Protect your online privacy

Let’s say you call a company to ask information regarding one of their products, or perhaps to avail yourself of some information to which they are privy. That company is able to note that you called, what you called about, and to provide that information to others – free of charge or for a fee.

However, if the phone company – as an intermediary providing telecommunications network services – wanted to collect information of that call and to sell that information to others, there would be a riot. That’s because U.S. Code Title 47 § 222 states:

Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.

Note that this is because they are a telecommunications network provider. You are not communicating with them; you are only using their services to communicate with others. They have no right to the information from those calls, or that the calls were even made, except as needed for their internal billing and marketing needs. This data is protected by law because it can contain highly personal data. For instance, say you were calling psychiatrists as a the result of a particularly difficult set of events in your life. Would you want the telephone company to sell that information to your employer, competitor, or ex-spouse? I think not.

Now, image that your  Internet service provider (essentially a communications network provider, similar to the phone  company) wanted to sell information on your web browsing habits, including the exact web sites you access and when/how long you visit. This would be akin to the phone company selling lists of the calls you made. Well, that is exactly what the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) want to do – and the government is going to help.

The Obama administration (of which I was not particularly fond) approved an FCC rule for ISPs that would require they have specific customer approval to release such information – the same as for telephone companies. However, the Republicans in congress have drank the Kool-Aid offered by ISPs that hold since Google is not subject to such a rule that they should not be subject, either. However, the comparison is apples to oranges; Google provides a service to which customers connect and use, while the ISPs simply makes the connection for you (like the telephone company). In this case the ISP to telephone company analogy holds; the information on your network usage – just as the phone calls you make – should be held as private data and not be resold.

Congress has passed – and President Trump is expected to sign – a resolution overturning this Obama-era rule. The resolution would lets ISPs sell your very personal web browsing data without so much as telling you, let alone getting your permission. This is wrong, and should not be allowed. Take the time to protect your online privacy and send a quick note to President Trump indicating your desire that he veto this resolution/rule reversal.

You can start here.

La-la land is coo-coo

Once again, politicians in Krazy Kalifornia have gone off the deep end. This time they’ve twisted the facts so as to garner support for not cooperating with ICE in the deportation of dangerous criminal illegal aliens. Towards that end they have passed a directive forbidding firefighters and airport police from cooperating with federal immigration agents.

A quote from the article:

“In Los Angeles, we don’t separate people from their families because it’s inhumane,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said Tuesday. “In Los Angeles, we don’t demonize our hardworking neighbors just because they speak another language or come from another country. That’s un-American.”

Eric, no one is being deported because they speak a different language; they are instead being deported because they have ignored our immigration laws. And when they are separated from their families as a result, is it our fault for enforcing immigration law or their fault for putting their families at risk? Be careful, Eric – next you may be claiming that the police are responsible for breaking up families as a result of their arresting the criminals who fail to abide by our laws. To hell with the law abiding citizens the laws are meant to protect; right, Eric?

It is not un-American to deport criminal illegal aliens. It is, however, un-American to violate out laws.

 

Government bureaucracy

Would you expect the CEO of a major company to be able to fire someone, anyone, who under-performs repeatedly or otherwise does not contribute productively to the company’s bottom line? Then why can’t the CEO of America (the President) fire anyone who works in the executive branch? The answer might surprise you.

An interesting article by Mark Hemingway at the Weekly Standard. Enjoy!

Canadian border control

If you’ve got access to NetFlix, I’d like to recommend that you take a gander at the series:

“Border Security: Canada’s Front Line”

For all those who said they would move to Canada if Trump won the election – good luck! These people are tough when it comes to immigration. You think Trump is harsh? “Dreamers” wouldn’t have a chance in Canada – nor would most of the celebrities who threatened to move. Here are some examples from the show:

Have a medical condition – even if you are only a tourist – that could be costly to the medical system in Canada if you are stricken ill while visiting? DENIED! No “humanitarian entry” because you can’t afford health insurance, no sir…

Have ANY criminal conviction in the last 10 years, even a simple drug charge or DUI? DENIED!

Don’t have enough money on hand to support your entire stay? DENIED!

Ever worked illegally in Canada? DENIED!

Going to look for work in Canada without the mandatory paperwork/approval? DENIED!

Show up at the border with your “medical marijuana” card and a bag of pot? DENIED! (and arrested… dumbass…)

Good luck on moving to Canada, guys – I’m rooting for you. I just hope that Shia LaBouf is first in line.

“Migrant terrorism”

The Mexican archdioceses of the catholic church claims – since Mexican illegal immigrants in the U.S. are afraid that they will be caught – that U.S. immigration policy amounts to terrorism against Mexican nationals illegally in the United States.

I disagree. When a criminal commits a crime (such as when a foreign  national illegally enters the U.S.), any “terror” they experience due to their being pursued is strictly of their own making. To blame those tasked with enforcing immigration laws – such as border patrol officers, immigration agents, or even president Trump – is beyond hubris.