Internet Privacy - Congress just killed it

Objection! They can't do that. It violates all kinds of privacy. If they think they're going to get away with that, they're wrong. Dead wrong.

On the flip side, it's a report from CNN and I don't trust it. I don't trust any news sites ever since they lie or twist the truth to fit their beliefs or to get people to view their pages to make money.
 
I just read it on another news site in the UK as well. It seems that they want to give ISP the same power as Google and Facebook because ISP's were complaining that they are unfairly targeted by privacy laws whereas other bigger companies aren't. What they don't say is that Google and Facebook can't track our emails, bank activity etc. so their tracking information does not really worry me.
 
Objection! They can't do that. It violates all kinds of privacy. If they think they're going to get away with that, they're wrong. Dead wrong.

On the flip side, it's a report from CNN and I don't trust it. I don't trust any news sites ever since they lie or twist the truth to fit their beliefs or to get people to view their pages to make money.

reports everywhere and VPN are trying to stand out to get sales now. It's happening.
 
reports everywhere and VPN are trying to stand out to get sales now. It's happening.
It won't last once people start leaking the histories of important politicians. If anything, they're setting up their own downfall.
 
This is unfortunate. I think some people will protest and sign petitions online to stop if this internet privacy law passes. People with more choices in ISP will switch to an ISP which says that they won't track their costumers' browsing history.

I read online that some people are installing add-ons on their web browsers to create a lot of junk traffic, so their web browsing history is harder to track.
 
I'm willing to bet that important politicians history won't be up for sale or at least not their true history.

I agree a lot of the important politicians real browsing history won't be up for sale, and some cable news channels, and newspapers may not publish important politicians browsing history because news channels and newspapers want to interview politicians like Trump to get more viewers who mainly watch the news because of interviews with important politicians.

I think many of the older politicians like Jimmy Carter, George Bush Senior, and Trump may not used the internet, or used it rarely. I read online that some politicians claim that they rarely or never use the internet. A lot of politicians are rich enough where they can hire other people to reply to their e-mail, print out online articles, maintain their website, and post on Facebook and Twitter for them. Many politicians may still subscribe to cable TV, magazines and newspapers, and buy movies, video games, music, books, and other stuff from a department store, and they go out to a movie theater, and offline attractions like an amusement park, sports games, or casino for entertainment purposes.
 
The older ones, yes. The younger, they are tied into the internet heavily.

I agree the younger ones are more tied into the internet heavily.

There maybe a few richer young politicians from rich family where they can afford a lot of offline forms of entertainment like movies at a movie theater, gaming at gaming arcades, going to sporting events, travelling, drinking alcohol at a bar, and gambling at a casino, so their internet history maybe very small because they spend too much time and money on offline entertainment like movies, arcades, and riding boats.
 
Back
Top