‘Nobody’s got to use the Internet’: A GOP lawmaker’s response about Web privacy
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
In fact I can't think of a topic more relevant to hacker news. The benefactor of this site was made rich by an open and free internet.
The sooner Americans start engaging with the actions of their politicians, rather than their stated rhetoric, the better off we'd all be.
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.
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.
The things the do and the things they say are mind-boggling, have they learned nothing from history?
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
Since staying in Congress requires repeated re-election, I'm not sure term limits are as important there, personally. There is value to experience, which has to be weighed against the stagnation that can occur.
Being president requires being elected but we impose term limits there. It's because it can be very hard to defeat incumbents.
I sort of doubt that 12 year term limits would do much good, but I guess they wouldn't do much harm either.
They only serve for an average of 16 years now. does that really need to be made shorter?
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).
If we want to avoid falling into the trap that Rome did and society slowly (or fast) collapsing we should already be taking steps to counter-act it.
The problem is the Media (Television) is very good at rotting away our intelligence. Telling us what to think; who to believe; so until people stop listening to someone else and start listening to their own heart.... we're going to be in a world of hurt
Sharing the responsibility and helping each other foster new ideas's to reduce harm would be great. Let's start addressing the food problem; too many children starving and unless you have money... We're the richest country in the world (we say) and yet we have the highest population of people starving with not enough medical care (or dental, or mental) and all the rich want to do is make more money off us to ensure they don't ever have to work.
Brilliant!
P.S. First generation people who have earned their money work for their money and see the value in it. They often are willing to part with their money to help their neighbor out. It's the second and third generation that our problem; they think they are above us (maybe they are?) and they don't have to play by the same rules as we do.
I don't expect a french revolution but I expect something very bad coming. Nothing that Hillary can stop in 2020 by running for president.
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?
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...
'Here’s how much Comcast paid members of Congress to sell your browser history' - http://resistancereport.com/class-war/comcast-congress-brows...
It's about spying and the ways that can empower the security state.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/28...
The most common opinion of those on that side is "Internet is not fundamentally different from other communications (e.g. cable)"
No commercial trade of personally identifiable information, limits on use of aggregate information, short limits on data retention.
http://www.dailyedge.ie/news-reporter-pornhub-bookmark-13109...
Has the makings of another high-profile SOPA style reversal.
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...), 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).
#sarcasm