Comcast says: "Pay us more for privacy"

[Lurick]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Says-It-Wants-to-Charge-Broadband-Users-More-For-Privacy-137567

 

Quote

Comcast this week informed the FCC that it should be able to charge broadband users looking to protect their privacy more money. The FCC has been crafting some new privacy rules for broadband that would force ISPs to disclose exactly what they're collecting and selling, while also providing working opt-out tools. But the FCC also wants to take aim at efforts by some ISPs to make privacy a premium option. AT&T, for example, charges its U-verse broadband customers significantly more if they want to opt out of snoopvertising.

 

Basically it comes down to Comcast telling the world to shove off and they'll sell any of your data they collect through monitoring your internet connection unless you pay them more money.

While not surprising in the least, I'm sure a lot of people will not be too happy when they learn they have to pay more to keep their data private.

[vanished]

That seems borderline illegal for some reason...

edit: ah I just figured it out; it reminds me of extortion.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Ryan_Vickers

[Nowak]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

That seems borderline illegal for some reason...

Someone should bring this up with the FCC.

[Michael McAllister]

3 minutes ago, AlexTheRose said:

Protip: Use a VPN.

 

Your ISP will see nothing but encrypted HTTPS traffic to the VPN’s entry node.

 

 

Depending on the server and the service you use, your speeds may be reduced significantly.

[qwertywarrior]

5 minutes ago, AlexTheRose said:

Protip: Use a VPN.

 

Your ISP will see nothing but encrypted HTTPS traffic to the VPN’s entry node.

they implement supercookies

vpns wont protect u

[Cela1]

I do not wish to live in a world where privacy is a premium for the rich.

 

Why is it always ISPs with this scandalous things going on? (And to anybody who replies "money" IK that)

[Energycore]

6 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That seems borderline illegal for some reason...

edit: ah I just figured it out; it reminds me of extortion.

It's a protection racket. "The minute you stop paying me I will give your data to all the companies".

[KE2012]

How I would love to truly organise the masses and have people turn around and give Comcast the finger by signing upto another service provider

[Katsunaka]

This is truly f'n sad.

 

Pay more to value my privacy? Id call them for days on end bitching about that.

 

Ive got Time Warner, err Spectrum. Its not like theyre much better.

 

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, AlexTheRose said:

Isn’t that what the mob was famous for doing?

I tagged it as funny, but you're right

[Cvdasfg]

15 minutes ago, Lurick said:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Says-It-Wants-to-Charge-Broadband-Users-More-For-Privacy-137567

 

 

Basically it comes down to Comcast telling the world to shove off and they'll sell any of your data they collect through monitoring your internet connection unless you pay them more money.

While not surprising in the least, I'm sure a lot of people will not be too happy when they learn they have to pay more to keep their data private.

private internet access, or another vpn. Problem solved

[patrickjp93]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That seems borderline illegal for some reason...

edit: ah I just figured it out; it reminds me of extortion.

Nope. You pay for a private service under a given contract. Comcast has every right to sell information it collects via its service. The only reason it shouldn't be able to is if it is contractually obligated not to. And this isn't extortion. Comcast can either make the money from advertising companies or from you. It's your choice. At least Comcast is giving you a choice.

[IGJoe2192]

I say fuck comcast... 

[PlayStation 2]

10 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Nope. You pay for a private service under a given contract. Comcast has every right to sell information it collects via its service. The only reason it shouldn't be able to is if it is contractually obligated not to. And this isn't extortion. Comcast can either make the money from advertising companies or from you. It's your choice. At least Comcast is giving you a choice.

Fair enough if it's not illegal, but I'm not sure if I feel this is the way Comcast should be going with this.

Then again, if you can make money off of it, why the fuck not.

[patrickjp93]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

Fair enough if it's not illegal, but I'm not sure if I feel this is the way Comcast should be going with this.

Then again, if you can make money off of it, why the fuck not.

Like I said, at least Comcast is GIVING you a choice. TWC, Charter, and others do not.

[Briggsy]

It is what it is...

 

Comcast are admitting in a round-about way that part of their business model includes selling data used for targeted advertising and statistics. One would think there would be a way to keep that data anonymous, which is probably what Comcast's offer entails: pay us more money, we still track your usage but it gets tossed into a separate pile. Not necessarily valuable data for direct targeted advertising, but still useful for general statistics and location marketing. Besides, once you track someone long enough, you can tell its them by looking for their patterns in the anonymous data. Maybe personal data isn't selling like it used to.

 

I'm not saying this is how Comcast got so big in the first place, by selling data and using that money to buy up other ISP's and undercut rates at the same time...

[Trik'Stari]

26 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Comcast has every right to sell information it collects via its service. 

Indeed it does.

 

Congress, needs to correct this. Comcast should require your express, written consent. Not an "I agree" to a 1000000000000 page EULA, but rather them asking you directly "can we sell your information?" with you being able to say "no", and them still having to provide you with service.

 

Sadly, Comcast pays congress too well, and this will not happen.

 

We seriously need a revolution at this point. The current spat over presidential candidates is MORE than enough evidence of that. We need to completely clean house in congress, BAN corporations, and those who own corporations, from making political "donations", and re-elect entirely new "representatives"

 

I didn't say violent revolution mind you, technically the presidential, and congressional elections are revolutions in their own right. That's one of the points of democracy, bloodless revolutions.

[patrickjp93]

19 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Indeed it does.

 

Congress, needs to correct this. Comcast should require your express, written consent. Not an "I agree" to a 1000000000000 page EULA, but rather them asking you directly "can we sell your information?" with you being able to say "no", and them still having to provide you with service.

 

Sadly, Comcast pays congress too well, and this will not happen.

 

We seriously need a revolution at this point. The current spat over presidential candidates is MORE than enough evidence of that. We need to completely clean house in congress, BAN corporations, and those who own corporations, from making political "donations", and re-elect entirely new "representatives"

 

I didn't say violent revolution mind you, technically the presidential, and congressional elections are revolutions in their own right. That's one of the points of democracy, bloodless revolutions.

No it doesn't. The Constitution is meant to bind government, not private enterprise. You agreed to the EULA. It's your fault that you didn't read it all the way through. That's how contract law works.

 

Denying any person from being active in political discourse is itself an injustice. You can't ban people from donating to politics, and nor should you. What you should do, is forbid government from making laws which interfere with the free market, because the free market will produce the most efficient results which always equates with more job opportunities (if you're unfit for jobs in your area, get fit, or move).

 

"To not engage in politics is to risk being ruled by one's inferiors" -Plato/Aristotle (iirc)

[Misanthrope]

Short of physical violence is there any practical difference between American ISPs and mafia run racketeering?

-"Oh I see you value your privacy. We have a small, rather symbolic fee for that. After all it would be a shame if any...accidental...leaks were to happen"

[TetraSky]

And I'm sure that even if you do pay them more not to spy on you, they still do it anyway, because you have no real way of knowing if they do so or not.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Is it illegal now? No

 

Should it be? Obviously.

 

Also I'm so tired of seeing isps pulling the poor us stint. It's total bullshit and everyone knows it.

 

Besides isps in the US by and large aren't even trying to reinvest in infrastructure. 

[Prysin]

5 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That seems borderline illegal for some reason...

edit: ah I just figured it out; it reminds me of extortion.

we miss you in skype ryan

 

Also, this is in the US.... where breaking laws are fine aslong as you can bribe some federal instance to look the other way.

[Inkz]

Comcast and other ISPs really seem to be probing the FCC. They keep testing the waters to see what they can get away with, especially with the rulings from last year.

[ATFink]

6 hours ago, Cela1 said:

I do not wish to live in a world where privacy is a premium for the rich.

 

Why is it always ISPs with this scandalous things going on? (And to anybody who replies "money" IK that)

money

[ATFink]

4 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

No it doesn't. The Constitution is meant to bind government, not private enterprise. You agreed to the EULA. It's your fault that you didn't read it all the way through. That's how contract law works.

 

Denying any person from being active in political discourse is itself an injustice. You can't ban people from donating to politics, and nor should you. What you should do, is forbid government from making laws which interfere with the free market, because the free market will produce the most efficient results which always equates with more job opportunities (if you're unfit for jobs in your area, get fit, or move).

 

"To not engage in politics is to risk being ruled by one's inferiors" -Plato/Aristotle (iirc)

I agree on both your accounts about reading the EULA and barring people, regardless of their personal well-being, from the election cycle is inherently wrong. The voting process in America is structured such that each person, regardless of their assets, gets one vote. I believe the reasoning behind this was to make everyone equal in the election process. 

 

It is not morally correct for one person to be less powerful than the next when voting just because they have a lot of money. On the flip side, it is also not morally correct for a voter to be more powerful than the next guy within an election because of money. Companies can't vote, therefore donating to a political candidate through a corporation or otherwise non-voting entity should be strictly illegal. On the flip side I believe individuals should be allowed to donate however much money they feel like donating, restricting someone from contributing to a campaign is wrong, and if that individual feels like donating $10,000,000 to a campaign they should have the right to do so. 

 

EDIT: I recognize 1:"it is also not morally correct for a voter to be more powerful than the next guy within an election because of money." and 2:"...if that individual feels like donating $10,000,000 to a campaign they should have the right to do so." seem conflicting, but the logic behind those 2 statements is as follows:

 

1: Indivduals that hold sway within a company should not be able to donate to any candidates through said company. I didn't make it clear that I was referring to the corporate assets said individual influences. I hope this edit clears that up.

 

2: It's just like it sounds. Seriously, if you donate $10,000,000 as an individual than people are going to look into it. If something sketchy is going on it will be brought to light. Otherwise it wouldn't usually make sense to donate that much, but whatever. It should still be that individual's right.