
‘Nobody’s got to use the Internet’: A GOP lawmaker’s response about Web privacy - mgiannopoulos
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/04/15/nobodys-got-to-use-the-internet-a-gop-lawmakers-response-to-concerns-about-web-privacy/
======
colmvp
I'm sure this'll be taken down from HN in a matter of minutes, but I'd just
like to add that it really bothers me how so many politicians and lawmakers
have such narrow mindsets. It doesn't take a genius to see how the internet
has a profound impact on the education and day-to-day life of Americans.

~~~
alphonsegaston
We shouldn't engage with their rhetoric at face level. What the congressman is
really saying is "I'm a member of a party/system so obviously corrupt and
entrenched that this question isn't worthy of a dignified response."

The sooner Americans start engaging with the actions of their politicians,
rather than their stated rhetoric, the better off we'd all be.

~~~
monk_e_boy
What's the darkest path America could take?

Gazing across the Atlantic from Europe, the USA is walking a dark path. I have
to remind myself that as well as Trump, they created Seinfeld, for every bomb
dropped the civil rights movement has saved another person... it's a crazy
country. I hope it swings left next time.

~~~
alphonsegaston
I'd say something like Russia, although probably more overtly brutal and
violent. We don't have anyone nearly as capable as Surkov to "manage" our
democracy, and would probably devolve into another civil war if the same level
of authoritarianism took hold.

But fundamentally, you're right, America is a crazy country. That the citizens
of the world's military super power are this irrational is a frightening turn
in history.

------
damm
Dude has been in office almost as long as i have been alive (1978) (I was born
in 75) .. holy hell what does he get for 50 years in congress?

That's really not dedication nor is it really someone who is goal oriented if
you think about it; what is his growth potential except in congress around
little teams jockying for their own position.

Reminds me of high school tbh

~~~
erentz
A 12 year term limit seems reasonable for congress. Ditto the Supreme Court.

~~~
ptero
I'm all for lawmakers term limits.

I'd be much more careful about Supreme Court. I personally prefer to insulate
it from Congress meddling and SC term limits would allow Congress and
president to exert too much influence (with 9 judges you get a selection and
approval about once a year with a chance to significantly affect key
decisions).

~~~
ItendToDisagree
Except you don't anymore... Remember Merrick Garland? Yeah. It has become
clear that one side will completely stonewall the other side and celebrate by
putting in place an extremely political pick (Goursch)

------
hysan
You hear that? This Representative just promised to change the FBAR (FinCEN
Report 114) so that you can file it by mailing the form in! Oh and not to
mention free copies of all of the various tax forms and instructions for both
federal and state governments! /s

Yes, I get that this is different from using the internet as a consumer, but
there are so many things today that NEED the internet in America that his
statement, "Nobody’s got to use the Internet." either shows zero thought into
the nuances of this topic OR that he is willfully ignorant. Seriously, how
much of his job _requires_ the internet? I'm willing to bet most of it. The
most basic of which is e-mail. Given a Representative who won't use email and
one who will, which do you think would be more effective at their job?

------
kurthr
Congressmen don't need to use the internet for their election bids (fund
raising, attack/support ads, GOTV) either. I would encourage Sensenbrenner to
try that approach.

Although, it would seem every single successful representative does use the
internet, the "Let them eat cake" attitude, seems to come from those with the
most to lose.

"choice" [https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2017/04/one-b...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2017/04/one-broadband-choice-counts-as-competition-in-new-fcc-
proposal/)

------
Cozumel
Earning his $30,000

'Here’s how much Comcast paid members of Congress to sell your browser
history' \- [http://resistancereport.com/class-war/comcast-congress-
brows...](http://resistancereport.com/class-war/comcast-congress-browser-
history/)

------
r00fus
Same guy probably thinks no one "needs" health insurance either (while both
having premium internet access and health insurance).

~~~
hawkice
He gets to make laws, that's not something you _need_ either. Aside from
mocking the, oh-you-could-just-do-without tone, I think we should talk about
what we want the future of the internet to be like, and how it could fit into
our lives. If we want it to be a tool for rural poor to lift themselves up by
their bootstraps because there's no other way they'd have access to world-
class educational material, we need it to be a place where people aren't being
extorted, frightened, or humiliated. And honestly, if browsing history is up
for grabs, that's what we need to be worried about. No normal human
understands the difference between selling that data and humiliating someone
for money, because there _is_ no difference.

~~~
r00fus
It's not really about selling browsing history, it's the inferences that can
be made by piecing it together.

It's about spying and the ways that can empower the security state.

------
educar
Is there a market for privacy respecting ISP? For example, Start the ISP in
places where consumers have no choice.

~~~
feld
Search HN for the recent article on starting an ISP. It's expensive and not
worth your time.

------
brightball
I like how in politics we skip his/her name and use the party for the
headline.

~~~
kurthr
Well, if the vote hadn't been party line, it might have made a difference.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2017/03/28...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2017/03/28/the-house-just-voted-to-wipe-out-the-fccs-landmark-
internet-privacy-protections/)

~~~
paulddraper
True, though the vote and the justification of the vote are different things.

The most common opinion of those on that side is "Internet is not
fundamentally different from other communications (e.g. cable)"

~~~
killwhitey
The comparison to TV/cable is a good one. I don't think people who feel this
way would say the same about telephones or the postal service.

~~~
paulddraper
AFAIK there are no laws preventing telephone and postal providers from
collecting and selling metadata.

------
hive_mind
His internet browsing history is needed.

~~~
toyg
Somebody who spent 50 years in Congress doesn't have a browser history: he
likely employs someone to read him the lunch menu, let alone turn on a pc.

~~~
hive_mind
He probably has a phone though ;-)

[http://www.dailyedge.ie/news-reporter-pornhub-
bookmark-13109...](http://www.dailyedge.ie/news-reporter-pornhub-
bookmark-1310905-Feb2014/)

------
woodandsteel
It seems that the internet is not personally important to this politician, and
he mistakenly assumes that is the case for all other people.

~~~
davidg11
Once people start to purchase the web history of members of congress, this
will get corrected fairly quickly.

Has the makings of another high-profile SOPA style reversal.

------
smkellat
Not quite a fair headline. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin should be identified by
name even if that is the exact headline at WaPo's site.

------
PaulHoule
Often you need to use the internet to do your homework, apply for school and
jobs, do your work, etc.

------
joshmn
Why don't we just go back to using horse-drawn carriages while we're at it?

~~~
awqrre
He is not serious, he just doesn't like everyone having access to this much
information...

------
pasbesoin
Well, this takes "not knowing the price of a gallon of milk" to a whole new
level.

------
dakinsloss
I don't expect this reply to be popular, but I thought it would be helpful to
share an alternative perspective in the name of open dialogue. I am not sure
what the senator intended precisely, but I think a reasonable interpretation
would be the following (which I claim only as my argument, not he senator's):

It is a choice to use the internet or not, just like it is a choice to
purchase and eat food, purchase and live in a house, or to pursue a career and
earn money. Obviously, if you want to live a long and happy life, these are
good choices to make. However, each choice has a cost depending on the terms
of the trade between you and the provider.

You have to pay for your food and your home and come to an agreement to the
terms and conditions with the seller. If you don't like the terms and
conditions available, you have to choose whether you want the services bad
enough to use them under the terms offered or to search for better terms
offered. If in a particular real estate market, the norms for purchase terms
are not what you prefer, you are free to choose to live elsewhere where more
favorable terms exist (e.g. leave the Bay Area to get more affordable
housing). The choice is yours. The same is true for the internet. If you want
internet (which I wholeheartedly agree we all should because it offers so many
life promoting and time saving benefits), then the choice is yours what ISP to
use and where to live to have a pro-privacy ISP if that is a priority.

Now some will say this is different because choices are limited by the ISP
monopolies. I have two thoughts on this: 1\. How did these become monopolies?
Primarily because of government interference. Here is a quick link with more
information ([https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2013/07/we-
need-t...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-
focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-
broadband-competition/amp/)), but you can find much more detailed articles as
well if you are curious. 2\. If you don't find that compelling and believe
ISPs would be "natural monopolies" without government interference, then ask
yourself this... what is the meaning of telling that ISP what it can and
cannot do with the data it consensually agrees to collect from customers? What
is the meaning of a "right" to receiving internet without one's usage data
being sold? At whose expense? The only way to enforce a right to a service
someone else provides is government to force someone (the ISP) to provide
their services to someone else (the consumer). If it is wrong for the ISP to
consensually sell your usage data, why is it right for government to force the
ISP to provide you a service with different terms than you consensually agree
to? Is it right for the government to tell you what you can and cannot
purchase? Is it right for you the government to tell you what you can and
cannot eat? Is it right for the government to tell you what home you can and
cannot purchase? I think the answer is no of course, because I think that all
of these are forms of violating individuals rights: the right to voluntarily
trade (as a consumer and a seller).

~~~
woodandsteel
When someone says "I had no choice" what they often mean is that there was
some other course of action that was possible, but that it would have brought
such terrible consequences that they would have been crazy to choose it.

------
YesThatTom2
You DONT have to use the internet. You can ask your personal assistant to use
it for you!

#sarcasm

~~~
awqrre
what if your assistant uses your Internet connection?

