
Whose Internet History Should Be Purchased First? - malloryerik
https://www.searchinternethistory.com/
======
advisedwang
Buying internet history requires a seller. Even with 47 CFR 64(U) removed,
nothing _compels_ selling of data. ISPs would be crazy to sell internet
history of people in power to activists. They would even be crazy to make a
clear marketplace.

Selling of info is going to be shady back deals invisible to consumers, not a
store where you can buy the history of whatever subscriber you like.

~~~
barnabes
Money talks.

~~~
jontas
That's exactly why the cable companies wont sell congressional data. Why would
they shoot the goose that laid the golden egg?

~~~
barnabes
Because money talks. I used to play a game when I really wanted to bargain
hard on something: I'd change my money to as many notes of the lowest possible
denomination, and show up with a huge stack of notes.

You're be surprised what a huge stack of notes can do. It triggers something
in the recipient of said huge stack of notes. It's deeply psychological.
People stop thinking when faced with a huge wad of money.

People will do anything for money, including bad longterm decisions.

~~~
ArchReaper
ISPs are not 5 year olds.

They are not going to intentionally fuck over the congresspeople that voted
for this for chump change. It's incredibly stupid to think they would.

~~~
barnabes
You're incredibly stupid.

------
nkrisc
Help me out here: where is this notion that anyone will be able to buy
personally identifiable browsing data coming from? Isn't it likely to be
(more) aggregated or partially anonymized data about browsing behavior and
habits? I'm upset by this bill, but I've yet to find any information to
suggest you could ring up AT&T and request to buy a specific person's data.

~~~
josephorjoe
The plan seems to be to use geolocation data and ip addresses to reasonably
identify individuals from within the data.

"Once the law is signed by President Trump, geolocation data along with
browsing history data will again be on the market for ISPs. That means a
company with dedication and resources could likely, with a reasonable degree
of certainty, pinpoint Blackburn, Pai, Ryan, or anyone they seek to take down
based on their browsing data and IP address alone."

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/29/this-
politi...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/29/this-politician-
gave-away-your-data-now-buy-hers.html)

~~~
thomastjeffery
> "Once the law is signed by President Trump, geolocation data along with
> browsing history data will again be on the market for ISPs."

The law repeals protections _that are not in place yet_. Those protections
were _already removed_ last year.

------
luhn
The creator of Cards Against Humanity has vowed to do the same.
[https://twitter.com/MaxTemkin/status/846437803164684290](https://twitter.com/MaxTemkin/status/846437803164684290)

------
josephorjoe
Was just thinking someone really should do this.

Hope it works. Or at the very least makes some of those politicians squirm
while they wait to find out if it works.

Think I'll at least throw a few $$ at the gofundme.

------
jontas
Why would the cable companies sell the data to a group hoping to get
legislation changed that they just lobbied to enact? I don't know all the
details of the bill--is there anything that requires a company to sell data to
the highest bidder? My limited understanding was that the bill allows them to
sell, but at their own discretion, just like any other monetized data.

It seems wildly unrealistic that this will accomplish anything. I applaud the
sentiment but I fear this is wasted money and energy.

~~~
nathanielc
The bill text:
[https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/sjres34/BILLS-115sjres34e...](https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/sjres34/BILLS-115sjres34enr.xml)

All it says is that the previous FCC rule no longer has any effect.

It does not layout anything about regulations or consequences of removing
those privacy protections.

------
austincheney
An unintended benefit of this law passing is moving a common practice closer
to the user. Let's not forget that Google and Facebook already normalize your
traffic and sell it without your consent. Now ISPs can enter that market
directly and completely bypass Google and Facebook.

~~~
KZeillmann
Don't you consent to let them use your data when you sign up for their
services? You don't need to use Google and Facebook to use the Internet. You
do need an ISP to use the internet.

~~~
austincheney
Google will track even on non-Google products by virtue of their various media
and analytics products that are prolific on many sites. No consent required. A
couple of years ago they were caught collecting private home wifi traffic from
their map/photo cars.

------
danso
I thought the concept of purchasing history for a specific person was not
possible?
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13992953](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13992953)

------
nkrisc
I suppose an upside of this is it affects everyone: including those who voted
Republican and for Trump. We ought to make sure they understand what's
happening too.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's a peculiarly American conceit to assume that people of opposite political
views lack understanding of an issue. In reality, some people lack
understanding, while some understand an issue perfectly well but have a
different value system. They may regard privacy as genuinely unimportant
because they are authoritarians, or they may consider themselves to be
qualitatively different from their political opponents and therefore wish for
different treatment for themselves and for others.

~~~
nkrisc
Except that this is an opaque issue that the general public often does not
understand. Most people probably couldn't not explain what happens when you
visit a webpage, let alone what data exists around that and what can be done
with it. I would also assume most Democrats don't completely understand
either, but they didn't vote for the majority of people who passed this
measure.

>they may consider themselves to be qualitatively different from their
political opponents and therefore wish for different treatment for themselves
and for others.

Of course, but what they wish and what is reality is not always the same. The
will not be treated differently.

Republicans tend to be opposed to government intrusion into their lives and
privacy. In this case it is not the government doing the intruding directly,
but it's not a far cry. Lastly, rural Republicans usually don't have much love
for giant corporations weaseling their way into their lives to begin with.

~~~
anigbrowl
I don't mean his to be snarky but your comments strike me as naive given the
daily displays of cognitive dissonance in matters political.

~~~
nkrisc
Unfortunately I am well aware of the cognitive dissonance. Many voters might
also be single issue voters as well.

I don't take it as snark, your point is very valid. And to be sure, I'm not
immune from biases. That said, the issue I did take with your point is that
generalized it to all issues, then applied it to me, while I am merely talking
about understanding of a single issue. A rather technical issue that American
voters of all parties probably don't understand in depth. Again, the reason I
focused on Republican voters in my comments is because it was primarily
Republican politicians who voted for this measure.

~~~
anigbrowl
I really want to agree :-/

------
z3t4
the fact that the info is stored at all makes it possible for _someone_ to use
it. in the holocaust records was used to kill people.

