Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

"Fuck everyone who isn't a straight white Alt. Right Christian American-born man!"-the Alt. Right.

[Tribble]

You forgot to add "rich" - even if said alt right members are poor.

[Flagg]

We need to stop using that term. They're Nazi fucks.

[FireNexus]

We need to stop using that term. They're Nazi fucks.

That is an alternative form of conservatism.

[Flagg]

We need to stop using that term. They're Nazi fucks.

That is an alternative form of conservatism.

The problem is that labeling racist, fascist, and various other scum as "Alt-Right" legitimizes them. You don't call a pedophile "Alt-Sexual Attraction".

[K. A. Pital]

We need to stop using that term. They're Nazi fucks.

Yes. They are just rebranded neo-nazis. It just seems this time the rebranding fooled more people.

[Simon_Jester]

Not really a surprise.

Remember people who thought Trump would be at least vaguely sound-ish on LBGT rights because he didn't kick a gay couple out of his country club back in the '80s or something like that?

[The Romulan Republic]

Not really a surprise.

Remember people who thought Trump would be at least vaguely sound-ish on LBGT rights because he didn't kick a gay couple out of his country club back in the '80s or something like that?

Well, the one thing Trump is good at is conning people. Conning angry white conservatives into thinking that he cared about them, and conning a lot of other people into thinking things like "He won't really be that bad", or "He's the lesser evil", or "At least he's not part of the establishment". "He won't really be hostile to gay people" is just another part of that.

[FaxModem1]

Wall Street Journal

Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity
Former national security adviser tells FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees he’s willing to be interviewed in exchange for deal, officials say
Former national security adviser Mike Flynn in the East Room of the White House in February.
Former national security adviser Mike Flynn in the East Room of the White House in February. PHOTO: CAROLYN KASTER/ASSOCIATED PRESS
By SHANE HARRIS, CAROL E. LEE and JULIAN E. BARNES
Updated March 30, 2017 9:00 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.

As an adviser to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and later one of Mr. Trump’s top aides in the White House, Mr. Flynn was privy to some of the most sensitive foreign-policy deliberations of the new administration and was directly involved in discussions about the possible lifting of sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama administration.

He has made the offer to the FBI and the House and Senate intelligence committees through his lawyer but has so far found no takers, the officials said.

Mr. Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, wouldn’t comment on details of his discussions involving Mr. Flynn, but noted he is a decorated Army veteran with a lifetime of public service.
“General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit,” Mr. Kelner said.

It wasn’t clear if Mr. Flynn had offered to talk about specific aspects of his time working for Mr. Trump, but the fact that he was seeking immunity suggested Mr. Flynn feels he may be in legal jeopardy following his brief stint as the national security adviser, one official said.

Representatives for the FBI and Senate Intelligence Committee declined to comment. Officials with the House Intelligence Committee didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Flynn was forced to resign after acknowledging that he misled White House officials about the nature of his phone conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during the presidential transition.

Mr. Flynn’s communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, have been scrutinized by the FBI, which is examining whether Trump campaign personnel colluded with Russian officials who are alleged to have interfered with the presidential election, according to current and former U.S. officials. Russia has denied the allegations.

Mr. Flynn also was paid tens of thousands of dollars by three Russian companies, including the state-sponsored media network RT, for speeches he made shortly before he became a formal adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign, according to documents obtained by a congressional oversight committee.

At a House Intelligence Committee hearing last week, Democratic lawmakers requested a copy of the security-clearance form that Mr. Flynn was required to file before joining Mr. Trump in the White House, to see if he disclosed sources of foreign income.

And they have asked the Defense Department to investigate whether Mr. Flynn, a retired Army general, violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause by accepting money from RT, which U.S. intelligence officials say is part of a state-funded media apparatus, without authorization, according to a letter several Democratic lawmakers sent Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis in February.

Democratic lawmakers are seeking a probe into Mike Flynn, saying he may have violated the U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause while a retired lieutenant general by accepting money from Russian network "RT." Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images (Originally published Feb. 1, 2017)
Mr. Kelner, Mr. Flynn’s attorney, decried the “unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason” and other charges by lawmakers and media commentators.

“No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution,” he said.

Congress and the executive branch have the power to grant immunity from prosecution in exchange for witness testimony or cooperation in an investigation. People granted immunity still can be prosecuted for perjury if they give false information.

Traditionally, investigators grant immunity when they believe a witness’s information is important to the investigation and might not be able to be obtained otherwise. During the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, the FBI granted limited forms of immunity to some of her aides. Mrs. Clinton wasn’t charged in the matter.

A grant of immunity from Congress would require approval from two-thirds of the congressional committee requesting testimony or a majority vote in the full House or Senate. Congress would then need to notify the attorney general and get the approval of a district court judge.


Mr. Flynn, 58 years old, also has drawn questions about whether he properly disclosed aspects of his work after he left military service.

Earlier this month, Mr. Flynn filed registration forms acknowledging he had previously worked as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkish government interests. The Wall Street Journal reported that while serving as an adviser to the Trump campaign, Mr. Flynn met with top Turkish government ministers and discussed removing a Muslim cleric from the U.S. and taking him to Turkey, according to former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey, who attended, and others who were briefed on the meeting. The Turkish government has accused the cleric of being behind an attempted coup last year.

A spokesman for Mr. Flynn disputed the account, saying “at no time did Gen. Flynn discuss any illegal actions, nonjudicial physical removal or any other such activities.”

Mr. Flynn is one of at least four people associated with the Trump campaign who are part of a wide-ranging counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, according to the current and former U.S. officials.

The other three—former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former Trump advisers Roger Stone and Carter Page—all have volunteered to speak to the House and Senate committees and haven’t asked for immunity from prosecution, according to the individuals, committee officials and representatives for the individuals.

—Aruna Viswanatha and Byron Tau contributed to this article.

Write to Shane Harris at shane.harris@wsj.com, Carol E. Lee at carol.lee@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com

Appeared in the Mar. 31, 2017, print edition as 'Flynn Offers Deal For Testimony.'

Just how deep does this go? I forgot who said it, but the Trump administration is like an enema for America. It's cleaning out the body of all that bile, but also spraying shit everywhere.

[Simon_Jester]

Wait.

One of Trumpoline's campaign advisors is begging the FBI and Congress for a writ of immunity in exchange for testimony. Did I get that right?

...That would certainly suggest that he has something rather earthshaking to testify.

It would tend to undermine the arguments of all those who claimed that this whole thing was a big trumped-up false accusation or joke or conspiracy theory, too. You don't get people begging for immunity from prosecution so that they can testify that the moon landings were faked, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or whatever. That only happens when someone has serious reason to believe they personally were party to criminal activity.
____________________

EDIT:

I mean, the revelations COULD turn out to be something banal and inconsequential, with Flynn just wanting a writ of immunity on general principles. But... that does not, a priori, sound like the way to bet.

[TheFeniX]

Or he's bluffing and the blame solely DOES rest with him. Not saying I buy that, but his crying for immunity could just be posturing.

Some other snippets around the web:
Trump and Ryan took another hit in the polls. Ryan in particular is bearing the brunt of the ACA gutting failure. I really hope this assclown gets kicked into the dumpster where he belongs.
Trump is calling for the destruction of the Freedom Caucasus, who were a big part of shutting down Trumpcare due to both ultra-conservatism and moderate conservative backlash over how terrible the plan was: one group said it went to far, the other said it didn't "go to far enough."
Trump has stated working with Democrats for another shot at Trumpcare is a possibility. Honestly, it's not far-fetched because he doesn't seem willing to just take his lumps on this one. Getting something with the narrative "I can work with the bad guys for YOU, my adoring public" plays better than leaving it at "My own party shut me down. <loud sobbing>."

Republicans seem to have worked themselves into a tight spot without someone to rally against. The ultra-morons are clashing with the sane Republicans that made it in or kept their seats during the purge. Much like more than a few Democrat gains ~2008 were just Blue-dog fakers.

There still seems to be enough of the GOP left who have an inkling on how to run a country that once they move away from Compassionate Conservative values such as racism, xenophobia, and homophobia: enough are willing to make at least a semblance of a move back to reality. And since it only takes a handful, they have to hope their gains are big in 2018 if they want to continue their plot to drive this country into the ground.

Still a ways to go, but as I've said before: Trump needs to get something significant (and possibly/hopefully positive) done to start making some gains. They seem to be bearing the total blame for Trumpcare. They are being ruthlessly mocked by Democrats and said Democrats seem to be taking no lumps (that I can see) for their "dangerous obstructionism that threatens the very fabric of the Union.... when we aren't the ones doing it."

[Ralin]

"He won't really be hostile to gay people" is just another part of that.

Well, bluntly, he isn't. I don't see any evidence that he particularly gives a shit about gay (or trans) people one way or another so long as they aren't being gross where he has to see it. Everything he's personally said on the issue is pretty transparently pandering, and any harmful things he's doing/going to do on the subject seem to boil down to him giving people like Pence a free hand and rubber stamping their projects.

In practical terms this doesn't make much of a difference, but that's not what I'd call hostility. He just doesn't care.

[Simon_Jester]

In which case it's true but utterly irrelevant, and it actually loops back to the argument for why you'd have to be out of your mind to be a gay Republican- Or at least, a sane gay Republican would have to be deliberately doing the political equivalent of jumping on a grenade, because of an issue they care about more than they care about the well-being and even survival of themselves and millions of others like them.

But the point is, no, a Trump administration was never going to be good or even mediocre on gay rights. Any belief to the contrary was just stupidity trying to lull people into not resisting a force that would seek to destroy them.

[Flagg]

In which case it's true but utterly irrelevant, and it actually loops back to the argument for why you'd have to be out of your mind to be a gay Republican- Or at least, a sane gay Republican would have to be deliberately doing the political equivalent of jumping on a grenade, because of an issue they care about more than they care about the well-being and even survival of themselves and millions of others like them.

But the point is, no, a Trump administration was never going to be good or even mediocre on gay rights. Any belief to the contrary was just stupidity trying to lull people into not resisting a force that would seek to destroy them.

Yeah, President Pussygrabber pandering (Say that 5 times fast! ) to whatever sewer creatures still support him at this point by figuratively throwing rotten eggs at gay and trans individuals is still causing them harm.

I mean If I saw the news at the Pharmacy correctly the North Carolina legislature passed (or is in the process of passing) a "bathroom bill" effectively banning trans individuals from using the restrooms of the gender they have "adopted" (sorry if that term is offensive, I can't think of a better one right now) forcing them into using the public restrooms matching their genitals because, "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN WHO HAVEN'T BEEN HARMED IN ANY WAY BY THEM TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE!!!" despite it actually being far more likely to put trans individuals in unsafe positions that will probably (despite my hopes to the contrary, but knowing human nature as I do... ) result in more hate crimes.

[Khaat]

Called it when he was outed: Flynn gets to be the Oliver North for Trump (if he can get anyone to suck on his immunity deal.)

Flagg: it's "identify as", not adopted. Considering the conservatives selling this snake-oil use "grubby TOTALLY HETERO MALE assaults woman in restroom" as "evidence" of "TEH DANGER!!one!" of transfolk, you aren't going to reach these people with logic. But what you are doing is threatening them that their kids will grow up asking questions and leave their safely-insulated circle-jerks and grow up to be caring, compassionate, accepting adults, eroding the power base of the GOP (that protects them from "welfare-sucking blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, and perverts & sodomites".) Nothing pisses them off more than their own kids turning their back on "the way of the righteous."

As long as the GOP can destroy public education, though, there will always be a new class of ignoramuses to carry the Confederate Battle Flag.

[FaxModem1]

Washington Post

Trump’s strange new tweet on the Russia probe reveals his own weakness
By Greg Sargent March 31 at 10:09 AM
Flynn in 2016: Immunity 'means that you probably committed a crime' Play Video1:37
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn is offering to cooperate with congressional investigators in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Here's what he and President Donald Trump said about immunity in 2016. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
THE MORNING PLUM:

You know it’s not a good day for President Trump when his first morning tweet declares that a former senior member of his administration should ask for immunity from prosecution in exchange for truthful testimony in an investigation into his own campaign’s conduct. Yet this is exactly what just happened:

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!
6:04 AM - 31 Mar 2017
12,809 12,809 Retweets 49,113 49,113 likes
On Thursday night, it was reported that Flynn has offered to testify to congressional committees examining potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Flynn, a member of Trump’s campaign, resigned as national security adviser last month after it became public that he misled Trump administration officials about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. Some have speculated this could mean Flynn worries that he’s legally vulnerable. Flynn was at the center of discussions involving whether the Trump administration would lift sanctions on Russia, following a campaign in which Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and in which Russia allegedly meddled to help Trump win.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up
Trump is now saying that Flynn should pursue immunity. In one sense, this inadvertently undercuts Trump’s own position. After all, as Ed Morrissey asks, why should Flynn need immunity to testify truthfully (it remains unclear what he is offering to testify about), if this whole probe is nothing but a “witch hunt”?

But there is a certain logic to Trump’s tweet. The only problem is that Trump’s reliance on this very logic itself shows what a precarious political position he currently finds himself in.

Here’s the logic at work: Trump thinks his tweet lends support to the justification that Flynn has offered for seeking immunity, and thus plays down the significance Flynn’s request has for the probe into his own campaign’s conduct. In a statement last night, Flynn’s lawyer explained the request for immunity this way: “No reasonable person, who has advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly publicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.”

In other words, Flynn’s request for immunity is not an admission of legal vulnerability. It’s merely a safeguard against a process that has become hopelessly unfair. Trump is trying to bolster this argument: He’s saying Flynn’s request for immunity can naturally be explained by the fact that the probe is nothing but a witch hunt orchestrated by his enemies — Democrats, the media and so forth. So of course Flynn should seek immunity, since no treatment of him (or Trump’s campaign and administration) could possibly be fair.

But missing from Trump’s tweet is the fact that law enforcement agencies, not the media and Democrats, are conducting the official probe into his own campaign’s conduct, as FBI Director James Comey revealed the other day. Additionally, Republican-controlled congressional committees — the Senate and House intelligence committees — are conducting investigations. Trump is so determined to make those facts disappear — or at least to render them politically irrelevant — that it has led him stumbling into a convoluted argument that ends with him urging a former senior official to ask for immunity as part of a process that is investigating his own campaign’s conduct.

But Trump cannot make all of these facts disappear. Recall, Trump did nothing for weeks to remove Flynn as national security adviser, even though he knew Flynn had misled his own administration about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. As Adam Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, put it this morning:

5h
Adam Schiff ✔ @RepAdamSchiff
The public should learn a lot more about WHY General Flynn wants immunity when Sally Yates testifies before the House Intelligence Committee https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 8520856578 …
Follow
Adam Schiff ✔ @RepAdamSchiff
The question for you, Mr. President, is why you waited so long to act after you learned Flynn (through your VP) had misled the country?
7:42 AM - 31 Mar 2017
3,487 3,487 Retweets 9,233 9,233 likes
Here is the bottom line. We don’t know whether the probes will ever produce any serious revelations of collusion. They very well may not. But we do know that the White House is doing all it can to discourage a full accounting into what happened, even though this accounting is also supposed to establish the full extent of what, precisely, Russia did to undermine our democracy, something Trump and Republicans should want to establish. Thus today’s tweet, which casts this entire investigative effort as nothing but a “witch hunt.” We also know that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) is now going to absurd lengths to hamstring his own investigation, apparently to protect Trump.

But Senate Republicans are now beginning to take this way more seriously, and such efforts to frustrate a full accounting are growing increasingly untenable. The absurdity of Trump’s tweet today neatly captures that.

In Trump's eyes, it's because the press and Democrats are meanie-heads.

[TheFeniX]

He's also set to run into another fight with GOP factions that have been working on their own tax reform plans. And considering current reading on his proposals equate to "massive tax cuts for people making over $400,000, only increasing the further you go up" combined with "increase to no reduction in tax burden for the middle-class and lower," it's unlikely he'll find any common ground and just give up because he just does not know what he's doing and is refusing to surround himself with people who do nor does he seem willing to even attempt cooperation with anyone. I assume, if he even bothers, when he goes to Democrats for healthcare reform, he'll try to brow-beat them to then cry when he's rebuffed.

The GOP was hoping this was the man to usher in a glorious 2018 and 2020 showing for the GOP. Not to say they can't make gains, but people want action. Trumps current attempts have alienated moderates because he tried to fuck them and all the chest-beaters that continue to support him are getting angry because he's losing. I won't post links, but reading around: alt-right shitholes are continuing to bog themselves down with internal bickering. The ardent supporters have withdrawn into two main "arguments:" "It's all fake news" and "still better than liberals in charge."

This doesn't bode well for them. A chest thumper like Trump thrives on victories, not blow-out loses because your own team is scoring touchdowns for your opponents while said opponents sit back an laugh at you. Especially not with the conservative narrative that Democrats and Liberals are the weak ones and have no moral center. Republicans are "supposed" to be united for us to usher in our glorious return to True American Values.™ How DARE they break ranks.

I still have time to eat my hat as the tax fight needs to take place. Trump could also do something on infrastructure. But it's becoming more and more likely that picking fights with <insert whoever here> to change the narrative would not only be blocked by Republicans looking for damage control but also the populace easily calling it out for what it is. So, I'm placing my bets on, provided he doesn't get impeached, 4 years of lame duck where Trump takes out his frustration on whoever he can (illegals LGBT etc), trashes what's left of our world-image, and manages to go down as a bigger embarrassment than GW.

USA: starting off the new millennium with style!

[mr friendly guy]

And here comes a good Trump economic policy. Good for the rest of the world that is.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-05/t ... ty/8417932

Donald Trump's policies harming US business events industry, providing opportunity for Australia
By business reporter Andrew Robertson
Posted 49 minutes ago

In Donald Trump's America not everybody is welcome.

Even the prospect of him landing in the White House was enough to make large numbers of prospective US visitors change their plans.

"What we saw before the presidential election was a 4 per cent drop of people into the US coming from the UK and Japan, 5 per cent drop from people coming from Italy, 7 per cent from France and 10 per cent from Germany, and a commensurate increase here in Australia of visitors from those countries," Tourism and Transport Forum CEO Margy Osmond said.

President Trump's anti-Mexican rhetoric, the ban on many Muslims and now his ban on laptops in some US-bound aeroplanes will deliver an estimated $7 billion hit to the US tourism industry this year alone.

But it is the US's $370 billion-a-year conferencing and business events industry that's really in the firing line, according to the executive chairman of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, Peter Harbison.

"I think any large international conference organiser that attracts people from all over the world would have to be reviewing whether they do it in the US at the moment," he said.
Most industries and professions have at least one conference a year, often drawing people from all over the world.

Now, thanks to Mr Trump, organisers of conferences in the US cannot guarantee who can get there.

"If they turn up at the gate and find 30 per cent of their delegates have been turned around then that could be a massive financial blow for them and also the prestige of having guest speakers turned away at the gates, it really hits an association," said Matthew Hingerty, the chairman of the Business Events Council of Australia.

Conferences are big business

As in the US, business events here are big business, contributing $30 billion to the economy and employing 200,000 people.

The problems in the United States have come at an opportune time for Australia after a 3 per cent fall in conference attendance last year.

However, as always, distance is a factor and competition from countries like Singapore is fierce, which is why the business events industry is asking the Federal Government for $10 million to help lure conferences that otherwise would have gone to the US.

"If we can just help them a little bit by helping to defray some of their costs I am sure we can turn this disadvantage to some of our competitors into an advantage for us," Mr Hingerty said.

Questions over motive of plane laptop ban

Mr Trump's ban on laptops on some flights into the United States caught most by surprise and has raised questions as to its real motive.

The President says it is necessary to fight terrorism. Others, like Australian National University terrorism expert Clarke Jones, have a different view.

"It certainly doesn't seem to, from my reading, do anything towards counter-terrorism," he said.

It certainly to me seems like more of a political move or something to do with his business interests even."
United States airlines are not included in the laptop ban.

However, the rapidly expanding Gulf carriers — Emirates, Etihad and Qatar — are, and they will shoulder most of the burden in what can be seen as an attack on their lucrative business class market.

Carriers in the US have been furiously lobbying the Whitehouse to put the brakes on the Gulf upstarts.

"It's mind boggling if it is that cynical. But once you eliminate all the other possibilities you just can't come to any other conclusion frankly," laments the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation's, Peter Harbison.

ANU's Dr Jones also makes the point that there have been no terrorism-related incidents involving laptops.

"We don't ban mobile telephones on planes but mobile telephones have been used [in terror attacks] — not only with airlines, certainly with attacks occurring overseas, and using phones to detonate devices," he said.

It all adds up to the US being a much less friendly place for visitors wanting to attend a conference.

"There are long lead times in getting this business. Sometimes they are for a year, two years, three years out," Mr Hingerty said.

The challenge for Australia is to get some of that business and keep it.

Less people going to the US leads to these people going somewhere else. So for Trump's economic policies (those that he can implement anyway) have benefited others, eg scrapping the TTP (or rather not doing anything about signing it) and his migration policies are helping other nations.

[Gandalf]

Less people going to the US leads to these people going somewhere else. So for Trump's economic policies (those that he can implement anyway) have benefited others, eg scrapping the TTP (or rather not doing anything about signing it) and his migration policies are helping other nations.

I guess that would explain why I'm suddenly seeing so many "Visit the US" ads on TV and "Visit Texas" ads on the side of buses.

Nice try United States. You may have a million things I want to see and do, but I don't want to cross the Pacific and get turned away by the border guards because my beard looks a little ethnically ambiguous.

[TheFeniX]

The attempt at Internet Privacy is dead. While the laws were meant to take affect later, Republicans only had 15 in the house break ranks and the senate Reps voted the party line. So, when anyone brings up how Republicans are "pro-consumer," make sure you point out how they are more than willing to let your ISP sell all your (and your underage children's) private information to the highest bidder.

By Meg Wagner

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to kill a set of internet privacy rules, paving the way for service providers to share and sell their customers’ sensitive information — including everything from browsing histories and financial records to information on children.

The bill to repeal the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations passed 215-205, with 15 Republicans joining the 190 Democrats who voted against it. It passed in the Senate last week in a straight party-line vote.

The regulation-smashing bill now goes to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it.

The FCC passed the privacy rules in October under the Obama administration, and they were due take effect later this year. They would have barred internet service providers — such as Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T — from selling customers’ sensitive information to advertisers without their explicit permission.

Republicans across the board — on the FCC and in Congress — have insisted that the rules unfairly target internet service providers, burdening them with extra regulations that other online companies don’t have to follow.

For example, search engines and social media sites, such as Google and Facebook, are regulated by less stringent Federal Trade Commission regulations, which don’t require companies get users’ permission to collect and sell data. This is why, when on those sites, users frequently sees ads for products for which they’ve previously searched, or for local businesses.

Democrats claim that overturning the regulations is an attack on consumer privacy.

“What the heck are you thinking?” Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) yelled at his pro-bill colleagues on the House floor ahead of his vote. “Give me one good reason why Comcast should know what my mother’s medical problems are? You know how they’d know? Because when I went to the doctor with her, and they told me what it was, I had no clue what they were talking about. I came home, and I searched it on the ‘net.”

“Just last week I bought underwear on the internet. Why should you know what size I take?” he added.

Meant for protection

When the FCC passed the rules, the organization was composed of three Democrats and two Republicans. At the time, the commission’s chairman, Democrat Tom Wheeler, said that the rules were meant to protect all web users.

“It is the consumer’s information,” he said ahead of October’s vote. “How it is used should be the consumer’s choice, not the choice of some corporate algorithm.”

When Wheeler, an Obama appointee, left the FCC in January ahead of Trump’s inauguration, Republican FCC commissioner Ajit Pai took his seat as chairman — and again began criticizing the privacy rules, just like he did after the October vote.

There are two major parts to the rules Congress voted to overturn. The first provision requires that internet providers tell their customers exactly what information they’re collecting. The second part would have specified that if a company wants to share or sell “sensitive” information, they need explicit consent from their customers to do so. The rules defined eight areas of sensitive information: geolocations, web browsing histories, the contents of emails and other communications, app usage, Social Security numbers, medical information, health information, and information on children.

Under the proposed guidelines, providers could share and sell non-sensitive information — such as users’ names, IP address or anything else not on the sensitive list — but customers would have been allowed to opt-out.

Currently — and for the foreseeable future — customers must opt-out to stop the sharing of both sensitive and nonsensitive data. But that can be a difficult process, and many providers don’t readily provide information on how to do so.

A lukewarm solution

Congress was able to overturn the FCC rules this week through the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a once little-used maneuver that allows lawmakers to overturn newly implemented federal regulations with a simple majority. Before the Trump administration, it had been used just once before, under former president George W. Bush. This year, congressional Republicans have used to kill at least eight Obama-era regulations.

The act stipulates that federal agencies can’t try to pass new regulations that are too similar to the ones Congress overturned, so it’s unlikely that the now Republican-controlled FCC would be able to pass new privacy regulations, even if it wanted to.

But the CRA doesn’t seem to be stopping Democratic lawmakers from trying to reinstate the regulations. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) promised on Tuesday to introduce a bill forcing the FCC to write new, “strong broadband rules.” Since Democrats don’t control either chamber of Congress, it’s unlikely such a bill would pass — and questionable if it would even be allowed under the Congressional Review Act.

Privacy experts are encouraging anxious web users to try using a virtual private network (VPN) as a kind of work-around. VPNs route users’ online activity through a secure connection, effectively hiding it from providers.

But VPNs can be expensive, and it’s not a fix-all solution. While they hide browsing histories and other information, they still allow providers to keep track of your location. Plus, some critics have suggested that using a VPN doesn’t guarantee a user’s privacy: Instead of a service provider tracking and selling your information, the VPN could.

I bet Comcast and at&t are high-fiving over the return on their investments.

[The Romulan Republic]

The "selling underage childrens' information" side of this is particularly stomach-turning, and adds to the growing list of ways in which the modern American Right is taking actions that benefit pedophiles.

[TheFeniX]

The "selling underage childrens' information" side of this is particularly stomach-turning, and adds to the growing list of ways in which the modern American Right is taking actions that benefit pedophiles.

That doesn't register with me at all because comcast isn't going to be selling this information to pedophile rings. Those guys will have to keep trolling other legitimate sites to find marks.

My problem, first of all removing that a company I'm paying money is not only spying on me but profiting from that system while continuing to charge exorbitant prices for the privileged of me letting them track my every movement, is that this gives them information on the head end and will allow (let's not kid here, they've been doing it already) to create profiles based on devices.

Just logging into Facebook only gives them what you decide to give them. As part of this your PC automatically gives them a bit more info: browser, maybe OS data, and tracking cookie data.

Your ISP, having access to your MAC and/or NetBIOS name and port mappings can begin to tally the Internet usage habits of any device connected to your router. So "FeniX's Kid's Tablet" can have it's own database where they can track, store, and sell literally everything that is done on said tablet. Think about the implications of that for a second. It's the definition of man in the middle. And even if the use was legitimate: I don't trust these fuckers to not get hacked.

I've gone through a few rough drafts of letters I plan to send to my "representatives." I can't get through much without just resorting to massive insults and character disparagement due to the blatant purchasing of votes.

But this is just kind of what happens when you have people in charge who are big on greed and little on knowledge. The only thing I could see changing their mind would be some kind of hack that exposes all their dirty URLs and downloads. Watch them flip their votes real fucking fast.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, of course Comcast won't (knowingly) sell to pedophile rings. But at the same time, I can't imagine any good coming of making childrens' personal internet information (including location) more widely and easily accessible. Its more a concern that things will inadvertently make their way into hands they shouldn't.

[bilateralrope]

Can you see them asking any questions of the people buying the information other than "how much are you paying ?"

[The Romulan Republic]

I can see other implications as well, depending in part on how much they charge for the information.

Someone has a grudge against someone online? Well, now its that much easier to track them down, stalk and harass them. Some of the shit around "Gamergate" comes to mind.

Organized crime can get information on peoples' location, as well as possible blackmail material. They'll certainly be able to pay whatever the companies charge.

Hell, Trump wants to buy potentially compromising information on his critics? That too.

Edit: Although, as much as I disapprove in theory, I'd probably laugh my ass off if someone bought up Dickless Donald's internet history and shared it with the world.