What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
80 Comments
- bapaw, on 03/14/2009, -4/+27Ok - I'm in. And while you are at it can you make "opt-in" the law for all data gathering/sharing rather than the almost impossible "opt-out" processes as it is now????
- jamesassbag, on 03/14/2009, -1/+16To distract us from everything else they do.
- hugolp, on 03/14/2009, -1/+14Because its the excuse they use to regulate the Internet. There are multiple ways to be almost anonimous on the internet (TOR being one) so there is no need for such a law. The democrats are just using this excuse to start legislating the internet. You will see its consequences in some years, because I believe, that like you have done, more people will believe this guy (for some reason I dont understand people belives politicians)
- FreeTalkLIve, on 03/14/2009, -6/+19Go ahead and get sucked into government regulations for the internet.
It won't be good. - synapz, on 03/14/2009, -2/+14Regulation takes the free out of free. Lax427 is absolutely correct. Trading liberty for safety/convenience is not something we should be willing to do. Ever.
- DirtyVicar, on 03/14/2009, -1/+11But -- the pedophiles! Citizens of the Internet: beware of the pedophiles! Give up your rights!
Oh, never mind, you are doing it willingly. - Javy42, on 03/14/2009, -1/+11The government needs to stay off my interwebs.
- supercandy, on 03/13/2009, -6/+15whooa...
interesting. - ShyGuy91284, on 03/14/2009, -0/+9Hmmm.... Google has been heralded with revolutionizing what people get with searching, free web mail, and other stuff.... I wonder where they got the money to put so much in to free services?
- AaronCo, on 03/14/2009, -0/+8Look, privacy is a good thing, but "online advertisers" aren't the threat we should be concerned about.
- Renian, on 03/14/2009, -0/+7A law that would allow users to know what information is collected about them would be a welcome. But a law that would allow you to opt-out may not be Pareto efficient, especially if that data is collected in such a way that protects anonymity.
For example, let's say someone is collecting data on what browser you are using, but without taking your IP address. This would allow companies to determine what browser most of their visitors use, and optimize their website for viewing with that browser. (Ideally, it should be good for all browsers, of course, so long as they adhere to standards.) This presents no real harm to a user. But if you collect the IP address, then it becomes a privacy issue. Who really cares what data they collect if your identity/IP isn't collected or stored by a company when they do so? The opt-out feature would result in a very, very marginal increase in consumer surplus--if any at all, if they are using that data to help consumers.
Now, if we make it so you have an opt-in feature that you must select before they can collect the data, wouldn't that defeat the purpose to an extent as you would be giving away your identity? To use this, you would have to log in, and thus they would have a way to track who has opted in. Moreover, a user must go out of their way in order to do so, which I doubt they will, thus removing a major amount of producer surplus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency - FreeTalkLIve, on 03/14/2009, -3/+10It's a trap.
- inactive, on 03/14/2009, -13/+20The last thing we need is legislation on internet use. Government should let people decide where they go and what happens to them; if its a bad website, I wont go to it. The last thing we need are laws regulating the internet.
- inactive, on 03/14/2009, -0/+7I think its great that an honest congressman wants to better the internet by reducing spam and increasing privacy. But if we let one bill get passed, there will be more to come and most won't have good intentions.
- Bartboy919, on 03/14/2009, -16/+23Why does it seem like the democrats are the only ones these days who care about our privacy.
- norman619, on 03/14/2009, -1/+8Sorry but ANY regulation of the internet is slippery slope deal. Let them get their toe in and the rest of their control hungry bulk is sure to follow. Haven't you learned ANYHTING about how government works?
- hugolp, on 03/14/2009, -0/+7There is TOR and other products that do this. There is no need for such regulation. One has to wonder why they are pushing this law iother than to regulate Internet. Its a trap.
- norman619, on 03/14/2009, -0/+6Because they don't understand things like the internet and networking in general.
- superterrorizer, on 03/14/2009, -4/+10I voted for Rick and when he came to speak at my local town hall, He had actually touched on this when he was talking about internet usage. He was strongly against internet privatization and certain types of cookies and bots(I hope that's still the case.) it's nice to see him getting some national exposure. He's brought a lot of jobs to the area where I live. And he's always made time to have a discussion to answer questions and concerns when they come up.
- kocurejd, on 03/14/2009, -0/+6No, it isn't.
- synapz, on 03/14/2009, -1/+7"So if my choices are, use a site as-is, or don't use it at all, those are ***** choices."
No, they aren't. Those are precisely the choices you need to make in order to maintain your freedom by voting with your feet/wallet/mouse click. Your claim about not being able to keep track of all the complexities are true, but this is where the free market serves us well: it promotes innovation. If there is something any significant number of people want (not just a majority), someone will do it.
Someone will come up with a way to protect you on the internet. You don't need to sell out lady liberty in order to accomplish it.
Regulation is aggressive force and the threat of violence. Stop promoting it. - Khast, on 03/14/2009, -3/+9Okay, this law is legislated in the US.....so, what would stop providers from setting up shop in a country which has no such law?
- Amshel, on 03/15/2009, -0/+6The greater threat to internet privacy isn't from websites owned by citizens and businesses, but from the federal government. The CIA and NSA currently have access to monitor everything you do on the internet, and have for quite a while now.
- jcwilhelm, on 03/15/2009, -0/+5why complicate the issue the Internet is the final frontier, its the only place where government hasn't ***** everything up LETS LEAVE IT THAT WAY!
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 03/14/2009, -0/+4What law are you reffering to?
- rxbudian, on 03/14/2009, -0/+4It would be nice, but I don't think this will work.
You can't legislate anything on the Internet, because some of the sites resides outside US jurisdiction.
US can put legislation on the companies that are physically in the US though, but that might reduce the ability for those companies to compete against the others located outside US. - UnWeave, on 03/14/2009, -1/+5Anyone else read this as, "A Call to Legislate Internet Piracy"?
- PeppermintPig, on 03/14/2009, -1/+5@mrsteveman1
The market is people like you and I, and you make no friends by telling everybody that they're too stupid to figure it out. Not everyone will, but that's why not everyone is a software coder, or an advertiser, or a network administrator.
Having a small group of people in government make the decision for EVERYONE ELSE is immoral and constantly leads to negative consequences, some of which are unforeseen. All government usually does is pass a law, and tell everyone else to 'deal with it', so in most cases the 'evil market' you're afraid of is the one that is complying and funding the activity.
"That is true more and more lately"
As the government grows in size and scope, and takes more money while becoming less efficient, it somehow becomes more qualified and capable of dealing with this?? Seriously???
Only individuals can make choices.
"when the market doesn't understand the problem in the first place."
So in other words you're advocating 100% control of the internet by government. - gianpo, on 03/14/2009, -2/+6If you want a slow crappy internet experience go ahead and use TOR.
- shig, on 03/14/2009, -4/+7That's the opposite of free market. Ron Paul and the free marketeers would never advocate turning private property into public property. He would oppose this bill, because it is unnecessary and wasteful.
FTA "Mr. Boucher said he just wants to write rules for the Internet."
Who would want that? Seriously? - kreatre2007, on 03/14/2009, -2/+5I can agree with this. I've never liked the idea of websites mining my computer for information about my location, and then showing ads to me based upon that location. Advertisers don't have an absolute right to push their message on web surfers. If I have the ability to opt out and block my information, I would like that much better. As our society becomes more technologically advanced, our privacy will be a big casualty if we don't do something about it now.
- bapaw, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3Sorry - guess there is no data gathering law. Don't suppose we could use one of those do you? Man this get's complicated...
- randumbusername, on 03/14/2009, -1/+4good one.
the best though is when a legislator takes taxpayer dollars for a building, etc just to plaster his/her name all over it. don't give the taxpayers any credit. - bapaw, on 03/14/2009, -1/+4So what we need is our best and brightest to come up with a non regulatory solution - app anyone?
- hugolp, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3Its called TOR and there are many more.
- gianpo, on 03/14/2009, -1/+4If you want a slow crappy internet experience use TOR.
- inactive, on 03/14/2009, -0/+2According to your logic, you are stupid for providing your real name and street address to your ISP. Or buying online with your real credit card? You don't need to government regulating what those private business can or cannot do with the personal info they collected about you? You were stupid for getting on the internets in the first place, right?
- bapaw, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3Sorry, you got me there, TOR ?
- hugolp, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3Yes, but you are anonimous. Plus, the more people it uses it, the quicker it gets.
- mrsteveman1, on 03/14/2009, -3/+6***** you
- randumbusername, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3so what if it's crappy, you want privacy.
the sad thing is defeating this is probably as simple as blocking cookies but dammit if people should have to lift a finger to click a box.
oh well, why would i expect anything different. twenty-seven years have shown me people are a bunch of lazy, victimizing *****.
you've got tor.
you've got adblock.
you've got bluetach's blocklist.
you've got firefox and it's many plugins
how about donating some money to tor and i2p. people on this site (act as though) want to do something.
send your stimulus checks to tor and i2p.
im not in favor of government funding but why no demands to funnel money (stimulate) towards anonymous networks. - inactive, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3Make up your mind. If the free market is private property, you can't force any of the private internets to be part of the public internet. The private internets can decide to charge a fee to access them if they damn please, nothing you can do about it.
If a cartel of private internets merge force to crush the other little private internets, then it became a monopoly and is no longer a free market. That's why we have a government regulated public internet, this may have some drawbacks to you, but this is how we get greedy private companies to play by the rule.
The fact that Digg get advertisement based revenues on a public government regulated internet is inherent to how a free market private internets would operate.
I don't suppose you understand that http is a public protocol created and funded by the government. - lilamae, on 03/15/2009, -0/+3Yes, but they want all your medical data in a centralized location under government "protection." I'd say that's pretty intrusive. And the IRS already has all the information on you it needs to make your life miserable.
- Frostek, on 03/15/2009, -0/+3Good ones do.
- Bartboy919, on 03/14/2009, -1/+3Problem is, most half wits don't know what a TOR router is, or even the concept of a proxy.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/14/2009, -2/+4He 'brought jobs'? So he runs a business?
- Dalfo, on 03/14/2009, -0/+2do cheesecakes actually have cheese in them?
- inactive, on 03/14/2009, -0/+2What are you debating?! I not arguing that the internet is or isn't a public place, I'm just arguing against regulation of the internet. It's just a stupid idea.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/14/2009, -1/+3ufia seems to think that a free market would necessitate a separate internet for every service, and that it would somehow be fee or subscription based.
I don't suppose ufia understands what advertisements on Digg are used for.
For the majority of your internet protocol content, there is a desire to operate on the same internet. Look at the huge interdependence sites have in using links. http protocol isn't leaving anytime soon. - randumbusername, on 03/14/2009, -0/+2i know it sounds good but things like this have the potential to backfire. you're better off educating yourself. there are ways to achieve some sort of privacy (if desired) without legislation.
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is