Guess Just What Happen

[jbird4049]

Take it up with the libertarian I quoted. He called it a libertarian idea and said it would lead to more freedom. These ISPs need the freedom to sell your data, and you have the freedom to not use the internet. Taste the liberty.

I never can understand having someone else owning me, makes me free.

[Speaker to Animals]

Libertarianism, everybody!

[doc_loliday]

So what is the better option here Tor or a VPN?

Using the Tor network encrypts all your traffic and relays it through nodes around the world, so nobody has any idea what you're doing. Well, they (your ISP) know that you're using Tor. But it's incredibly slow. And... all your searches come back in various Eastern European languages.

A VPN is slow but (usually) not as bad as tor because even though your data is encrypted, it is tunneled through a single virtual network. The problem is that you have to trust the VPN, because they can see what you do, and there have many stories of VPNs claiming to not log data and have been busted lying either via data breaches or subpoena.

The most secure is Tor through a vpn. But honestly these are not solutions. Your ISP should not be able to sell your data without your permission. Whoever tells you that being spied on makes you free needs to have their head checked.

[Okeefenokee]

I suspect ISPs will block tor traffic altogether and strictly limit VPN use. They control access, and it will be too profitable for them to sell your life story.

We are actually really close to fucking up the internet for good as a medium of free expression.

This has been the conclusion that I have been reading as being on the way for a long time. The open borders internet was predicted not to last. More and more walls are predicted in the future.

[tue4t]

Take it up with the libertarian I quoted. He called it a libertarian idea and said it would lead to more freedom. These ISPs need the freedom to sell your data, and you have the freedom to not use the internet. Taste the liberty.

Liberty is a condition, not the size of your choice set. It is a measure of one's unhindered ability to exercise exclusionary discretion over one's body and the fruits of one's labour. This can be illustrated very simply.

Example 1
A woman lives in luxury, she is fed the most expensive food, wears the best shoes etc. yet she has no say in the matter. She is a high class escort held in complete bondage by some criminal racket. Meanwhile another woman lives in poverty, cannot afford much of anything, and yet no-one is coercing her to do anything.

Which person has liberty and which person does not? Which person is a slave and which is not?

Example 2
There are 10 people in a neighbourhood. One day it is found that if 9 of them get together and vote to steal everything from the 10th, overall choice sets will be maximised. Afterall, that 10th person only drives his second car on a sunday whereas these other 9 people would make use of that car everyday. Should they carry out their plan?

Honestly, your argument is so old it gets annoying. It takes courage to understand and accept what liberty really means and i fear it looks like you may have none. An ISP is under no obligation to provide you jack, the same way no-one is obligated to provide you a free blowjob in the morning. This is why contracts exist whereby Party A only provide services to Party B if they both agree to each others conditions.

Now, to assuade your small brained scaremongering. Any ISP that announces they are selling user data or are exposed for doing as such will be completely buttraped by consumers the same way Mcdonalds would be if it was found they were mixing dead rats into their burger meat. This is not a winning proposition for their bottom line. The political outrage alone indicates very strongly how vehemently the market hates the practice. The only people who benefit are those who don't mind trading their meta data perhaps for a cheaper deal. Again like I said, contracts will need to be relooked at closely insofar as their terms. In your knee jerking, you seem to have not read this.

Further, to assuade your predictable forthcoming claims of no free market competition, any barrier preventing a competing ISP from entering a market again sources it's power from government. This is why I said repealing this is pragmatically not that high a priority as it is a rather multifaceted problem with not that much benefit since most people probably wouldn't want to sell their user data anyway.

Regardless, that privacy law is not what is truly keeping your privacy safe. I would hope we are afterall talking about the same government who already collects all your data against it's own constitutional house rules and in many cases such as with LoveInt uses it in a grossly inappropriate manner. Not just the NSA, but the CIA, and most likely the FBI as well. The same government who under false pretenses tried to get Apple to make them a universal key when they had no need of it to get the information they were trying to get in their case.Any reasonably sane person recognises that one can trust a private supplier more than government to protect their privacy. Fundamentally, I have less trust in someone with a gun dictating to me my best interest than I do someone who depends on serving my best interest as a means to their own survival.

*edit* I should probably also address your next response re. bargaining power and exploitation by pointing you towards voluntary worker unions as just one example of a peaceful solution. Using threat of violence through government to solve your problems is just lazy.

[Speaker to Animals]

Do you guys hear that? It sounds like.. It sounds like a high-pitched wet fart. Oh! It's the No True Scotsman!

[doc_loliday]

They are selling something that doesn't belong to them. Google gives me services in exchange for my data. My ISP gives me Internet access for my money. Please continue exercising your freedom to fellate your corporate masters.

[tue4t]

Do you guys hear that? It sounds like.. It sounds like a high-pitched wet fart. Oh! It's the No True Scotsman!

Pretty sad strawman. I'm not playing word games or no true scotsman.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberty

The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views.

The power or scope to act as one pleases.

Do you guys hear that? It sounds like.. It sounds like a high-pitched wet fart. Oh! It's the No True Scotsman!

They selling something that doesn't belong to them.

How is that anything like what I was advocating for? Again, contracts will have to be relooked at for clauses that give away the rights of users to their own information. The information you generate when using their service is your own property unless you otherwise specifically sign it away. You're trying to produce justice through legislation instead of a court of law.

[doc_loliday]

Do you guys hear that? It sounds like.. It sounds like a high-pitched wet fart. Oh! It's the No True Scotsman!

Didn't you hear, they'll be buttraped by the consumer!



Year after year ISPs are shown to have the lowest satisfaction ratings. What the hell is this dude on?

[Martin Hash]

Liberty relies on members of society remaining allies, therefore liberty is naturally constrained by what other people think because there is no mystical power protecting Libertarians, only State-sponsored uniforms, badges & guns.

"Rights issue from the barrel of a gun." - me