privacy

The coin of the Internet realm – is your digital data. Everything you do is tracked and monetized.

Big Government doesn’t have the authority to engage in any of the nine trillion parts of the massive shutdowns they have imposed. There is no Virus Exemption Amendment to the Constitution.

The fundamental problem of defining privacy is the same as defining obscenity. What is an outrage to one person is no big deal to another.

What is the simple key to passing bipartisan net neutrality and online privacy legislation?

Despite coughing up reams of information about themselves in exchange for often minimal benefits, consumers are now suddenly concerned about their privacy. 

Americans want their right to privacy restored.

John Nothdurft and Donny Kendal present episode #93 of the In The Tank Podcast. Today’s podcast features work from the John Locke Foundation, the Reason Foundation, the Platte Institute, and the Alaska Policy Forum.

The FCC’s Open Internet order and proposed Title II privacy rules divided what was unified. For privacy, it broke what was working. Confused what was clear. Complicated what was simple. Unprotected what they sought to protect. Created more costs than benefits. Since the Internet’s beginning the FTC has had privacy authority over information services.

Recently, the Federal Communications Commission has proposed to construct a new, additional regulatory apparatus, asserting, without any factual support, that creating untested and discriminatory rules for internet service providers (ISPs) will be the silver bullet for protecting consumers’ privacy.

Since Google chose that apt metaphor, and boasted about how easy Google makes it to “check out” your private data and “leave” to a competitor, lets test if you can ever “in fact leave” Google-Eye’s pervasively invasive online surveillance — from a privacy perspective.

In this episode of the weekly Budget & Tax News podcast, managing editor and research fellow Jesse Hathaway talks with The Heritage Foundation’s senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky about the fallout from California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ (D) attempt to force Americans for Prosperity, a national nonprofit organization advocating for fiscal responsibility in government, to make the private information of contributors public information.

When one’s actions demonstrably create a worse rather than better outcome net-net, like the FCC’s new Title II ISP privacy policy does, others would justifiably consider it a mistake.

Let me try to explain to a consumer what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) arbitrarily has done, and apparently intends to do, for consumer internet privacy protection going forward.