Comment by aresant | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aresant | Hacker News Reader

It's highly unlikely that the ISPs are going to piecemeal out private customer data & browsing history by name.

And why bother when they can follow Google & Facebook's insanely profitable profiling / targeting ad playbook?

Considering that almost 60% of us use Chrome which is owned / designed by the world's biggest advertising company (1) and that leaks privacy even in "incognito" mode (2) I feel like the narrative around the FCC order is not intellectually honest.

EG - Google - in fact - came out AGAINST the original framework that was repealed this week! (3)

The new FCC Chairman - Ajit Pai - has stated he endorsed this act to re-level the playing field for ISPs vs Facebook / Google / and the less visible ad tracking / ad profiling agencies.

And he's further stated that he's going to use this opportunity, of resetting the playing field, to create a framework that applies for EVERYTHING digital.

I am not going to pretend that I am optimistic that the FCC is going to build a consumer framework that we can all live with, but I am confused how Google / FB / etc are getting away with murder on the privacy / profiling side.

Let's use this opportunity to push for the "opt in" framework that makes the most sense.

(1) https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...

(2) https://www.quora.com/Does-Google-track-what-happens-in-the-...

(3) https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/100319291940/2016-10-03%20Googl...

I don't use Google or Facebook. I do use the internet.

I don't pay Google or Facebook. I do pay my ISP.

That is why Google/Facebook get away with so much. Their users opted-in and gave consent for their information to be used in advertising. If people weren't happy they could choose to not use the website. I don't necessarily have that choice with my ISP especially since in many areas there is no competition.

Google and Facebook are everywhere, it's practically impossible not to touch their ad networks without filtering, and since many sites aggressively punish ad-blocking, "not using Facebook or Google" is looking increasingly like not using the internet.

In way I am getting so annoyed by the ad blocker blocker that I am almost motivated to create a ad blocker blocker blocker.

Even though you don't use Facebook or Google they ABSOLUTELY are using you.

Both operate global advertising networks, even if you never log into Facebook or set up an account they are tracking you.(1)

And Google owns the largest mobile OS which is RIPE with tracking / profiling features.

MacOS and Windows 10 also track you, Apple seems a little better - theoretically - about leaking your privacy rights - but MSFT is humming right along not only building a massive data business, but also buying up companies like LinkedIn to improve their ability to target you based on how you're using their OS.

So I disagree on the "we have a choice" part.

You've got me on the "I pay my ISP" but that argument died when Cable started showing ads.

(1) http://bgr.com/2016/05/27/facebook-ads-tracking-non-users-pr...

I can use AdBlock on my phone and computer and not be subjected to anything from Google or Facebook. And Apple absolutely does not track you if you don't allow them to. So please explain to me how I am being tracked. It's technically not possible.

ISPs are completely different in that they can track me (a) without my consent and (b) with no technical means for me to stop them.

I said "Let's use this opportunity to push for the "opt in" framework that makes the most sense."

Are you saying that it's ok for FB / Google / Ad Networks to track everything we do and create profiles without opting in SO LONG as I can find some way to block them?

If so I guess I'm not sure what I'm arguing with.

Just use VPN. Or VPN and Tor. Or VPN, Tor, and VPN. Or ...

Using a VPN to another country slows down browsing a lot – in my experience, enough to make the web unusable from a bad hotel WiFi connection. It's annoying enough that I usually just accept the loss of privacy.

Quality paid VPNs don't reduce speed enough to be problematic in that context. Free VPNs are sometimes throttled. And some ISPs may throttle VPN traffic. If you have problems, you can see if port 443 is better. Or TCP vs UDP.

Then you have the issue of anonymous payment, and trusting your VPN. Many paid services are honeypots, because, the assumption is why pay if you are innocent.

Well, but then ISPs are honeypots too ;)

I understood that the benefit of this to ISPs was to offer targeted, individual marketing. So I doubt they are selling by bloc/demographic, I suspect it's something more like Adwords. User data may be anonymized by name but it doesn't take that many data points of e.g. someone's search history to identify them. It's unclear to me what, exactly, you will be able to purchase, but it wouldn't surprise me if they can narrow a larger data buy down to a few individuals with high probability. About a decade ago now there was a leak of anonymized google search history and some researchers successfully tracked down several individuals.

Google/FB/etc get away with it because you don't have to use their services, although things like the supercookie are highly specious. If you want to use any online resources you are going through an ISP.

I, too, think the opt-in model is not unreasonable, but you know it will be buried in the most obtuse, double-negative-filled language their lawyers can contrive.

Don't repeat Pai's lies. ISPs are natural oligopolies and in some cases legally chartered monopolies. There is no level playing field.

He's not trying to increase privacy. He is reducing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com