[The Final Dakar]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...wsing-history/

The rules issued by the FCC last year would have required home Internet and mobile broadband providers to get consumers' opt-in consent before selling or sharing Web browsing history, app usage history, and other private information with advertisers and other companies. But lawmakers used their authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to pass a joint resolution ensuring that the rules "shall have no force or effect" and that the FCC cannot issue similar regulations in the future.

Republicans argue that the Federal Trade Commission should regulate ISPs' privacy practices instead of the FCC. But the resolution passed today eliminates the FCC's privacy rules without any immediate action to return jurisdiction to the FTC, which is prohibited from regulating common carriers such as ISPs and phone companies.

If Trump signs the resolution to eliminate privacy rules, ISPs won't have to seek customer approval before sharing their browsing histories and other private information with advertisers.

The House vote was 215 to 205, with most Republicans voting to eliminate privacy rules and all Democrats voting to preserve them. Full vote results are available here. The Senate vote last week was 50-48, with lawmakers voting entirely along party lines.

I don't see how this anything else but selling out Americans to the ISPs.

[reader50]

ISPs need to charge us high rates, to pay for these votes. I'd hate to think our representatives go cheaply.

For myself, I've begun using a VPN full time.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by reader50 

For myself, I've begun using a VPN full time.

What service do you recommend?

[reader50]

Figure out what you need from a VPN. For example, you may need an exit server in a specific country. ie - a US server for Netflix/iTunes/Amazon Video, or a UK server for BBC, or a non-US-jurisdiction company for torrenting. I used this site to narrow down a list of providers with their own DNS servers (important), no logging, and servers where I needed them. Most VPN providers have servers in multiple countries, and often more countries than this site's data says.

Then I used TorrentFreak's latest VPN Survey to double-check their logging and other practices. Finally, I checked the sites for current prices and country server lists. I didn't want to consider more than $10 a month for a privacy tax. Here is the list I ended up considering. Note that my info is about six months old. Sorted by lowest monthly price (US$), usually via annual subscription.

Code:
VPN Company		Jurisdiction	Countries	Price per month

Private Internet Access	USA		24		$3.33
Slick VPN		USA/Nevis	46		$4.00
AzireVPN			Sweeden		3		$4.13
AirVPN			Italy		16		$4.96
TorGuard			USA		43		$5.00
Mullvad			Sweeden		5		$5.44
NordVPN			Panama		41		$5.75
bolehVPN			Malaysia		13		$6.67
iVPN			Gibraltar	10		$8.34
Perfect Privacy		Swiss		23		$11.48

NordVPN and Perfect Privacy deserve special mention as multi-VPN services. ie - you can connect to a server in one country, and exit from a server in a different country. Useful against government surveillance. Any of these services should do fine against snoopy ISPs.

You might also want to consider how many concurrent logins a service allows (not shown in my list). Important if you want multiple computers/smartphones/devices on your account.

If you're really serious about private browsing, you can check doileak afterwards. It will finger many leak points where your info and/or real location can be sussed out.

[Jawbone54]

All useful. Thanks very much for the info!

I'm POed about Congress' decision. I'm sending actual old-school letters in the mail to the GOP congressmen from Louisiana. We also have visits to our church from nearly every Louisiana senatorial candidate, and whichever Congressmen represent our district — I will be asking two or three of them in person.

[The Final Dakar]

That'd be interesting to hear about after the fact.

[Snow-i]

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

During the 8 years of the Obama administration, we did not need these rules (else Obama's admin would have put them in place). During that time, a number of advertising companies were already collecting and selling this data.

On his way out, Obama's Wheeler sets up privacy rules to set in after he leaves office and after his administration has any control of the process. The incoming, opposing administration undoes the Obama admin rules.....annnnnnd OUTRAGE!

Why weren't these privacy rules effective before the handoff of power?
Why is anyone surprised that an attempt to govern beyond the term limit of power was undone by those currently governing?
Why is a set of rules (or lackthereof) that was fine and dandy for 8 years under Obama all the sudden worthy of outrage?

This isn't the first set of rules Obama's admin put in place to take effect after they left office where OUTRAGE! was manufactured by the media when the republicans moved to undo them. i.e. set up rules that Obama's admin could not or would not stomach but would be absolutely despicable should the next administration undo them.

The ISPs being able to sell your browsing data isn't really an issue, considering there are multiple companies that track and sell this VERY SAME DATA today with no opt-out or recourse.

If Obama's admin were serious about this issue, we should have seen them come into effect during his administration's tenure. The rules would also not just be limited to ISPs (as it does not matter who is selling that data, ISP or otherwise). The FCC would not have the authority to regulate these non-ISP entities, hence why it should be the FTC that steps in to make the rules that apply to everyone (and not just ISPs). I'm not going to hold my breath that happens under a GOP administration, but it certainly didn't happen over a DNC controlled administration either. I just see a whole lot of manufactured outrage once again preying on the ignorance of the audience. The status quo that was fine under the previous administration is now untenable under a GOP one.

This is the second or third attempt at a political trap set by an outgoing administration to govern beyond the limits of their term to make for a juicy headline when the GOP ends up carrying on with DNC policy.

[reader50]

Deep packet inspection wasn't always cheap to deploy against everyone. Non-rules that worked in the past are not enough today. Our parents did not need online privacy protection because DPI didn't work, or the internet wasn't around. Our grandparents did not need laws against mass phone surveillance, because computer systems were not advanced enough to understand speech (or didn't exist at all). As time goes by, new abuses have to be handled as they become relevant.

Wheeler seemed to be trying for consumer-friendly changes all along. It is not fair to criticize what he favored at the end, just because they were the last he got to. Something on his plate *had* to be last, since you can't do multiple items without at least one being last.

Many other parties do track netizens. Your ISP is in the unique position to track *everything* you do. Not just what you do when you visit a site using a particular ad network. Also, you're paying your ISP for their service - they should not be ad-supported too. Like a weapons dealer who sells to all sides in a war, your ISP needs some unique rules to enforce honorable behavior. Since you're paying them, you are their customer, and they should only sell to you. Not sell you to 3rd parties.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The ISPs being able to sell your browsing data isn't really an issue, considering there are multiple companies that track and sell this VERY SAME DATA today with no opt-out or recourse.

"According to the record, only three companies (Google, Facebook, and Twitter) have third party tracking capabilities across more than 10 percent of the top one million websites, and none of those have access to more than approximately 25 percent of web pages," the FCC said in its privacy rulemaking last year. "In contrast, a BIAS [broadband Internet access service] provider sees 100 percent of a customer’s unencrypted Internet traffic."

Internet users "have much more control over tracking by Web third parties than over tracking by BIAS providers," via browser extensions and other tools, the FCC said. The customer relationship with websites is also much different than with ISPs.

"For example, customers generally pay a fee for their broadband service, and therefore do not have reason to expect that their broadband service is being subsidized by advertising revenues as they do with other Internet ecosystem participants," the FCC said. "In addition, consumers have a choice in deciding each time whether to use—and thus reveal information—to an edge provider, such as a social network or a search engine, whereas that is not an option with respect to their BIAS provider when using the service."

---

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If Obama's admin were serious about this issue, we should have seen them come into effect during his administration's tenure. The rules would also not just be limited to ISPs (as it does not matter who is selling that data, ISP or otherwise). The FCC would not have the authority to regulate these non-ISP entities, hence why it should be the FTC that steps in to make the rules that apply to everyone (and not just ISPs).

This was a reference to the FCC's decision in February 2015 to reclassify home and mobile ISPs as common carriers. The reclassification allowed the FCC to impose net neutrality rules, but it also stripped the Federal Trade Commission of its authority over ISPs because the FTC's charter from Congress prohibits the agency from regulating common carriers.

---

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This is the second or third attempt at a political trap set by an outgoing administration to govern beyond the limits of their term to make for a juicy headline when the GOP ends up carrying on with DNC policy.

That sneaky Obama and his 11th dimension chess! He purposely got the FCC to enact a rule after he was out of office so it would reflect poorly if it was possibly repealed by a Trump administration that hadn't been elected yet!

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not going to hold my breath that happens under a GOP administration, but it certainly didn't happen over a DNC controlled administration either. I just see a whole lot of manufactured outrage once again preying on the ignorance of the audience. The status quo that was fine under the previous administration is now untenable under a GOP one.

I'm seeing some manufactured outrage here too. It's too bad no one gave me the heads up that enacting rules in a timely manner is a bigger deal than voting against them. Looks like the GOP got a get out of jail free card on that vote!

Edit: Oh, and you didn't answer the thread question.

[...deleted...]

[OAW]

Well this is getting real interesting.

Internet users raise funds to buy lawmakers' browsing histories in protest | TheHill

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I was thinking, won't ISPs biggest buyer be the government? i.e. The NSA. Something tells me it'd be legal

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Deep packet inspection wasn't always cheap to deploy against everyone. Non-rules that worked in the past are not enough today. Our parents did not need online privacy protection because DPI didn't work, or the internet wasn't around. Our grandparents did not need laws against mass phone surveillance, because computer systems were not advanced enough to understand speech (or didn't exist at all). As time goes by, new abuses have to be handled as they become relevant.

Our parents didn't have the internet. I'm talking a year ago, two years ago, when companies such as those found here:
Tracking The Companies That Track You Online : NPR
are tracking you regardless of what the ISPs are doing.

HTTPS kills all forms of tracking, btw. How many sites, aside the NN, do you use today that are not HTTPS?

Wheeler seemed to be trying for consumer-friendly changes all along. It is not fair to criticize what he favored at the end, just because they were the last he got to. Something on his plate *had* to be last, since you can't do multiple items without at least one being last.

I am not criticizing Wheeler here - I'm criticizing the outrage against the status quo that was maintained throughout his tenure. If it wasn't important enough for Wheeler to put on his docket while he was in office, I certainly can't see how the headlines we're seeing today are anything but partisan sensationalism.

House Republicans Just Killed Your Internet Privacy Protections - Slog - The Stranger
Senate Republicans Just Voted to Kill Internet Privacy | Vanity Fair
House Republicans vote to kill FCC privacy rules - Business Insider
No, they didn't kill your protection. You never had them. Ever. The GOP aborted the child they did not conceive. This should not be shocking or worthy of outrage, since you never had the protections the headlines are so sensationally informing you about. My criticism is that it's being billed as something it's not, and that's getting in the way of true understanding of net neutrality/privacy. It's another case of "the ends don't justify the means".

Many other parties do track netizens. Your ISP is in the unique position to track *everything* you do. Not just what you do when you visit a site using a particular ad network. Also, you're paying your ISP for their service - they should not be ad-supported too. Like a weapons dealer who sells to all sides in a war, your ISP needs some unique rules to enforce honorable behavior. Since you're paying them, you are their customer, and they should only sell to you. Not sell you to 3rd parties.

Agreed, but this is squarely in the hands of the FTC and/or Congress. The FCC should never have been enlisted to regulate sales of any kind (unless you're talking spectrum), regardless of the business of the companies being targeted.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

---





---

The scope of tracking should not weigh our policy decisions as a matter of law. It's either kosher or it's not.

That sneaky Obama and his 11th dimension chess! He purposely got the FCC to enact a rule after he was out of office so it would reflect poorly if it was possibly repealed by a Trump administration that hadn't been elected yet!

Again, your missing my point. It isn't the rulemaking that I am taking issue with here. It's today's media telling people the GOP is killing "your" privacy protections that you never had. The GOP said early and often they wanted to reduce the role of the FCC and rely more on the FTC to you know, regulate trade. Trade like, oh I don't know, selling data?

How the hell are we supposed to have a conversation when we can't even get the facts straight as a starting premise? The hysteriamongering is out of hand. How am I supposed to be outraged that the GOP voted against rules never implemented, so that the state of my internet privacy today will be exactly what it was yesterday? I wasn't outraged yesterday, but I also didn't have 15 media outlets slinging disingenuous headlines at me.

Plus, the states are moving in to legislate the rules demanded by their constituencies around this topic. Rightfully so, IMO.

I'm seeing some manufactured outrage here too. It's too bad no one gave me the heads up that enacting rules in a timely manner is a bigger deal than voting against them. Looks like the GOP got a get out of jail free card on that vote!

This is an incredibly narrow sighted view. Enacting rules while you're in office is extremely important, since, you know, the next administration could kill them before they take effect. Case and point - this very topic. This isn't happening in a vacuum Dakar.

Edit: Oh, and you didn't answer the thread question.

You should already know the answer to that question based on our previous conversation around net neu and the internet as a whole. I will be happy to elaborate my stance once again, but only after we're able to get to a common premise.

[Brien]

I'm more curious to know what these companies plan to do with all this data once privacy laws (this, HIPP etcetera) are all taken out. Is it really just about ads?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The scope of tracking should not weigh our policy decisions as a matter of law. It's either kosher or it's not.

You don't see a difference between being tracked by the monopoly you pay money to (ISPs) and by web service you choose to use (Facebook, google)?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Again, your missing my point. It isn't the rulemaking that I am taking issue with here. It's today's media telling people the GOP is killing "your" privacy protections that you never had.

Congrats. Yet another thread where you ignore whats happening and instead harp on the media as if it matters.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The GOP said early and often they wanted to reduce the role of the FCC and rely more on the FTC to you know, regulate trade. Trade like, oh I don't know, selling data?

I already posted why the FTC can't, so why would the GOP do this?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How the hell are we supposed to have a conversation when we can't even get the facts straight as a starting premise? The hysteriamongering is out of hand.

Speak of hysteriamongering, I guess "Posting a thread on the topic" now counts are hysteriamongering and outrage?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How am I supposed to be outraged that the GOP voted against rules never implemented, so that the state of my internet privacy today will be exactly what it was yesterday?

What's that phrase you love? Distinction without a difference? The effect this vote has will be the same whether the rule was enacted a month ago or a month from now.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This is an incredibly narrow sighted view. Enacting rules while you're in office is extremely important, since, you know, the next administration could kill them before they take effect. Case and point - this very topic. This isn't happening in a vacuum Dakar.

I already posted why it had a late date.

Regardless, the vote doesn't occur in some vacuum. Yes, the next administration can kill it, but they still get responsibility for doing so.

If the Dems and Obama repealed some hypothetical tax cuts before they went into effect, no one would say, "Well the state of my tax rate is the same today as it was yesterday."

[The Final Dakar]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...privacy-rules/

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and his counterpart at the Federal Trade Commission today argued that strict privacy rules for ISPs aren't necessary in part because the broadband market is more competitive than the search engine market.

Looks like I'm gonna need a shovel to get through the article.

"Others argue that ISPs should be treated differently because consumers face a unique lack of choice and competition in the broadband marketplace," Pai and Ohlhausen wrote in their op-ed for The Washington Post yesterday. "But that claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny either. For example, according to one industry analysis, Google dominates desktop search with an estimated 81 percent market share (and 96 percent of the mobile search market), whereas Verizon, the largest mobile broadband provider, holds only an estimated 35 percent of its market."

lawl

They even managed to compare apples to oranges in an apple to oranges comparison. Impressive!

"Let’s set the record straight: First, despite hyperventilating headlines, Internet service providers have never planned to sell your individual browsing history to third parties," Pai and Ohlhausen wrote. "That’s simply not how online advertising works. And doing so would violate ISPs’ privacy promises."

Oh, they promised?

[The Final Dakar]

*cough*

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You don't see a difference between being tracked by the monopoly you pay money to (ISPs) and by web service you choose to use (Facebook, google)?

No, I don't. I understand the argument that you aren't forced to use facebook or google if you're concerned about privacy, but I don't believe that to be a valid argument. Tracking is either kosher, or it's not. You could extend the argument to ISPs that no one forces you to browse the internet, but I believe that in either case it's a non-starter.

I would like to see someone sue facebook, google, or an ISP on intellectual property grounds. If we own the pictures we take, why wouldn't we own the "picture" created by our actions. Hope that follows.

Congrats. Yet another thread where you ignore whats happening and instead harp on the media as if it matters.

What's happening is the media is misrepresenting an issue. How in the hell are we supposed to properly discuss an issue if the facts are being misrepresented? You can't have a valid opinion on issues you do not properly understand.

I already posted why the FTC can't, so why would the GOP do this?

Forgive me, I think I missed this post. Can you point me to it?

Speak of hysteriamongering, I guess "Posting a thread on the topic" now counts are hysteriamongering and outrage?

I'm not accusing you of it.

What's that phrase you love? Distinction without a difference? The effect this vote has will be the same whether the rule was enacted a month ago or a month from now.

The phrase I love is "the ends don't justify the means".

The effect you speak of is that status quo, outrage free for 8 years+, is now with 33% more outrage.

I already posted why it had a late date.

Which proved that it was too late.

Regardless, the vote doesn't occur in some vacuum. Yes, the next administration can kill it, but they still get responsibility for doing so.

No more responsibility than the administration that had every opportunity to implement them, but chose not to.

If the Dems and Obama repealed some hypothetical tax cuts before they went into effect, no one would say, "Well the state of my tax rate is the same today as it was yesterday."

I think that's exactly what they would say. And they would be right!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...privacy-rules/

Looks like I'm gonna need a shovel to get through the article.

Well that is laughable.

lawl

They even managed to compare apples to oranges in an apple to oranges comparison. Impressive!


Oh, they promised?

I've got nothing for you other than a facepalm, and an admission that what I am arguing for differs considerably from Pai and the GOP's rationale and intent going forward. Consider me on your side on this on with the caveat that the means by which this story was propagated were largely wrong. We cannot get it right until we bring enough people into understanding of the issue. Sensational headlines are not how we accomplish that (not talking about the ars article here either).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, I don't. I understand the argument that you aren't forced to use facebook or google if you're concerned about privacy, but I don't believe that to be a valid argument. Tracking is either kosher, or it's not. You could extend the argument to ISPs that no one forces you to browse the internet, but I believe that in either case it's a non-starter.

Okay so to you, scope is a meaningless thing. Got it.

As for the ISP argument, you could try to make it, (and some idiot did), but ignores that the internet is pretty vital in today's world. Second, M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What's happening is the media is misrepresenting an issue. How in the hell are we supposed to properly discuss an issue if the facts are being misrepresented? You can't have a valid opinion on issues you do not properly understand.

Your interpretation of misrepresentation is based on a very subjective interpretation of what happened. I have not heard a single other person make your argument.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Forgive me, I think I missed this post. Can you point me to it?

I quoted it once and the reposted it because you ignored it. If you really care, go back and reread. It's hard not to feel like you're not reading my posts when this occurs repeatedly.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not accusing you of it.

Then don't come in here and throw around complaints that don't apply to the thread. You're just derailing it with your outrage.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Which proved that it was too late.

Why was it too late?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Okay so to you, scope is a meaningless thing. Got it.

To clarify, what is meaningless to me is the scope of impact as matters of law & policy. Whether one person has their rights violated, or 100 million, the law/regulation is either valid/legal or it's not. We don't make distinctions based on how many people are affected by it.

As for the ISP argument, you could try to make it, (and some idiot did), but ignores that the internet is pretty vital in today's world. Second, M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y

I think you just said it perfectly. The monopolies must go so that we can vote with our business and not have to rely on politicians to make our demands for us.

I also agree wholeheartedly that the internet is just as vital today as electricity and/or water (or, close enough), and that there really isn't a choice in not using it any more than there is a choice in using laterns, wood stoves, and outhouses. Sure it's possible but so living without running water or electricity (i.e. it's not possible while a member today's society).

Your interpretation of misrepresentation is based on a very subjective interpretation of what happened. I have not heard a single other person make your argument.

I feel very strongly that partisan hyteriamongering in the interest of clicks is exactly the kind of misinformation that hurts us as a whole on a range of issues, particularly NN given how few people are interested in it anyways. Divide and conquer, and $$$ for clicks along the way.

I quoted it once and the reposted it because you ignored it. If you really care, go back and reread. It's hard not to feel like you're not reading my posts when this occurs repeatedly.

If I ignored it, it wasn't intentional. I'm simply asking you to point me to the post in particular - I don't know what I'm looking for. I wouldn't have asked if I hadn't already tried to find it. Are you talking about your OP quote about immediate jurisdiction going back to the FTC? Doesn't the FTC already have jurisdiction? Does it need the FCC's approval? I'm not following.

Then don't come in here and throw around complaints that don't apply to the thread. You're just derailing it with your outrage.

I think you might be missing my point. How is talking about how people feel about internet privacy (and who's making them feel that way) a derail in a thread about how we feel about internet privacy?

Why was it too late?

Because the rules got quashed, predictably, by the next administration.

Just so you know, I'm donating $5 each to the EFF and ACLU to help them fight the dissolution of Title II. I hope you can understand that while we disagree on the "how" you and I want the same things regarding NN, and I'm losing faith that Ajit Pai will do anything but destroy the precious few NN provisions that have not already been shredded. I was far more optimistic earlier this year. Not so much anymore.

edited to add: I've also switched from Comcast to Century link DSL, for much lower speeds, due to the data cap comcast imposed. I emphatically told the retention department that I would not be back unless the data cap was removed. I wouldn't mind throttling after X amount of data (larger than 1 TB) but I don't want to have to stop using the internet to keep my bill the same. They tried to get me to stay with a faster speed offer and I responded "why in the hell would I want more speed to get me to the cap faster? More bandwidth is the opposite of what I would want in respect to a data cap".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

To clarify, what is meaningless to me is the scope of impact as matters of law & policy. Whether one person has their rights violated, or 100 million, the law/regulation is either valid/legal or it's not. We don't make distinctions based on how many people are affected by it.

We make distinctions based on marketshare. Not the first time.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think you just said it perfectly. The monopolies must go so that we can vote with our business and not have to rely on politicians to make our demands for us.

...and until that time, they get to suffer under Title II oversight. It's the only rational thing to do.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think you might be missing my point. How is talking about how people feel about internet privacy (and who's making them feel that way) a derail in a thread about how we feel about internet privacy?

Did you post people's opinions? Polls? All I saw was a complaint about false outrage.

Because the rules got quashed, predictably, by the next administration.

...and that's why they get the blame!

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Just so you know, I'm donating $5 each to the EFF and ACLU to help them fight the dissolution of Title II. I hope you can understand that while we disagree on the "how" you and I want the same things regarding NN, and I'm losing faith that Ajit Pai will do anything but destroy the precious few NN provisions that have not already been shredded. I was far more optimistic earlier this year. Not so much anymore.

I don't think you have bad opinions on NN, I just find your view on the politics of it... political. After his actions in the last admin, I don't understand why you'd have any faith in Pai.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

We make distinctions based on marketshare. Not the first time.

Depending on the issue, we shouldn't as a matter of policy..

...and until that time, they get to suffer under Title II oversight. It's the only rational thing to do.

Did you post people's opinions? Polls? All I saw was a complaint about false outrage.

No, you saw a complaint about articles with headlines designed to generate false outrage. Those article were cited.

...and that's why they get the blame!

Despite maintaining the status quo (on those particular rules).

I don't think you have bad opinions on NN, I just find your view on the politics of it... political. After his actions in the last admin, I don't understand why you'd have any faith in Pai.

I don't have faith in Pai. I have faith in a fiscally-conservative approach to it, but this is not what we're seeing. I view those big businesses almost like I view the government today - they resemble the government more so than any type of lightly regulated free market. You need more than 1 player for it to actually be a market. Sadly, 90% of the country only has that one option, or if they are lucky, 2.

For that reason, lacking a market solution, regulation is the only way to go. Ideally, we'd have a market. Next best thing regulation. Now, we're getting neither.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Despite maintaining the status quo (on those particular rules).

Unless you can show me nothing would have changed if they didn't vote, their actions affected policy. Anything else is temporal semantics.

[Chongo]

Any advantage to using a third party DNS service?
https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...Service-141545

Security firm Cloudflare says it's launching a new DNS resolver, 1.1.1.1 -- a recursive DNS service the company claims will offer a faster browsing experience and a greater emphasis on privacy and security than many competing offerings. In a blog post, Cloudflare insists that its new service will be "the Internet’s fastest, privacy-first consumer DNS service," the first consumer-focused service Cloudflare has ever released. The firm claims it "wants to operate the fastest public resolver on the planet while raising the standard of privacy protections for users."

[subego]

From what I understand, it’ll only provide a security benefit if you use a VPN.

[reader50]

Short answer: subego is right. A private DNS server only helps when using a VPN, and even then, only if you use a DNS server provided by your VPN.

Each time you visit a web site, your browser queries DNS to turn the address 'macnn.com' into an IP address such as '207.58.150.180'. Your router (if you use one) usually caches this info for sites. Your browser shouldn't query DNS for pages within a site, but will generate more DNS lookups for remote content (ads mostly).

If you browse directly (no VPN), your local ISP (and government) can see:

• http sites & pages you visit via the pages you load.
• https sites you visit via the sites you load.
• the sites you visit via your DNS lookups. It might be possible via advertising tricks (different ads for http vs https loads, different for different pages) to infer some of the site pages you visit. Assuming the sites use an advertiser cooperative with whoever is snooping against you.

If you browse via a VPN, your VPN service becomes an extra ISP. They would have access to all of the above. But their business model is to not look, while your local ISP often tries to monitize you at every turn.

Whoever you use for DNS service can suss out the sites you visit, though it might be erratic if your router caches DNS info (very common). In particular, if a government is trying to link activity from a VPN with a user, they could look for DNS requests coming in right before their mystery user loads a page. So your DNS queries could give up your real location, even when using a VPN.

Best practice is to use a DNS server provided by your VPN. So your local ISP only sees you connecting to the VPN, and only your VPN service can determine anything else.

Governments can see someone browsing a site from your VPN, but they can't tell who it is, or where you live, provided you use your VPN's DNS server. They'd have to get linked account info from your VPN service, then hit up your real ISP to turn your IP address into a name. If your VPN service has a no-log policy, then they're unable to link activity to a specific account. Leaving governments at a dead end.

[Chongo]

Is it required by law to retain data?

The company says the new 1.1.1.1 service will not store client IP addresses ("never, ever," it says) and will only use query names for things that improve DNS resolver performance (like prefilling all caches based on popular domains in a region and/or after obfuscation, APNIC research)

Cloudflare also says it will never store any information in its logs that identifies an end user, and all logs collected by our public resolver will be deleted within 24 hours. The company says it will continue to abide by its privacy policy and ensure that no user data is sold to advertisers or used to target consumers.