
> customer information we collect from unauthorized use, disclosure, or
> access. Consistent with the FTC’s framework, precedent, and guidance, these
> measures will take into account the nature and scope of the ISP’s
> activities, the sensitivity of the data, the size of the ISP, and technical
> feasibility.
>
> Data Breach Noti

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Mark Radabaugh]

Yeah, tough to read.

Big issues I had with it:

Creates 3 classes of information that you have to protect in different ways - 
“PI” (proprietary information), “CPNI” (customer proprietary network 
information), and "content of communications"

Requires that you keep track of “opt-in” for certain things, and “opt-out” for 
others, that you have records of the customers consent (or lack thereof).

"we define “customer” as (1) a current or former subscriber to a 
telecommunications service; or (2) an applicant for a telecommunications 
service.” - for purposes of privacy you now have to protect customers who are 
not and may never be actual customers.

Defines CPNI (the most protected category) as:

 Broadband Service Plans
 Geo-location
 MAC Addresses and Other Device Identifiers
 IP Addresses and Domain Name Information
 Traffic Statistics
 Port Information
 Application Header
 Application Usage
 Application Payload
 Customer Premises Equipment and Device Information

Keep in mind CPNI is the one the FCC has and will enforce severe penalties for 
disclosing to anyone you have not absolutely positively identified as the owner 
of the account.   To me this means the kid calling in to get a static IP 
address for his X-Box is now a landmine for your customer service people.   
Same goes for discussing or sharing usage information.   "Your wife owns the 
account, not you so I can’t tell you your connection seems slow because your 
son is downloading the new 475Tb XBox game. 

MAC Addresses?   Does your system actually hide all of those from other 
customers?   Many WISP systems do, but not all network designs do so.

"We find that broadband service plans meet the statutory
definition of CPNI in the broadband context because they relate to the 
quantity, type, amount of use,
location, and technical configuration of a telecommunications service.123 We 
agree with NTCA that
“information related to a customer’s broadband service plan can be viewed as 
analogous to voice
telephony service plans,”124 which the Commission has long considered to be 
CPNI in the voice
context.125 These plans detail subscription information, including the type of 
service (e.g., fixed or
mobile; cable or fiber; prepaid or term contract), speed, pricing, and capacity 
(e.g., data caps).

Does this putting up a yard sign without obtaining written permission from the 
customer is now a potential violation of CPNI?   Or taking it to the ridiculous 
- maybe we need plain white vans so we don’t disclose who has service by 
accident.

Geo-location. Geo-location is information related to the physical or 
geographical
location of a customer or the customer’s device(s), regardless of the 
particular technological method used
to obtain this information.

How precise is the restriction on geolocation?   Is this now a violation?

105:~ Mark$ traceroute 64.246.126.114
traceroute to 64.246.126.114 (64.246.126.114), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
 1  xe-2-0-0-23.corp-mxi0.amplex.net (172.16.64.254)  7.655 ms  1.063 ms  1.003 
ms
 2  ae1-11.corp-srx0.amplex.net (64.246.109.89)  1.230 ms  1.182 ms  1.048 ms
 3  ae0-11.hq-mx0.amplex.net (64.246.109.25)  1.361 ms  1.579 ms  1.097 ms
 4  ge-0-0-0-0.luckey-gw.amplex.net (64.246.96.220)  51.210 ms  38.380 ms  
39.950 ms

seems I live in Luckey, Ohio.   

Lots more stuff like this that isn’t well defined or thought out.

Now we get into “PI”:

We have analyzed descriptions of PII in the record, our prior orders,233 
NIST,234 the FTC,235 the Administration’s proposed CPBR,236 and other federal 
and state statutes and regulations.237 We find that examples of PII include, 
but are not limited to: name; Social Security number; date of birth; mother’s 
maiden name; government-issued identifiers (e.g., driver’s license number); 
physical address; email address or other online contact information;238 phone 
numbers; MAC addresses or other unique device identifiers; IP addresses; and 
persistent online or unique advertising identifiers. Several of these data 
elements may also be CPNI

lots more stuff like this, but I’m tired of reading it.


Mark 

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I started reading the overturned order...19 pages in I realized there were 
> 200 pages to go and I don't have time for it.
> 
> The privacy protections stated in the existing US Code section 222 
> (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222 
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222>) seem clear and sufficient 
> to me.  What additional protections would the overturned FCC order have 
> provided consumers.  What additional burdens would it impose on ISP's?
> 
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mark Radabaugh" <m...@amplex.net <mailto:m...@amplex.net>>
> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
> Sent: 3/31/2017 2:21:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Adam Moffett]

I started reading the overturned order...19 pages in I realized there 
were 200 pages to go and I don't have time for it.


The privacy protections stated in the existing US Code section 222 
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222) seem clear and 
sufficient to me.  What additional protections would the overturned FCC 
order have provided consumers.  What additional burdens would it impose 
on ISP's?



-- Original Message --
From: "Mark Radabaugh" <m...@amplex.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 3/31/2017 2:21:37 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

This is the order that was overturned by Congress, and will go away if 
the President signs the CRA: 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf


There are many more issues with this rule than the press is making 
noise about.  The rules would impose significant cost and liability on 
small providers.


WISPA signed onto a stay request with the FCC asking the agency to put 
implementation of the rules on hold while the issues with the new rule 
were address.   In supporting the stay request WISPA signed onto the 
letter from many other groups and stated that we would be requesting 
our members to support the below “Privacy Principals” while the stay 
was in effect.  The ‘stay’ request was granted by the FCC.


WISPA was not the driving force behind the “Congressional Review Act” 
that Congress used to overturn the rules this week.  I’m surprised that 
it passed.  I’m sure there was some serious lobbying from the large 
providers behind it’s passage.


The rules that Congress overturned were not the only rules that applied 
to Privacy from the FCC and, as others have pointed out, had never 
taken effect.   As ISP’s we are still under common carrier regulation 
and Section 222 “Privacy of Customer Information” applies.  
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222


These are the principals we are asking our members to follow:



ISP Privacy Principles

ISPs understand the trust our customers place in us, and we are 
committed to protecting our customers’ privacy and safeguarding their 
information. For 20 years, we have implemented policies and practices 
that are consistent with the FTC’s widely respected and effective 
privacy framework and other federal and state privacy laws. This 
framework helped drive the success of today’s Internet ecosystem by 
balancing consumer protection with the flexibility necessary to 
innovate. We understand the importance of maintaining our customers’ 
trust. That is why we will continue to provide consumer privacy 
protections, while at the same time meeting consumers’ expectations 
for innovative new product solutions to enhance their online 
experiences. Regardless of the legal status of the FCC’s broadband 
privacy rules, we remain committed to protecting our customers’ 
privacy and safeguarding their information because we value their 
trust. As policymakers evaluate the issues, we will maintain consumer 
protections that include the following:


Transparency. ISPs will continue to provide their broadband customers 
with a clear, comprehensible, accurate, and continuously available 
privacy notice that describes the customer information we collect, how 
we will use that information, and when we will share that information 
with third parties.


Consumer Choice. ISPs will continue to give broadband customers 
easy-to-understand privacy choices based on the sensitivity of their 
personal data and how it will be used or disclosed, consistent with 
the FTC’s privacy framework. In particular, ISPs will continue to: (i) 
follow the FTC’s guidance regarding opt-in consent for the use and 
sharing of sensitive information as defined by the FTC; (ii) offer an 
opt-out choice to use non-sensitive customer information for 
personalized third-party marketing; and (iii) rely on implied consent 
to use customer information in activities like service fulfillment and 
support, fraud prevention, market research, product development, 
network management and security, compliance with law, and first-party 
marketing. This is the same flexible choice approach used across the 
Internet ecosystem and is very familiar to consumers.


Data Security. ISPs will continue to take reasonable measures to 
protect customer information we collect from unauthorized use, 
disclosure, or access. Consistent with the FTC’s framework, precedent, 
and guidance, these measures will take into account the nature and 
scope of the ISP’s activities, the sensitivity of the data, the size 
of the ISP, and technical feasibility.


Data Breach Notifications. ISPs will continue to notify consumers of 
data breaches as appropriate, including complying with all applicable 
state data breach laws, which contain robust requirements to notify 
affected customers, regulators, law enforcement, and others, without 
unreasonable delay, when an unauthorized person acquires the 
customers’ sensitive personal inform

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Mark Radabaugh]

les are also 
consistent with the FCC’s May 2015 Enforcement Advisory, which applied to ISPs 
for almost two years while the FCC’s broadband privacy rules were being 
considered.
The above principles, as well as ISPs’ continued compliance with various 
federal and state privacy laws, will protect consumers’ privacy, while also 
encouraging continued investment, innovation, and competition in the Internet 
ecosystem.


Mark Radabaugh
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
fcc_ch...@wispa.org
419-261-5996

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Somebody posted the link to the WISPA filing on this in the other thread 
> here... there is more going on here than the stuff about selling information 
> that's stuck all over the news. 
> Maybe it is a big corporate handout, in some ways, but as far as I can tell, 
> it's good for the likes of us in every way. We've already had several 
> customers worried that we're going to sell there information, and being able 
> to tell them that we have no intention of ever doing so is a good selling 
> point to those people... sure, the main reason that we aren't going to sell 
> that info may be because we don't have it, and we're too small for anybody to 
> want it even if we did, but that's beside the point.
> 
> As far as I know, it hadn't ever actually taken effect anyway, so despite 
> what you'd think from what's on the news, nothing is actually changing from 
> how it always has been.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Jason McKemie 
> <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com <mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>> 
> wrote:
> This is a big corporate handout, no need to get conspiracy theories involved.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net 
> <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote:
> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
> bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
> engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company 
> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having 
> access to that data as being important.
> 
>  
> 
> Rory
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On 
> Behalf Of Peter Kranz
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
> 
>  
> 
> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not 
> to use the only ISP in their market?
> 
>  
> 
> Peter Kranz
> www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <tel:(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <tel:(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com <mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>
>  
> 
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On 
> Behalf Of Rory Conaway
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
> 
>  
> 
> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
> been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  
> Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed 
> their minds.
> 
>  
> 
> Rory
> 
>  
> 
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On 
> Behalf Of Peter Kranz
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
> Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
> 
>  
> 
> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband 
> and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
> potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the 
> basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that 
> small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the 
> clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every 
> aspect of their customer’s usage.
> 
>  
> 
> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/ <http://privacypledge.us/>
>  
> 
> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try 
> to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end 
> user.
> 
>  
> 
> Peter Kranz
> www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <tel:(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <tel:(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com <mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>
>  
> 
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Mike Hammett]

I'm always in favor of letting the big guys hang themselves. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:48:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

I'd agree with this. Anything greedy that the big guys do (even from only a 
perception standpoint) is good for us. It's a great marketing tool. So long as 
they don't figure a way to force anything on all of us. 

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 





Somebody posted the link to the WISPA filing on this in the other thread 
here... there is more going on here than the stuff about selling information 
that's stuck all over the news. 
Maybe it is a big corporate handout, in some ways, but as far as I can tell, 
it's good for the likes of us in every way. We've already had several customers 
worried that we're going to sell there information, and being able to tell them 
that we have no intention of ever doing so is a good selling point to those 
people... sure, the main reason that we aren't going to sell that info may be 
because we don't have it, and we're too small for anybody to want it even if we 
did, but that's beside the point. 

As far as I know, it hadn't ever actually taken effect anyway, so despite what 
you'd think from what's on the news, nothing is actually changing from how it 
always has been. 



On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Jason McKemie < 
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > wrote: 



This is a big corporate handout, no need to get conspiracy theories involved. 


On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Rory Conaway < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 





One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill. They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years. Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that. I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important. 

Rory 




From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market? 


Peter Kranz 
www.UnwiredLtd.com 
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 
Mobile: 510-207- 
pkr...@unwiredltd.com 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about. Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights. Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds. 



Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage. 

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/ 

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user. 

Peter Kranz 
www.UnwiredLtd.com 
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 
Mobile: 510-207- 
pkr...@unwiredltd.com 

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Jason McKemie]

I'd agree with this. Anything greedy that the big guys do (even from only a
perception standpoint) is good for us. It's a great marketing tool. So long
as they don't figure a way to force anything on all of us.

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Somebody posted the link to the WISPA filing on this in the other thread
> here... there is more going on here than the stuff about selling
> information that's stuck all over the news.
> Maybe it is a big corporate handout, in some ways, but as far as I can
> tell, it's good for the likes of us in every way. We've already had several
> customers worried that we're going to sell there information, and being
> able to tell them that we have no intention of ever doing so is a good
> selling point to those people... sure, the main reason that we aren't going
> to sell that info may be because we don't have it, and we're too small for
> anybody to want it even if we did, but that's beside the point.
>
> As far as I know, it hadn't ever actually taken effect anyway, so despite
> what you'd think from what's on the news, nothing is actually changing from
> how it always has been.
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com');>> wrote:
>
>> This is a big corporate handout, no need to get conspiracy theories
>> involved.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','r...@triadwireless.net');>> wrote:
>>
>>> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
>>> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
>>> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
>>> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
>>> having access to that data as being important.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Peter
>>> Kranz
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
>>> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
>>> to use the only ISP in their market?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
>>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
>>> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
>>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pkr...@unwiredltd.com');>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Rory
>>> Conaway
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
>>> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
>>> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
>>> crossed their minds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Peter
>>> Kranz
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
>>> Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been
>>> perfect, and potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I
>>> think the basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding
>>> pledge that small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate
>>> one of the clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to
>>> commodify every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
>>> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
>>> end user.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
>>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
>>> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
>>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pkr...@unwiredltd.com');>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[chuck]

Totally true, it never took effect, so nothing changes.  Folks love it when the 
sky is falling.  

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:50 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Somebody posted the link to the WISPA filing on this in the other thread 
here... there is more going on here than the stuff about selling information 
that's stuck all over the news. 

Maybe it is a big corporate handout, in some ways, but as far as I can tell, 
it's good for the likes of us in every way. We've already had several customers 
worried that we're going to sell there information, and being able to tell them 
that we have no intention of ever doing so is a good selling point to those 
people... sure, the main reason that we aren't going to sell that info may be 
because we don't have it, and we're too small for anybody to want it even if we 
did, but that's beside the point.


As far as I know, it hadn't ever actually taken effect anyway, so despite what 
you'd think from what's on the news, nothing is actually changing from how it 
always has been.


On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Jason McKemie 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

  This is a big corporate handout, no need to get conspiracy theories involved.

  On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting 
this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and 
search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company 
specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having 
access to that data as being important.



Rory 





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?



Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google 
has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  
Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.



Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com
    Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband 
and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage.



Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/ 



I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to 
try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end 
user.



Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Mathew Howard]

Somebody posted the link to the WISPA filing on this in the other thread
here... there is more going on here than the stuff about selling
information that's stuck all over the news.
Maybe it is a big corporate handout, in some ways, but as far as I can
tell, it's good for the likes of us in every way. We've already had several
customers worried that we're going to sell there information, and being
able to tell them that we have no intention of ever doing so is a good
selling point to those people... sure, the main reason that we aren't going
to sell that info may be because we don't have it, and we're too small for
anybody to want it even if we did, but that's beside the point.

As far as I know, it hadn't ever actually taken effect anyway, so despite
what you'd think from what's on the news, nothing is actually changing from
how it always has been.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> This is a big corporate handout, no need to get conspiracy theories
> involved.
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
> wrote:
>
>> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
>> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
>> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
>> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
>> having access to that data as being important.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
>> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
>> to use the only ISP in their market?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
>> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207-0000>
>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
>> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
>> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
>> crossed their minds.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
>> Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been
>> perfect, and potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I
>> think the basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding
>> pledge that small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate
>> one of the clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to
>> commodify every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>>
>>
>>
>> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
>> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
>> end user.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
>> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Rory Conaway]

So, is there any doubt that Google had employees that rotated throughout the 
Obama administration, Google had a hand in Net Neutrality, or that 20 pages of 
the act were pulled right before the vote?

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:23 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge


Nor is it "news".



bp

<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 3/31/2017 12:40 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway 
<r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote:
Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more about 
the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This 
information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe 
Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do with 
the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that nobody saw.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

+Graham's number.

They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince 
<part15...@gmail.com<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?



bp

<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?
citation?

-- Original Message --
From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important.

Rory


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100<tel:%28510%29%20868-1614>
Mobile: 510-207-<tel:%28510%29%20207->
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100<tel:%28510%29%20868-1614>
Mobile: 510-207-<tel:%28510%29%20207->
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Bill Prince]

Nor is it "news".


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/31/2017 12:40 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net 
<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote:


Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you
care more about the source of the writing than the evidence the
brought forth.  This information, although sparse, is accurate. 
I’m sure that you don’t believe Google employees were working in

the administration and had nothing to do with the Net Neutrality
Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that nobody saw.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

+Graham's number.

They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com
<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?

bp

<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

  


On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

<http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/>

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam
Moffett
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
    *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?

citation?

-- Original Message --

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net
<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>

To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>>

Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered
when supporting this bill.  They know Google has been
supplying and manipulating data and search engines for the
Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are
looking at having access to that data as being important.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
            *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other
social network companies, but people can choose not to use
google.. How do they choose not to use the only ISP in
their market?

*Peter Kranz
*www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <tel:%28510%29%20868-1614>
Mobile: 510-207- <tel:%28510%29%20207->
pkr...@unwiredltd.com <mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of
        *Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about. 
Apparently Google has been selling this data for years.

The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of course,
prohibiting Google from selling this information never
crossed their minds.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of
    *Peter Kranz
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of
Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication
Services” rule might not have been perfect, and
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and
WISPS, I think the basic concept was sound. I created a
simple non-legally binding pledge that small ISPs and
WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek
to commodify every aspect of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I’

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Adam Moffett]

Sorry, I couldn't help it.
https://xkcd.com/386/

Good luck with the Privacy Pledge thing.


-- Original Message --
From: "Steve D" <bigd...@gmail.com>
To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 3/31/2017 10:58:26 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Peter is getting the ball rolling on a piece of marketing for something 
small isp's are probably doing anyway and to help drive people from the 
big dogs.  I'd say sign up, and astro-turf this into every Reddit , ars 
Technica , whatever comment section that talks about this stuff and get 
some people aware of your existence.  This is an opportunity for good 
word of mouth for your business.


Or keep bickering about political bullshit.  Whatever.

On Mar 31, 2017 6:56 AM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

I wasn't gonna say anything.

I did read the article, and the wikileaks email it cites.  The problem 
is not that the source is Julian Assange, it's that it's Julian 
Assange's opinion.  The cited email doesn't say Google is feeding data 
to Hillary.  Jared Coen (Google Exec) is informing Hillary (via her 
staff) about data in Syria that he's putting on a public map.  During 
the date on the email, Clinton was Secretary of State.  The cited 
email does not say anything about the relationship:  it doesn't say 
whether Jared Coen was doing a favor for Clinton or whether Google was 
working as a contractor for the State Department.


The rest of the claims are inferred either by Assange or by the 
Author.

.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com 
<mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>>

To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 3/31/2017 4:46:47 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

WikiLeaks releases only what they feel will help their agenda, which 
also happens to be Putin's agenda. I don't watch Rachel Maddow, so I 
can't speak to anything she does. The New York Times has 
significantly more journalistic integrity than Brietbart.


On Friday, March 31, 2017, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> 
wrote:
So Wikieleaks hasn’t published any fake data ever, but because 
Brietbart writes about it, that means it’s fake data.   But if the 
New York Times or Rachel Maddow said the same thing, you would 
accept that as truth.  And you don’t see a problem with that?




Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:40 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.



On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway 
<r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:


Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care 
more about the source of the writing than the evidence the brought 
forth.  This information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure 
that you don’t believe Google employees were working in the 
administration and had nothing to do with the Net Neutrality Act or 
the 20 pages redacted from that act that nobody saw.




Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



+Graham's number.



They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".



On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> 
wrote:


You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?



bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/ 
<http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/>




From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



Wha?

citation?



-- Original Message --

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>

To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>

Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when 
supporting this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and 
manipulating data and search engines for the Democrats for years.  
Hell, they started a company specifically to do just that.  I 
think the Republicans are looking at having access to that data as 
being important.




Rory





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social 
network companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How 
do they choose not to use the only ISP in their market?




Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Steve D]

Peter is getting the ball rolling on a piece of marketing for something
small isp's are probably doing anyway and to help drive people from the big
dogs.  I'd say sign up, and astro-turf this into every Reddit , ars
Technica , whatever comment section that talks about this stuff and get
some people aware of your existence.  This is an opportunity for good word
of mouth for your business.

Or keep bickering about political bullshit.  Whatever.

On Mar 31, 2017 6:56 AM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wasn't gonna say anything.
>
> I did read the article, and the wikileaks email it cites.  The problem is
> not that the source is Julian Assange, it's that it's Julian Assange's
> *opinion*.  The cited email doesn't say Google is feeding data to
> Hillary.  Jared Coen (Google Exec) is informing Hillary (via her staff)
> about data in Syria that he's putting on a public map.  During the date on
> the email, Clinton was Secretary of State.  The cited email does not say
> anything about the relationship:  it doesn't say whether Jared Coen was
> doing a favor for Clinton or whether Google was working as a contractor for
> the State Department.
>
> The rest of the claims are inferred either by Assange or by the Author.
> .
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Sent: 3/31/2017 4:46:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
> WikiLeaks releases only what they feel will help their agenda, which also
> happens to be Putin's agenda. I don't watch Rachel Maddow, so I can't speak
> to anything she does. The New York Times has significantly more
> journalistic integrity than Brietbart.
>
> On Friday, March 31, 2017, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:
>
>> So Wikieleaks hasn’t published any fake data ever, but because Brietbart
>> writes about it, that means it’s fake data.   But if the New York Times or
>> Rachel Maddow said the same thing, you would accept that as truth.  And you
>> don’t see a problem with that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 12:40 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more
>> about the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This
>> information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe
>> Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do
>> with the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that
>> nobody saw.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> +Graham's number.
>>
>>
>>
>> They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You believe Breitbart?!?!?
>>
>> What planet you live on?
>>
>>
>>
>> bp
>>
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says
>> -google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> Wha?
>>
>> citation?
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>>
>> From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
>>
>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>
>> Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
>> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
>> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they sta

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Adam Moffett]

I wasn't gonna say anything.

I did read the article, and the wikileaks email it cites.  The problem 
is not that the source is Julian Assange, it's that it's Julian 
Assange's opinion.  The cited email doesn't say Google is feeding data 
to Hillary.  Jared Coen (Google Exec) is informing Hillary (via her 
staff) about data in Syria that he's putting on a public map.  During 
the date on the email, Clinton was Secretary of State.  The cited email 
does not say anything about the relationship:  it doesn't say whether 
Jared Coen was doing a favor for Clinton or whether Google was working 
as a contractor for the State Department.


The rest of the claims are inferred either by Assange or by the Author.
.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 3/31/2017 4:46:47 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

WikiLeaks releases only what they feel will help their agenda, which 
also happens to be Putin's agenda. I don't watch Rachel Maddow, so I 
can't speak to anything she does. The New York Times has significantly 
more journalistic integrity than Brietbart.


On Friday, March 31, 2017, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:
So Wikieleaks hasn’t published any fake data ever, but because 
Brietbart writes about it, that means it’s fake data.   But if the New 
York Times or Rachel Maddow said the same thing, you would accept that 
as truth.  And you don’t see a problem with that?




Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:40 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.



On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> 
wrote:


Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care 
more about the source of the writing than the evidence the brought 
forth.  This information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that 
you don’t believe Google employees were working in the administration 
and had nothing to do with the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages 
redacted from that act that nobody saw.




Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



+Graham's number.



They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".



On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> 
wrote:


You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?



bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/ 
<http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/>




From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



Wha?

citation?



-- Original Message --

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>

To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>

Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when 
supporting this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and 
manipulating data and search engines for the Democrats for years.  
Hell, they started a company specifically to do just that.  I think 
the Republicans are looking at having access to that data as being 
important.




Rory





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social 
network companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do 
they choose not to use the only ISP in their market?




Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <tel:(510)%20868-1614>
Mobile: 510-207- <tel:(510)%20207->
pkr...@unwiredltd.com



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently 
Google has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have 
the same rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this 
information never crossed their minds.




Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of 
Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have 
been perfect, and potentia

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Mike Hammett]

Oh brother... 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:17:03 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 


+Graham's number. 


They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News". 


On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince < part15...@gmail.com > wrote: 




You believe Breitbart?!?!? 
What planet you live on? 

bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> 
On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: 




http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 


Wha? 

citation? 



-- Original Message -- 

From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 

To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 

Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 





One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill. They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years. Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that. I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important. 

Rory 




From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market? 


Peter Kranz 
www.UnwiredLtd.com 
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 
Mobile: 510-207- 
pkr...@unwiredltd.com 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about. Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights. Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds. 



Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage. 

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/ 

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user. 

Peter Kranz 
www.UnwiredLtd.com 
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 
Mobile: 510-207- 
pkr...@unwiredltd.com 

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Jason McKemie]

WikiLeaks releases only what they feel will help their agenda, which also
happens to be Putin's agenda. I don't watch Rachel Maddow, so I can't speak
to anything she does. The New York Times has significantly more
journalistic integrity than Brietbart.

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

> So Wikieleaks hasn’t published any fake data ever, but because Brietbart
> writes about it, that means it’s fake data.   But if the New York Times or
> Rachel Maddow said the same thing, you would accept that as truth.  And you
> don’t see a problem with that?
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Jason
> McKemie
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 12:40 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','r...@triadwireless.net');>> wrote:
>
> Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more
> about the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This
> information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe
> Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do
> with the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that
> nobody saw.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Jason
> McKemie
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> +Graham's number.
>
>
>
> They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','part15...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
> You believe Breitbart?!?!?
>
> What planet you live on?
>
>
>
> bp
>
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
>
> On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-
> says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Adam
> Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> Wha?
>
> citation?
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','r...@triadwireless.net');>>
>
> To: "af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>" <
> af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>>
>
> Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
> having access to that data as being important.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Peter
> Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
> to use the only ISP in their market?
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pkr...@unwiredltd.com');>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Rory
> Conaway
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP P

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Rory Conaway]

So Wikieleaks hasn’t published any fake data ever, but because Brietbart writes 
about it, that means it’s fake data.   But if the New York Times or Rachel 
Maddow said the same thing, you would accept that as truth.  And you don’t see 
a problem with that?

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:40 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway 
<r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote:
Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more about 
the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This 
information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe 
Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do with 
the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that nobody saw.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

+Graham's number.

They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince 
<part15...@gmail.com<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?



bp

<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?
citation?

-- Original Message --
From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important.

Rory


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100<tel:(510)%20868-1614>
Mobile: 510-207-<tel:(510)%20207->
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100<tel:(510)%20868-1614>
Mobile: 510-207-<tel:(510)%20207->
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Jason McKemie]

It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
wrote:

> Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more
> about the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This
> information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe
> Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do
> with the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that
> nobody saw.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> +Graham's number.
>
>
>
> They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You believe Breitbart?!?!?
>
> What planet you live on?
>
>
>
> bp
>
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
>
> On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-
> says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> Wha?
>
> citation?
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
>
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>
> Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
> having access to that data as being important.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
> to use the only ISP in their market?
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
> crossed their minds.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband
> and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and
> potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the
> basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that
> small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
> clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify
> every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>
>
>
> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>
>
>
> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
> end user.
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Rory Conaway]

Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more about 
the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This 
information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe 
Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do with 
the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that nobody saw.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

+Graham's number.

They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince 
<part15...@gmail.com<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?



bp

<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?
citation?

-- Original Message --
From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important.

Rory


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100<tel:(510)%20868-1614>
Mobile: 510-207-<tel:(510)%20207->
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100<tel:(510)%20868-1614>
Mobile: 510-207-<tel:(510)%20207->
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Jason McKemie]

It's almost April 1st though!

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> Hey man, it is not EASTER yet!!!
>
> *From:* Rory Conaway
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:12 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-
> says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> Wha?
>
> citation?
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
>
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>
> Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
> having access to that data as being important.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
> to use the only ISP in their market?
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz*www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 <(510)%20868-1614> x100
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
> crossed their minds.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband
> and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and
> potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the
> basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that
> small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
> clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify
> every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>
>
>
> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>
>
>
> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
> end user.
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz*www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 <(510)%20868-1614> x100
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Jason McKemie]

+Graham's number.

They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You believe Breitbart?!?!?
>
> What planet you live on?
>
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
> On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-
> says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> Wha?
>
> citation?
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
>
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>
> Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
> having access to that data as being important.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
> to use the only ISP in their market?
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
> crossed their minds.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband
> and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and
> potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the
> basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that
> small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
> clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify
> every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>
>
>
> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>
>
>
> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
> end user.
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Rory Conaway]

Thanks to Google I know you like purple eggs with pink spots.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:12 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Hey man, it is not EASTER yet!!!

From: Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:12 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?
citation?

-- Original Message --
From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important.

Rory


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Chuck McCown]

Hey man, it is not EASTER yet!!!

From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:12 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

 

Wha? 

citation?

 

-- Original Message --

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>

To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>

Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

 

  One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important.

   

  Rory 

   

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
  Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

   

  It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

   

  Peter Kranz
  www.UnwiredLtd.com
  Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
  Mobile: 510-207-
  pkr...@unwiredltd.com

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
  Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

   

  I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

   

  Rory

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
  Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

   

  While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband 
and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage.

   

  Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/ 

   

  I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try 
to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

   

  Peter Kranz
  www.UnwiredLtd.com
  Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
  Mobile: 510-207-
  pkr...@unwiredltd.com

   

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Bill Prince]

You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?

citation?

-- Original Message --

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net 
<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>


To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com 
<mailto:af@afmug.com>>


Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when
supporting this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and
manipulating data and search engines for the Democrats for years. 
Hell, they started a company specifically to do just that.  I

think the Republicans are looking at having access to that data as
being important.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
    *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social
network companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How
do they choose not to use the only ISP in their market?

*Peter Kranz
*www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com <mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
    *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about. Apparently
Google has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to
have the same rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling
this information never crossed their minds.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not
have been perfect, and potentially difficult to implement for
small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic concept was sound. I
created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small ISPs and
WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify
every aspect of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this,
but to try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique
respect for the end user.

*Peter Kranz
*www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com <mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Jaime Solorza]

Sisyphus

On Mar 30, 2017 8:12 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-
> says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> Wha?
>
> citation?
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
>
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>
> Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
> having access to that data as being important.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
> to use the only ISP in their market?
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
> crossed their minds.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband
> and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and
> potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the
> basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that
> small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
> clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify
> every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>
>
>
> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>
>
>
> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
> end user.
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Rory Conaway]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?
citation?

-- Original Message --
From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important.

Rory


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Adam Moffett]

Wha?
citation?

-- Original Message --
From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when 
supporting this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and 
manipulating data and search engines for the Democrats for years.  
Hell, they started a company specifically to do just that.  I think the 
Republicans are looking at having access to that data as being 
important.




Rory





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social 
network companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do 
they choose not to use the only ISP in their market?




Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently 
Google has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have 
the same rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this 
information never crossed their minds.




Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of 
Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have 
been perfect, and potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and 
WISPS, I think the basic concept was sound. I created a simple 
non-legally binding pledge that small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I 
feel will demonstrate one of the clear differentiators between us and 
larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect of their customer’s 
usage.




Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/



I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but 
to try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect 
for the end user.




Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Jason McKemie]

This is a big corporate handout, no need to get conspiracy theories
involved.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
wrote:

> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
> having access to that data as being important.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
> to use the only ISP in their market?
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
> crossed their minds.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband
> and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and
> potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the
> basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that
> small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
> clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify
> every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>
>
>
> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>
>
>
> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
> end user.
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Jason McKemie]

Does Google or Facebook actually sell this information externally though?
I was under the impression that they used it internally so that they could
make their advertising and other services more profitable.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
wrote:

> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
> crossed their minds.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband
> and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and
> potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the
> basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that
> small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
> clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify
> every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>
>
>
> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>
>
>
> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
> end user.
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Rory Conaway]

One other thing that I'm sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important.

Rory


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It's true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC's proposed "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services" rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer's usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I'm open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Rory Conaway]

Google captures a lot of data that isn't from their core customers.  They 
pretty much have their hands into most data moving around internet.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It's true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC's proposed "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services" rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer's usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I'm open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Peter Kranz]

It's true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
to use the only ISP in their market?

 

Peter Kranz
 <http://www.unwiredltd.com/> www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
 <mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com> pkr...@unwiredltd.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

 

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.
Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed
their minds.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

 

While the FCC's proposed "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband
and Other Telecommunication Services" rule might not have been perfect, and
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the
basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that
small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every
aspect of their customer's usage.

 

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/ 

 

I'm open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try
to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end
user.

 

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.unwiredltd.com/> 
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com <mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com> 

 

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Rory Conaway]

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC's proposed "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services" rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer's usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I'm open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com<http://www.unwiredltd.com/>
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com<mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com>

[AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

[Peter Kranz]

While the FCC's proposed "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband
and Other Telecommunication Services" rule might not have been perfect, and
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the
basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that
small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every
aspect of their customer's usage.

 

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/ 

 

I'm open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try
to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end
user.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com  
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com