# Just Did a Little Fighting Back



## Ysarex (Mar 29, 2017)

This is a test. Made the mistake of reading the news before I left the house to walk to the grocery store. That put me in a foul mood realizing Congress just sold me lock stock and barrel to my ISP: Congress Overturns Internet Privacy Regulation

Now Charter gets to log everything I (and my wife) do on the Internet and sell that info to whoever they want without notification or request. So walking and thinking, I just kept stewing over this and it p*sses me off. Then in an alley on the way home I came across this:




 

And I figured it was a sign and it was time to fight back. So first thing I did when I got home was download and install the TOR browser: Tor Project: Anonymity Online It was a trivial install.

I'm using it now, routing through eastern Europe in the last few minutes and it's working just fine. It was amusing to try and do a Google search. Google apparently figures out what's going on and refuses to execute a search. Apparently the cost to use Google is very real if you find a way to circumvent it. Bing works just fine.

Charter gets paid every month for the service they provide. They don't need to sell me on top of that and neither do my government reps.

Joe


----------



## weepete (Mar 29, 2017)

Sounds like a thing we had recently in the UK dubbed the "Snoopers Charter", though I don't think it goes as far as the one passed by your congress. I don't like either personally.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 29, 2017)

weepete said:


> Sounds like a thing we had recently in the UK dubbed the "Snoopers Charter", though I don't think it goes as far as the one passed by your congress. I don't like either personally.



I appreciate that there are security issues involved and that it's probably a good idea that law enforcement should have a way to track back malicious activity and real threats to public safety -- no argument from me there. But that's not what this is about. This is plain and simple selling all of us and frankly putting our privacy (financial, medical, etc.) at risk so they can sell us as data. Plain and simple it's caving in to the ISPs who see in their subscriber base another source of income. It shouldn't be allowed at least not without our consent and frankly we should get paid if it is. Charter can sell my data all they want for 25% off my monthly bill.

Joe

P.S. Up for an hour now and still working just fine. Last I checked I was being routed through France.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 29, 2017)

I saw your post's title, and immediately I thought you'd done an *anti-Exposure Triangle* post...

..but this is just as good..., probably better, actually.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 29, 2017)

@Ysarex I saw that earlier, and made my blood boil as well. The thing that concerns me most is the "amount" of private data that they'll be able to sell in a package. From name, address, city, state, zip, phone number, sites you browse, and anything else they might have including SS#, credit history, past locations, non encrypted financial data.........This isn't good, and yet there was very little on the news about it. Go figure. I need to do some serious investigation on this.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 29, 2017)

Running the government like a business . . .

I'm not really up on IPs but I was under the impression that you are assigned one of the ISP's IP address when you connect.  In my case, I think Comcast is grabbing the IP Address of my router/modem (10 dot on my side, 73 dot on Comcast's.)


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 29, 2017)

snowbear said:


> Running the government like a business . . .
> 
> I'm not really up on IPs but I was under the impression that you are assigned one of the ISP's IP address when you connect.  In my case, I think Comcast is grabbing the IP Address of my router/modem (10 dot on my side, 73 dot on Comcast's.)



When our modems connect we get assigned a temp IP. Disconnect and reconnect and you'll get a new temp IP. But your ISP -- whoever you're paying for internet access knows who you are as long as you're connected. They have your account info, as smoke noted: name, address, phone, credit card, everything you had to give them to sign up. Then they're going to keep a running log of everything you do online -- every site you visit, how often and for how long. Some ISPs will tell you how long they keep the log and some won't. It can range from 90 days to as much as a year. Law enforcement wants them to keep that log. And we should all agree that with an appropriate court order law enforcement should be able to get appropriate access. That's a whole lot different than your ISP turning that log into cash by selling it to advertisers which is what Congress basically just gave them permission to do.

Joe

P.S. More than two hours up now and working smoothly; currently being routed through Luxemburg. Charter's got nothing to log on me now.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 29, 2017)

@Ysarex The passing of this law didn't really change anything, it just prevented the implementation of regulations that were supposed to go in force.

 I looked at the site you linked. I'm pretty sure a VPN will do the same, without as much lag time. Either way though you're only masking the traffic in between. As soon as you ping the destination site, they're grabbing everything they can.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 29, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @Ysarex The passing of this law didn't really change anything, it just prevented the implementation of regulations that were supposed to go in force.
> 
> I looked at the site you linked. I'm pretty sure a VPN will do the same, without as much lag time. Either way though you're only masking the traffic in between. As soon as you ping the destination site, they're grabbing everything they can.



VPNs cost money. I'm not a network expert but I certainly got the impression from the TOR site that their method would block the ISP from logging the sites you visit. I'll keep reading.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 29, 2017)

@Ysarex both methods block the ISP from logging your traffic, but internet sites are notorious for setting cookies, which I try to block but some sites won't work unless you accept them. Once you do guess what??


----------



## snowbear (Mar 29, 2017)

I only hit this and a couple other sites, regularly.  I guess I'll could walk across the street to the library, or do serious crap at work.  I won't try the neighbor's unsecured wi-fi since that's a felony.


----------



## KmH (Mar 29, 2017)

Where the heck have you guys been?
You're about 10 years late to the fight.

How do you think the owners of TPF can afford to keep this web site available without charging a fee to join?  
Right now I have 8 advertising trackers, 2 social media trackers, 1 site analytics tracker, and 2 advertisements blocked.
I just did a quick check and Blur has blocked 32,352 trackers from collecting information from my computer in just the last 2 months.
Since I'm a TPF member that's just a fraction of all the trackers Guests would have attached to visiting TPF.

If you use a VPN lots of web sites won't let you access their content.
Tor will slow down your Internet access to one extent or another as it re-routes your URL requests to mask where/who you are..

You should also be clearing all your system and browser caches several times a day.


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 30, 2017)

Sorry to be a bummer but they have been doing this illegally for years, nothing has changed. Now they just made it legal to perform illegal violations of our constitutional rights. This is the perfect example of why the media is so dangerous. American Citizens are now officially STUPID as a group. We should have never let this happen. I did my part but not many others cared. Ummm and TOR doesn't do crap but make it a wee bit harder, like maybe five minutes to figure out who you are.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2017)

@KmH pretty much what I said earlier though you went into much more detail. Obviously owners of sites can't just operate forever without some source of income stream. Advertising is annoying but it pays the bills. If they just stopped there it wouldn't be so bad, but like a drug addict, most can't. Any data they can discover about you has value.

I grew up with the Internet, from the beginning. First it was Cookies (which are still there) that concerned me, but they're nothing compared to the Bots, Spiders, Web Crawlers, and  now the latest  Fingerprinting. Fingerprinting doesn't need your IP address, it identifies your computer based on a number of factors from battery status to fonts used in your browser, to things even the experts aren't quite sure of yet. 

As I said earlier the new law doesn't change anything for providers other than prevent the implementation of "new" privacy restrictions on IP providers. From what I've read though it solidifies an IP's right to mine your data, and sell that data. Something that concerns me because of the amount of data the IP requires to set up the account in the first place.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 30, 2017)

OK then, is there any effective way to stop my ISP from collecting a running log of everything my family does on the internet?

Joe


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 30, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> OK then, is there any effective way to stop my ISP from collecting a running log of everything my family does on the internet?
> 
> Joe


Yup, don't access it.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2017)

That's the $100k question. I've posed this question to my son, who is the IT manager for a large Federal Court District. They did operate a VPN over dedicated T3s but I think they recently went to OC3. However, they have attorney access requirements, that open them up. I'll post his response.


----------



## limr (Mar 30, 2017)

How is this the fault of the media?


----------



## limr (Mar 30, 2017)

One wonders if it's almost safer these days to just hide out in the open.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2017)

limr said:


> How is this the fault of the media?



It's not the fault of the media, my question was WHY the media didn't make a big deal that it was even being discussed. Seems Trump can't belch without 50 reporters covering it, yet this bill went through both houses, passed went to Trump for signature, and the only thing reported that I saw were a couple of news blurps yesterday after it passed. Why????


----------



## BrentC (Mar 30, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > How is this the fault of the media?
> ...



Because everybody is focused on the raving idiots tweets and BS accusations and not paying attention to whats happening behind the scenes.


----------



## b_twill (Mar 30, 2017)

This passed everyone?  I thought it only made it through the senate but the house hadn't taken it up up yet.  Guess its time to do some digging.


----------



## limr (Mar 30, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > How is this the fault of the media?
> ...



I saw plenty of coverage before yesterday.

Just to name two sources, NPR and the Washington Post have been reporting about this particular bill since February when it was introduced, and about the issue in general since last fall.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2017)

b_twill said:


> This passed everyone?  I thought it only made it through the senate but the house hadn't taken it up up yet.  Guess its time to do some digging.



Well this report says it passed the House and is headed to the President. I'm assuming that means it had already passed the Senate???? The House just voted to wipe away the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections


----------



## waday (Mar 30, 2017)

Privacy payback: Protesters want to publish browsing histories of Republicans who voted to strip privacy rights


----------



## limr (Mar 30, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> b_twill said:
> 
> 
> > This passed everyone?  I thought it only made it through the senate but the house hadn't taken it up up yet.  Guess its time to do some digging.
> ...



It passed the Senate last week (this article is 7 days old):
U.S. Senate Votes To Repeal Obama-Era Internet Privacy Rules


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2017)

limr said:


> NPR and the Washington Post have been reporting about this particular bill since February when it was introduced, and about the issue in general since last fall



Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't watch much news anymore unless I hear/see a headline that catches my interest. The talking heads killed most of my interest in the news.


----------



## limr (Mar 30, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > NPR and the Washington Post have been reporting about this particular bill since February when it was introduced, and about the issue in general since last fall
> ...



I've never had an interest in tv news. When print media was more prevalent, I always read a few different papers, and always a local paper. These days, I still read some actual _paper_ papers, but mostly I use a news feed online that aggregates different news sources of my choice.  The one I use is called Feedly. 

I also follow the same news sources on Twitter and Facebook, which duplicates the news feed in essence, but just gives me another way to check it.


----------



## waday (Mar 30, 2017)

limr said:


> The one I use is called Feedly.


Thanks for the tip! I've been looking for something other than Google News, which has been quite hit or miss for me...


----------



## limr (Mar 30, 2017)

waday said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > The one I use is called Feedly.
> ...



It's not perfect, but pretty good. You can follow news sites but also personal blogs. I've got it pinned to my browser so it's easy to get to.


----------



## limr (Mar 30, 2017)

Here's a more detailed reporting of the bill: With Washington’s Blessing, Telecom Giants Can Mine Your Web History

(EDIT: Apparently, if you don't subscribe to the WSJ, it will allow you to read one article online, but after that there's a pay wall. At least that's what I can gather. I was able to read this article, but not a second one, so either that was my one article today, or the do allow some free content. If you subscribe or have not read anything else on the site, you should be able to see the whole article.)


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 30, 2017)

I read that some advertisers were/were considering (I forget which) pulling ads on YouTube because of their ads accompanying hate videos, etc. I'd like to see more regulations/restrictions on what websites allow to be posted on their sites and what user information is collected; I suppose the threat of losing revenue is what might prompt some changes. Not that it should be the only way for things to change but I was glad at least some companies are trying to do something.

I suppose this didn't get much coverage at this point because it's something of a non issue by now; there won't be something that wasn't in place yet anyway (if that makes sense).


----------



## KmH (Mar 30, 2017)

I love it and have pledged bucks.
 "Viral GoFundMe campaigns have cropped up to return the apparent invasion of privacy, seeking to buy politicians’ web histories and publish them online for all to see."


----------



## ashleykaryl (Mar 30, 2017)

Opera now includes a free VPN and it doesn't slow down your web browsing to a huge degree. I gather Chrome is likely to have one soon as well, so I think the end result will be a lot more traffic that looks like this to your ISP:

111001001010101010010101001010010010101011010101

Browser | Download Free | Fast & Safe Web Browser | Opera


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2017)

A little update on the recent legislation. Like all things government there's always a catch. The purpose of the resolution was to roll back rules (not a law) voted in by the Democratic led FCC. At the behest of Obama, the FCC enacted it's "Net Neutrality" policy which though it did include certain privacy protections for consumers it also attempted to bring the internet under governments control,  by reclassifying broadband as a so-called Title II telecommunications service under the 1934 Communications Act. That reclassification placed broadband providers under the same strict regulations that now govern telephone networks. A move that government has been  trying to accomplish since the inception of the internet, and something not mentioned on most of the news media. While they "claimed" there were no new taxes involved, a separate FCC proceedings sought to impose the UTC pass through tax on internet service. The 400 page ruling by the FCC was never fully revealed before it was implemented so the full effect of those regulations on the will apparently not be known now. The FCC tried to sweeten the deal by claiming they were adding protections for consumers. It's my understanding that the resolution just past, doesn't give away anything, it just blocks the FCC from regulating any aspect of the internet, including privacy concerns. I hope to see a copy of the resolution passed so I can read for myself the full effect of the resolution without the slanted views of the media.


----------



## limr (Mar 30, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> A little update on the recent legislation. Like all things government there's always a catch. The purpose of the resolution was to roll back rules (not a law) voted in by the Democratic led FCC. At the behest of Obama, the FCC enacted it's "Net Neutrality" policy which though it did include certain privacy protections for consumers it also attempted to bring the internet under governments control,  by reclassifying broadband as a so-called Title II telecommunications service under the 1934 Communications Act. That reclassification placed broadband providers under the same strict regulations that now govern telephone networks. *A move that government has been  trying to accomplish since the inception of the internet, and something not mentioned on most of the news media. *




Stories tagged in the NYT for the past few years: Net Neutrality  It's been a hot topic since some mergers and lawsuits in 2014.

It's a complicated issue and not just a matter of "government wants to control it."  Net Neutrality - Public Knowledge


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 30, 2017)

Interesting reading.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 31, 2017)

limr said:


> It's a complicated issue and not just a matter of "government wants to control it."



No disagreement from me on that point. On the one side are corporations looking to make money. On the other are the idealists who believe the government will protect them.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 8, 2017)

Now the whole world will know I like chubby women with large breasts.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 8, 2017)

unpopular said:


> Now the whole world will know I like chubby women with large breasts.


When they start following you, you'll know why. Some chubby girls paid for a list.


----------

