Full-page ad in today's NYTimes: "Dear Mr. President, You just got spied on. Big league. Don't subject us all to the same $%!#. Mr. President, you must veto S.J.Res.34."

SaneGoatiSwear1 2017-03-29T18:17

one thing anonymoose used to leejun with was faxing all black pages to troll congress critters but that was back when they actually did shit instead of just be a front for CIA psyops (to push through online harassment / hate-speech / cybercrime laws).

of course 4chins didn't invent black faxing.

just made it poopular.

i like the all-black background. they had to pay for the full page ad so they waste as much ink as possible to give the finger to the news paper and also tip the fedora to others who are in on the black faxing.

kek approves.

link

NeoGoat 2017-03-29T16:48

YES... and they need revenue badly.

link

piratse 2017-03-29T16:02

Isn't Trump for shit like this? I mean he wanted to increase NSA spying and isn't a fan of a free and open internet. He may have changed his tune now that he was spied on, but he wasn't exactly a friend to internet freedom.

link

Baconmon 2017-03-29T15:51

Guys, I don't like jumping to conclusions.. I want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here:
Are there any good reasons that we aren't aware of that he might let this pass besides helping out giant corporations spy on more people?..

link

foltaisaprovenshill 2017-03-29T17:48

So technically they were already allowed to, and all this bill is doing is getting rid of proposed Obama-era changes that would have stopped ISPs ability to sell that data.

So nothing is actually changing.

Besides, it's not like it makes much difference considering the NSA has low level taps on all internet traffic anyway, and sells that information to advertisers and others themselves. Until that's stopped, this doesn't even matter.

link

JodaMAX 2017-03-29T15:21

This is make it or break it for me, if he doesn't veto this we know he's gonna be same shit as before and I'm done defending him.

link

Loserfour 2017-03-29T15:04

If New York Times is promoting it I instinctively want to do the opposite because (((they))) are part of the problem their record shows they are not on the side of the working person. I would seriously look more into this topic before forming an opinion. This ad would not of been allowed to of been published if it didn't fit their narrative somehow (their history proves this.)

link

Milo_Carlin 2017-03-29T15:48

That sensation is oft used against populations; you would be wise to simply continue to be aware of it, and be critical and open minded. You seem to be doing well on those fronts.

link

BigDaddy69 2017-03-29T15:16

If New York Times is promoting it I instinctively want to do the opposite because (((they))) are part of the problem their record shows they are not on the side of the working person.

In what possible universe are ISPs (who are usually monopolies) having the right to sell your personal information beneficial to the working class? Nobody forces you to use Google or Facebook, but internet access is basically required in this day and age to function in society.

link

Loserfour 2017-03-29T15:24

In what universe do you take anything the New York Times publishes at face value? If I do that might as well form my opinions from daytime talkshows late night comedians and CNN

link

BigDaddy69 2017-03-29T15:27

If the New York Times claimed that "oxygen is required to continue living", would you accept that at face value?

link

Loserfour 2017-03-29T15:32

I would seriously have second doubts. What I am saying is they are not a free press they are a globalist propaganda organization and any intelligent person would look deeper into the subject from more credible sources than New York Times. There are hidden clauses and agendas everywhere so a wise person does not form opinions solely on emotions or at face value.

link

BigDaddy69 2017-03-29T15:34

I would seriously have second doubts.

Are you actually saying that you would reject the assumption that humans need oxygen to live if it was published in the New York Times?

So basically, you are telling me you lack the rational capacity to critically read and assess news sources and separate bias from fact in any media that you read?

Lets be honest here: every single news source is biased and has an agenda. Bias that you agree with is still bias, and compromises your understanding of reality if you are unable to critically interpret it.

link

Loserfour 2017-03-29T15:37

You work for the Jew York Times shill? Listen Abraham interpret it however you want.

link

BigDaddy69 2017-03-29T15:38

Name one news source that isn't biased and/or compromised by our Zionist overlords.

link

HWY__395 2017-03-29T14:49

I wonder where you stole this post from?

link

Boyakasha 2017-03-29T14:42

Great ad. Hopefully he listens.

link

44NJ9 2017-03-29T14:37

Now they get to make money on the slow slavery of us. Will these profits be funneled back to the CIA to wage more wars?

link

greycloud 2017-03-29T14:36

google is shilling. all the things this bill would allow ISPs to do, other companies are already doing. some companies just want a monopoly on it. I say fuck it, if the government can do it, than everyone should be able to do it. putting this type of shit in a monopoly is just a way to control political speech. everyone should have the ability to spy on everyone just as much as the police can do without a warrant.

link

chirock 2017-03-29T15:58

There's a little difference here. We pay ISPs for internet access and many places don't have a choice of internet providers. When google data mines the fuck out of us, that's the cost of us using their billion dollar infrastructure for searching, email, and spreadsheets. It's a consentual fuck as opposed to an unexpected fucking.

link

greycloud 2017-03-30T14:28

I think this will lead to more competition in the ISP market. I expect small companies that operate similar to T-Mobile to pop up, where they lease bandwidth and wire use from other providers to provide a different service. the same line is used by multiple ISP's. one actually owns the wires and leases to others. one charges customers more but doesn't sell data, another charges less but sells data. you pay for privacy. keep in mind though that it is possible that you run 2 VPN's and connect to VPN A to VPN B to internet, and then what does your data look like? not super useful for selling. so perhaps we will simply see a whole lot more VPN's popping up.

link

jrfg1743 2017-04-03T19:38

I think this will lead to more competition in the ISP market.

what a joke. i live in my states capital downtown and my only two isp choices just merged into one company!!! we also have a law in this state that isps can block other companies from using their infrastructure,locking out any small isp providers from the city

link

AllDancingCrap 2017-03-29T15:39

Well if you put it in that way then yes why not. But not everyone will be spying and not everyone is interested, so why make it easier for the people that have the power, the means and the will to do it?. At least if they keep it illegal it cant be used legitimately, that is if we still live under the rule of law. If not well then this is pretty much a every human for itself situation.

link

greycloud 2017-03-29T15:42

the rule of law benefits the powerful at the expense of the not powerful. don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. who writes the laws? at least in a every person for themselves situation, people can gather together in large groups to overpower the small group of oligarchs that currently write the laws.

link

AllDancingCrap 2017-03-29T15:44

The fact that we live under the rule of the oligarch is very clear. I know they write the laws and I know they benefit from us, but wouldnt this be giving them even more power than what they already have?

link

greycloud 2017-03-29T15:49

no, decentralizing power always works against them

link

GizaDog 2017-03-29T14:34

Does anyone really believe the president makes those choices? Corporations are in control of the senate and government.

link

Milo_Carlin 2017-03-29T15:48

And at the top of corporations are but a few powerful dynasties.

link

JodaMAX 2017-03-29T15:23

He's the one with veto power.

link

Dashippy 2017-03-29T14:23

This is going to be the first major test for President Trump. If he lets this pass he's fucked and he's lost every ounce of support he had.

link

GIF-lLL-S0NG 2017-03-29T14:21

The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA S. 2588 [113th Congress], S. 754. already subjects "US ALL" to spying and it is ok and nobody is taking that data collection to issue. This only had to do with which federal agency the NSA uses a front for destroying innovation.

But this says: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/sjres34/summary

The Federal Trade Commission maintains jurisdiction over most aspects of the Internet. But after the 2016 election during the lame-duck session, another Washington agency called the Federal Communications Commission issued new regulations related specifically to Internet service providers, also known as ISPs.

These new rules required all Internet browsing data, as well as data regarding app usage on mobile devices, be subject to the same privacy requirements as sensitive or private personal information. This overtook the previous rule by the FTC, the agency which previously had authority over regulating ISP’s and differentiated privacy requirements based upon the sensitivity of the information, with more stringent rules for such things as health information or Social Security numbers. The methods are also more invasive to the ISP companies, since the FCC also issues pre-emptive regulations while the FTC primarily conducted investigations

What it did was expand baseless data collection under the authority of the executive order. How can you (As an ISP) have different privacy requirements for different data without storing scanning and analyzing it? They cant. Letting the obama executive order was a slippery slope towards dictatorship. CISA structures the legal methods for bulk data collection and sharing without court orders.