Sign in with Twitter

Type the topic in any language to check out real time results of Who's Talking on Social Media Sites


Trending Topics: #奇跡のリアルタイム復活キタNEWSトリ開始前US-2#BOPunBedeliNe#EğerDerdimizİslamsa#plm4um#RaceAndMediaSU#CaribbeanGrowthNo DFJudiciário e PF#T2HPCまーきUH PAPAI CHEGOUO Direito#WelcomeToBrazilMaiaMitchellFull IntentionOĞLUM GAZİMustafa Destici Cumhurbaşkanıİzmir Marşı'naTaşkın Doğanışık#CyberDD17Even JesusFive Guys Named Moe#EiQGatheringRussia for $7.2#開幕戦終了後の自分のツイート予想TLの画像ザ・忍者URL表示画像URL#NoPromisesTOMORROW#CindyDavasıBaşak Eraydın#TitleX#takeawalkintheparkdayCANCÚNSarıkamış Çocukları#君は生まれ変わったら何になりたいか#あなたが付き合う人の誕生日Busto de Cristiano Ronaldo#yineyastayizAksaraydayiz#indexday#ccmtg#CDTV春スペシャルAdnan Hoca'yaRusya'dan Fırat KalkanıYurdaer Okur#CQAF17#HarvardWriters2017#NeverAskAWoman#LoyolaRokerthon#GreatRepealBill#さし旅Fetranspor銃剣道Takmaklı#EvetKararımızNetSafe as MilkDunk Contest 2017Ivan KoloffChris SullivanOroville Dam updateHunter McGradyGeorge The Animal SteelePokemon Go Gen 2Robert HarwardLos Angeles WeatherWeather Los AngelesSteve Irwinlisa marie presleyMark CubanDonald GloverNba All Star Game 2017spacex launchAll Star Weekend 2017Congressional Black Caucussan diego weatherRush LimbaughMore

Most recent 18 results returned for keyword: ctia (Search this on MAP)

https://plus.google.com/112383911988426678939 Anthony Morrison : "ISPs that want the federal government to eliminate broadband privacy rules say that your Web browsing...
"ISPs that want the federal government to eliminate broadband privacy rules say that your Web browsing and app usage data should not be classified as "sensitive" information.

"Web browsing and app usage history are not 'sensitive information,'" CTIA said in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission yesterday. CTIA is the main lobbyist group representing mobile broadband providers such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA, and Sprint.

The FCC rules passed during the Obama administration require ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers before sharing sensitive customer information with advertisers and other third parties. The FCC defined Web browsing history and app usage history as sensitive information, along with other categories such as geo-location data, financial and health information, and the content of communications. If the rules are overturned, ISPs would be able to sell this kind of customer information to advertisers."
ISPs say your Web browsing and app usage history isn’t “sensitive”
ISP lobby groups make case against the FCC’s broadband privacy rules.
10 hours ago - Via Reshared Post - View -
https://plus.google.com/116469825263275018168 Oakley Cell Tower : Excellent read... There is no funding in the United States for research of the biological and health...
Excellent read...
There is no funding in the United States for research of the biological and health effects of RFR and EMF. No foundation, government agency, or corporation will lay down money to help clarify the science behind concerns about WiFi, cell phones, and other wireless devices. Dr. Lai keeps his lab going by doing cancer research, some of it concerning the use of electromagnetic radiation to treat cancer.

In Europe there are many well-funded projects in RFR research. Citizens are more organized. Public figures have championed the issue. And the European Union has a much greater public health orientation than the United States. These days we have to rely on the Europeans for the science of wireless technology health risks.[3]

It was not always so. For example, in the early 1990s the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) came up with $25 million for research into the potential health effects of cell phones. The CTIA is the cell phone industry’s trade organization. Their intention was to lay concerns about cell phones to rest. The Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program administered the funds and research program. When the $25 million was spent, the WTR final report submitted in 2000 recommended further study. The CTIA cut a deal with the FDA to spend another $1 million to review further research.[4]

The money is still there. The FDA has been waiting since 1999 when the deal with CTIA was cut to spend the money.

FDA plans to convene a meeting in the near future to evaluate all completed, ongoing and planned research looking at health effects associated with the use of wireless communication devices and identify knowledge gaps that may warrant additional research.[5]

Initially, the WTR found no cause for concern. But in 1995 Dr. Lai and his colleague NP Singh, PhD found that exposing the brain cells of rats to RFR at a level similar to cell phones produced breaks in strands of DNA. Their discovery was a turning point in the research and in the CTIA’s enthusiasm for the project. Dr. Lai and Dr. Singh had uncovered a mechanism that explained how RFR exposure might cause health effects.[6]

Since 1990 Dr. Lai has maintained a database of research on the effects of RFR on humans, lab animals, and cell cultures. He has amassed over 300 studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals. To avoid bias, he excludes his own research from the database.

Of these studies, 56% show a biological or health effect[7] from exposure to RFR. These effects include:

cancer,[8]
genetic effects such as damage to DNA,[9]
cellular and molecular effects such as a reduction in enzymes critical to the central nervous system,[10]
changes in electrophysiology such as reduced activity between nerve cells,[11] and
physiological and behavioral changes such as impairment of peripheral vision.[12]
Biased Research?
An interesting thing happens when the studies from Dr. Lai’s database are placed in two stacks: one of studies funded by the wireless industry (30% of the studies), the other stack of independently funded studies (70%). Of the studies that show a biological or health effect from wireless RFR, 14% are industry funded while 86% are independently funded. Of studies showing no effect, 49% are industry funded while 51% are independently funded.

To make the point another way, of industry funded studies, only 27% found an RFR effect. Independently funded studies found an RFR effect 68% of the time. This discrepancy is consistent among the effects listed. Of studies that found an effect on cancer, 11% were industry funded, 47% were independently funded. Cellular and molecular effects: 19% industry, 69% independent. Electrophysiology effects: 33% industry, 77% independent. Physiological and behavioral effects: 57% industry, 83% independent.

If Dr. Lai’s research were included in the tally, the percent of studies showing an effect from RFR would be even greater. But when Dr. Lai is asked about these statistics, he often says that 50% of the studies show an effect. And then he points out that 50% is a significant number, significant enough to justify a precautionary approach that minimizes exposures.

The differences between the industry funded stack of studies and the independently funded stack suggest bias. Bias enters research through the way a study is designed, the methods used in the study, how data is collected, and how results are interpreted. It might be that some independently funded researchers are biased because they are consumed by a burning passion to eliminate RFR exposures or, even more sinister, destroy the wireless industry. They might have consciously or unconsciously designed their studies, chosen methods, collected data, and interpreted the results to show health effects from RFR. However, the rewards for doing so are not great. Many researchers who advise precaution regarding RFR have been ostracized or their research funding has been slashed. Careers have been stalled and in some cases terminated - hardly circumstances that would encourage jumping on that particular bandwagon. [13]

The rewards for producing industry-friendly results are obvious: funding, professional recognition, a clear career path, and employment opportunities in industry. This is not to say that these researchers are dishonest. It is to say that rewards are more likely as a consequence of producing the “right” answers. In other words, researchers typically aren’t corrupted into conducting biased research. More often they’re already biased and the rewards flow to them as a consequence.[14]

Within each group, whether industry or independently funded, results don’t always agree -some studies show an effect while others do not regardless of who did the funding. That difference suggests another kind of problem: scientists don’t know enough yet to conduct decisive experiments that can produce something like a professional consensus regarding the biological and health effects of wireless RFR. Many of the scientists who work in this field and who believe that there’s ample reason for concern will say that the science is not yet conclusive.[15] This drives some activists crazy. Yet it is a true statement about the state of the science.

We should not be surprised that this lack of conclusive science has led the wireless industry to claim that cell phones and other wireless technologies are safe. The FDA is with them, stating that

[t]he available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe.[16]
This carefully constructed statement is intended to reassure us. Yet Dr. Lai’s database puts the lie to the first sentence: it’s simply false. The framework set up for us is that a technology should be adopted unless there’s conclusive evidence that it does harm. Not all regulatory agencies think this way.

The UK’s equivalent to the FDA, the Health Protection Agency (HPA), has declared a voluntary moratorium of marketing cell phones to children as a precautionary measure.[17] The moratorium has so far been observed by the UK cell phone industry. The HPA opens its discussion of the health risks from cell phones by saying that

There is a large body of scientific evidence relating to exposure to radio waves and there are thousands of published scientific papers covering studies of exposed tissue samples (e.g. cells), animals and people. It is not difficult to find contradictory results in the literature, and an important role of the HPA Radiological Protection Division (RPD) is to develop judgments [sic] on the totality of the evidence in controversial areas of the science.[18]

Unlike the FDA, the HPA points to contradictory science regarding cell phone radiation. The reassurance is that they’re paying attention, not that cell phones very likely don’t cause harm. The HPA goes on to cite the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which reviews the science and recommends standards. The NRPB and with it the HPA explicitly adopt a precautionary standard. With regard to children, the NRPB’s 2004 report recommends that

in the absence of new scientific evidence, the recommendation in the Stewart Report on limiting the use of mobile phones by children remains appropriate as a precautionary measure.[19]

In 2004 the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) decided that they will not permit cell phone antennas on fire houses. The decision was made by resolution at the IAFF’s annual delegate assembly. The resolution directed the International to review the potential health risks from cell antennas. If the science demonstrated a risk, then the union would oppose the use of fire stations as sites for cell antennas until further science demonstrated that cell antennas are safe.[20]

The resolution was passed in August 2004. In April 2005 the union’s Health and Safety Department completed the review of the science. They found more than ample evidence to conclude that the union should oppose cell antennas on fire stations. The position paper included 49 references and a bibliography of 40 citations.[21] Based on that evidence, the resolution cites a wide range of effects experienced by fire fighters:

slowed reaction times,
lack of focus,
lack of impulse control,
severe headaches,
anesthesia-like sleep,
sleep deprivation,
depression,
tremors, and
vertigo.[22]
Three things are worth noting about the substance of the resolution and the union’s official position. First, the fire fighters were focused on their ability to do their job. Second, fire fighters were involuntarily exposed to a health risk. And third, the fire fighters oppose cell antennas on fire stations until they are proven safe.

The decision that the fire fighters faced - a decision we all face - is how to evaluate the safety of wireless technologies and decide what level of involuntary risk we are willing to take.[23]

Use it unless there’s good evidence that it’s harmful.
Or don’t use it until there’s good evidence that it’s safe.
So consider this: 47% of independently funded studies found cancer effects, 69% found effects on cell function, 77% found effects on electrical signaling in the body, and 83% found physiological and behavioral effects. Suppose you have several hundred marine biologists study your swimming pool. 47% (or 69% or 77% or 83%) of the biologists say you’ve got a shark in your pool. Would you dive in? Would you let your kids dive in?[24]

WiFi Blues by Jeffry Fawcett, PhD -
http://www.arizonaadvancedmedicine.com/Articles/2013/June/WiFi-Blues-by-Jeffry-Fawcett-PhD.aspx
WiFi Blues by Jeffry Fawcett, PhD -
Saturating an entire city with WiFi adds to the existing burden of radio frequency radiation (RFR). That burden, is called electrosmog.
14 hours ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/109848761567226113540 John L Harris Sr : Update: On Tuesday afternoon, the House approved the bill to stop the FCC from enforcing its internet...
Update: On Tuesday afternoon, the House approved the bill to stop the FCC from enforcing its internet privacy rules. The bill now goes to President Donald Trump for approval.

The House was expected to vote Tuesday on a bill that would stop the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing rules that would stop your internet service provider from tracking your browsing behavior and selling that information to advertisers. The Republicans backing this measure would like you to think that it’s a pro-competition move that will only improve your internet experience.

But a closer look at this issue should leave you skeptical of that sales pitch.

Yes, your ISP might want to snoop on you

The text of S.J. 34, a resolution that passed the Senate by a 50-48 vote last week, is stunningly concise by legislative standards: “Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to ‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services’ (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.”

The FCC passed those rules in the final weeks of President Obama’s term after establishing a legal footing for them with the net-neutrality rules that prevent internet providers from slowing or blocking legal sites or charging them for priority delivery of their data.

Those open-internet rules put internet access services in the same “common carriers” legal category as phone companies and therefore subject to the same longstanding privacy principles. That, in turn, led to the process of writing these rules—although they have not yet gone into effect.

Not hypothetical

It also followed two notable examples of ISPs selling data about their users. Verizon (VZ) attached a “supercookie” tracking bit to the unencrypted data of wireless subscribers, then took months to offer an opt-out. AT&T (T), in turn, required subscribers to its gigabit fiber-optic service to opt out of an “Internet preferences” tracking scheme — although that tracking at least yielded a big discount.

This is not a hypothetical threat, much as the net-neutrality rules followed years of bluster by Big Telecom to charge sites for the privilege of using their pipes.

Trade groups like the wireless association CTIA and the cable group NCTA say they will do no such thing, declaring their commitment to protecting customers’ personal information.

Those organizations and others released a list of privacy principles in January that include getting customer permission to use “sensitive data” (the Federal Trade Commission’s term for details you could use to steal somebody’s money or identity) and giving customers a chance to opt out of the marketing use of “non-sensitive” information.

The companies listed on it include AT&T, Charter (CHTR), Comcast (CMCSA), Optimum owner Altice USA, T-Mobile (TMUS) and Verizon — but not Frontier Communications (FTR), Sprint (S) and U.S. Cellular (USM), among others.

Google and Facebook aren’t the same as your ISP

Telecom companies like to complain that web companies don’t operate under the same regulations. That is true. Ad-driven firms like Google (GOOG, GOOGL), Facebook (FB) and Yahoo Finance’s corporate parent Yahoo (YHOO), benefit from a more lenient environment.

“The concern is really one of making sure that consumers have a consistent online framework,” said NCTA executive vice president James Assey on a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

But those web firms also occupy a different position relative to customers. You don’t have to use Facebook or Google, nor do you have to use them all the time. When most Americans are limited to the cable company for the fastest connection, leaving that firm is a lot harder.

Inline image in article. No caption.
If the House approves the bill, it will go to President Trump, who will sign it into law. (image: AP Images)
The increasing use of encryption by websites does help secure their link with your browser and limit your ISP’s ability to spy on you. But the ISP will still see the domain names of sites you visit — which, if they correspond with political parties, pharmaceutical firms or advocacy groups, can still reveal a good deal about you. Dodging that scrutiny would require you to use a virtual private network service to encrypt your entire connection.

Facebook and Google also let you see, edit, delete and export most of the data they have on you. They were also documenting government requests for consumer data in “transparency reports” long before telecom firms picked up the habit.

Congress could fix real problems instead

The rush to undo the privacy rules looks especially unseemly given that FCC chair Ajit Pai has already led a vote to stay implementation of a subset of them requiring ISPs to disclose data breaches promptly. And as participants on that media call emphasized, the FCC will retain its underlying authority even if the impending set of rules gets cast aside.

Meanwhile, let’s look at the actual tech-policy problems Congress has failed to solve. It still hasn’t reformed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a 1980s relic that says cops don’t need a warrant to peek at email stored online for more than 180 days (fortunately, major webmail firms insist on one). A “Dig Once” bill could make expanding broadband infrastructure part of federally-funded transportation projects, but Congress continues to dawdle on that too.

I agree that it would be nice to have some federal standards for privacy that would apply to both ISPs and web firms. But the idea that this Congress will pass a comprehensive privacy bill is laughable.

Passing big tech-policy bills just doesn’t seem to be Congress’s thing anymore — the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the last major one, is now old enough to drink, and it seems in zero danger of being replaced.

So if the House does vote to shut down the FCC rules, the realistic alternative isn’t some sweeping privacy law like the European Union’s forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation. It’s hoping that publicly shaming companies will curb the worst abuses.

(Disclosure: Verizon is currently expected to purchase Yahoo Finance’s parent company Yahoo.)
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/109848761567226113540 John L Harris Sr : Update: On Tuesday afternoon, the House approved the bill to stop the FCC from enforcing its internet...
Update: On Tuesday afternoon, the House approved the bill to stop the FCC from enforcing its internet privacy rules. The bill now goes to President Donald Trump for approval.

The House was expected to vote Tuesday on a bill that would stop the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing rules that would stop your internet service provider from tracking your browsing behavior and selling that information to advertisers. The Republicans backing this measure would like you to think that it’s a pro-competition move that will only improve your internet experience.

But a closer look at this issue should leave you skeptical of that sales pitch.

Yes, your ISP might want to snoop on you

The text of S.J. 34, a resolution that passed the Senate by a 50-48 vote last week, is stunningly concise by legislative standards: “Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to ‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services’ (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.”

The FCC passed those rules in the final weeks of President Obama’s term after establishing a legal footing for them with the net-neutrality rules that prevent internet providers from slowing or blocking legal sites or charging them for priority delivery of their data.

Those open-internet rules put internet access services in the same “common carriers” legal category as phone companies and therefore subject to the same longstanding privacy principles. That, in turn, led to the process of writing these rules—although they have not yet gone into effect.

Not hypothetical

It also followed two notable examples of ISPs selling data about their users. Verizon (VZ) attached a “supercookie” tracking bit to the unencrypted data of wireless subscribers, then took months to offer an opt-out. AT&T (T), in turn, required subscribers to its gigabit fiber-optic service to opt out of an “Internet preferences” tracking scheme — although that tracking at least yielded a big discount.

This is not a hypothetical threat, much as the net-neutrality rules followed years of bluster by Big Telecom to charge sites for the privilege of using their pipes.

Trade groups like the wireless association CTIA and the cable group NCTA say they will do no such thing, declaring their commitment to protecting customers’ personal information.

Those organizations and others released a list of privacy principles in January that include getting customer permission to use “sensitive data” (the Federal Trade Commission’s term for details you could use to steal somebody’s money or identity) and giving customers a chance to opt out of the marketing use of “non-sensitive” information.

The companies listed on it include AT&T, Charter (CHTR), Comcast (CMCSA), Optimum owner Altice USA, T-Mobile (TMUS) and Verizon — but not Frontier Communications (FTR), Sprint (S) and U.S. Cellular (USM), among others.

Google and Facebook aren’t the same as your ISP

Telecom companies like to complain that web companies don’t operate under the same regulations. That is true. Ad-driven firms like Google (GOOG, GOOGL), Facebook (FB) and Yahoo Finance’s corporate parent Yahoo (YHOO), benefit from a more lenient environment.

“The concern is really one of making sure that consumers have a consistent online framework,” said NCTA executive vice president James Assey on a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

But those web firms also occupy a different position relative to customers. You don’t have to use Facebook or Google, nor do you have to use them all the time. When most Americans are limited to the cable company for the fastest connection, leaving that firm is a lot harder.

Inline image in article. No caption.
If the House approves the bill, it will go to President Trump, who will sign it into law. (image: AP Images)
The increasing use of encryption by websites does help secure their link with your browser and limit your ISP’s ability to spy on you. But the ISP will still see the domain names of sites you visit — which, if they correspond with political parties, pharmaceutical firms or advocacy groups, can still reveal a good deal about you. Dodging that scrutiny would require you to use a virtual private network service to encrypt your entire connection.

Facebook and Google also let you see, edit, delete and export most of the data they have on you. They were also documenting government requests for consumer data in “transparency reports” long before telecom firms picked up the habit.

Congress could fix real problems instead

The rush to undo the privacy rules looks especially unseemly given that FCC chair Ajit Pai has already led a vote to stay implementation of a subset of them requiring ISPs to disclose data breaches promptly. And as participants on that media call emphasized, the FCC will retain its underlying authority even if the impending set of rules gets cast aside.

Meanwhile, let’s look at the actual tech-policy problems Congress has failed to solve. It still hasn’t reformed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a 1980s relic that says cops don’t need a warrant to peek at email stored online for more than 180 days (fortunately, major webmail firms insist on one). A “Dig Once” bill could make expanding broadband infrastructure part of federally-funded transportation projects, but Congress continues to dawdle on that too.

I agree that it would be nice to have some federal standards for privacy that would apply to both ISPs and web firms. But the idea that this Congress will pass a comprehensive privacy bill is laughable.

Passing big tech-policy bills just doesn’t seem to be Congress’s thing anymore — the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the last major one, is now old enough to drink, and it seems in zero danger of being replaced.

So if the House does vote to shut down the FCC rules, the realistic alternative isn’t some sweeping privacy law like the European Union’s forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation. It’s hoping that publicly shaming companies will curb the worst abuses.

(Disclosure: Verizon is currently expected to purchase Yahoo Finance’s parent company Yahoo.)
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/109848761567226113540 John L Harris Sr : Update: On Tuesday afternoon, the House approved the bill to stop the FCC from enforcing its internet...
Update: On Tuesday afternoon, the House approved the bill to stop the FCC from enforcing its internet privacy rules. The bill now goes to President Donald Trump for approval.

The House was expected to vote Tuesday on a bill that would stop the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing rules that would stop your internet service provider from tracking your browsing behavior and selling that information to advertisers. The Republicans backing this measure would like you to think that it’s a pro-competition move that will only improve your internet experience.

But a closer look at this issue should leave you skeptical of that sales pitch.

Yes, your ISP might want to snoop on you

The text of S.J. 34, a resolution that passed the Senate by a 50-48 vote last week, is stunningly concise by legislative standards: “Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to ‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services’ (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.”

The FCC passed those rules in the final weeks of President Obama’s term after establishing a legal footing for them with the net-neutrality rules that prevent internet providers from slowing or blocking legal sites or charging them for priority delivery of their data.

Those open-internet rules put internet access services in the same “common carriers” legal category as phone companies and therefore subject to the same longstanding privacy principles. That, in turn, led to the process of writing these rules—although they have not yet gone into effect.

Not hypothetical

It also followed two notable examples of ISPs selling data about their users. Verizon (VZ) attached a “supercookie” tracking bit to the unencrypted data of wireless subscribers, then took months to offer an opt-out. AT&T (T), in turn, required subscribers to its gigabit fiber-optic service to opt out of an “Internet preferences” tracking scheme — although that tracking at least yielded a big discount.

This is not a hypothetical threat, much as the net-neutrality rules followed years of bluster by Big Telecom to charge sites for the privilege of using their pipes.

Trade groups like the wireless association CTIA and the cable group NCTA say they will do no such thing, declaring their commitment to protecting customers’ personal information.

Those organizations and others released a list of privacy principles in January that include getting customer permission to use “sensitive data” (the Federal Trade Commission’s term for details you could use to steal somebody’s money or identity) and giving customers a chance to opt out of the marketing use of “non-sensitive” information.

The companies listed on it include AT&T, Charter (CHTR), Comcast (CMCSA), Optimum owner Altice USA, T-Mobile (TMUS) and Verizon — but not Frontier Communications (FTR), Sprint (S) and U.S. Cellular (USM), among others.

Google and Facebook aren’t the same as your ISP

Telecom companies like to complain that web companies don’t operate under the same regulations. That is true. Ad-driven firms like Google (GOOG, GOOGL), Facebook (FB) and Yahoo Finance’s corporate parent Yahoo (YHOO), benefit from a more lenient environment.

“The concern is really one of making sure that consumers have a consistent online framework,” said NCTA executive vice president James Assey on a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

But those web firms also occupy a different position relative to customers. You don’t have to use Facebook or Google, nor do you have to use them all the time. When most Americans are limited to the cable company for the fastest connection, leaving that firm is a lot harder.

Inline image in article. No caption.
If the House approves the bill, it will go to President Trump, who will sign it into law. (image: AP Images)
The increasing use of encryption by websites does help secure their link with your browser and limit your ISP’s ability to spy on you. But the ISP will still see the domain names of sites you visit — which, if they correspond with political parties, pharmaceutical firms or advocacy groups, can still reveal a good deal about you. Dodging that scrutiny would require you to use a virtual private network service to encrypt your entire connection.

Facebook and Google also let you see, edit, delete and export most of the data they have on you. They were also documenting government requests for consumer data in “transparency reports” long before telecom firms picked up the habit.

Congress could fix real problems instead

The rush to undo the privacy rules looks especially unseemly given that FCC chair Ajit Pai has already led a vote to stay implementation of a subset of them requiring ISPs to disclose data breaches promptly. And as participants on that media call emphasized, the FCC will retain its underlying authority even if the impending set of rules gets cast aside.

Meanwhile, let’s look at the actual tech-policy problems Congress has failed to solve. It still hasn’t reformed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a 1980s relic that says cops don’t need a warrant to peek at email stored online for more than 180 days (fortunately, major webmail firms insist on one). A “Dig Once” bill could make expanding broadband infrastructure part of federally-funded transportation projects, but Congress continues to dawdle on that too.

I agree that it would be nice to have some federal standards for privacy that would apply to both ISPs and web firms. But the idea that this Congress will pass a comprehensive privacy bill is laughable.

Passing big tech-policy bills just doesn’t seem to be Congress’s thing anymore — the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the last major one, is now old enough to drink, and it seems in zero danger of being replaced.

So if the House does vote to shut down the FCC rules, the realistic alternative isn’t some sweeping privacy law like the European Union’s forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation. It’s hoping that publicly shaming companies will curb the worst abuses.

(Disclosure: Verizon is currently expected to purchase Yahoo Finance’s parent company Yahoo.)
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/109718930181343793552 CTIA : New apps help millennials invest, save for retirement +Forbes
New apps help millennials invest, save for retirement +Forbes 
Smartphone App Hopes To Solve The Looming Retirement Crisis
The Stash app, available for both Android and Apple smartphones, lets you build your nest egg one twig at a time. With as little as $5 -- a Venti Mocha Frappuccino at Starbucks -- you can invest in the stock market via exchange traded funds, ETFs.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/102236961973983653868 TheInternetofThings.Report : In 2017 CTIA Super Mobility will become Mobile World Congress Americas.Mobile World Congress Americas...
In 2017 CTIA Super Mobility will become Mobile World Congress Americas.Mobile World Congress Americas will showcase how mobile is creating the connected life, transforming how individuals, businesses and entire industries communicate, interact and innovate
MOBILE WORLD CONGRESS AMERICAS
In 2017 CTIA Super Mobility will become Mobile World Congress Americas.Mobile World Congress Americas will showcase how mobile is creating the connected life, transforming how individuals, businesses and entire industries communicate, interact and innovate.This exciting new event will highlight core mobile technologies, consumer and industrial applications in the Internet of Things, the intersection of mobile with entertainment, content and media...
2 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/105261760579582461710 Multitexter.com : It takes the average person 90 minutes to respond to email, but only 90 seconds to respond to a text...
It takes the average person 90 minutes to respond to email, but only 90 seconds to respond to a text message. (CTIA). Get started on using BULK SMS for your business, notifications, events, promos and other important uses. http://www.multitexter.com/signup 
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9GQ3Y2doiVs/WNlQYxAWB1I/AAAAAAAAGT4/ldpEeLFE0JgNwjJ2H8cY4lggMxzSq0LLwCJoC/w506-h750/394b9a62-c4c4-4885-95b1-4268f3f08833
2 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/107648656124891541927 muktar gacal :

How Wireless Emergency Alerts Help Save Lives - CTIA
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) are free, text-like notifications that tell you when there's a dangerous situation – manmade or natural disasters like a hurricane or earthquake – where you happen to be. This is a voluntary program supported by wireless operators to help make Americans safer.
3 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/113032077828371698691 Gus Pineda : Internet providers are continuing to argue that they should be free to share and sell your web browsing...
Internet providers are continuing to argue that they should be free to share and sell your web browsing history without permission because it isn’t “sensitive information.” The latest group to make that argument is the CTIA, an industry association that…
Wireless providers argue your web history isn’t ‘sensitive’ and they should be able to sell it
Internet providers are continuing to argue that they should be free to share and sell your web browsing history without permission because it isn’t "sensitive information." The latest group to make...
9 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/106675131732906733608 C.J. Land :

Wireless comms lobby group CTIA says web browsing and app usage history isn't sensitive info
By Jon Brodkin / Ars Technica. View the full context on Techmeme.
11 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/109718930181343793552 CTIA : This 10-min #VR film takes viewers on a tour of the Moon and Mars
This 10-min #VR film takes viewers on a tour of the Moon and Mars 
Buzz Aldrin really, really wants humans to go to Mars
Buzz Aldrin was the second man to walk on the moon. His next mission? Mars.
13 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/115981097573804523759 LocationSmart : #ThrowbackThursday to our CEO Mario Proietti speaking on the #Privacy by Design Panel at #CTIA Super...
#ThrowbackThursday to our CEO Mario Proietti speaking on the #Privacy by Design Panel at #CTIA Super Mobility 2016. Watch full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeYrlXhE9zg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fZmivnX_nyU/WMrjFLrioWI/AAAAAAAACrI/QJ3ifELPKnE00qNUWmDSUvSWHxKfulkRwCJoC/w506-h750/65e0902c-e522-46ef-9e73-da4af2ac0333
13 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/101110381638610070423 Vonage Business : The wireless advocacy group @CTIA issued new bulk #mobile messaging guidelines for businesses, how it...
The wireless advocacy group @CTIA issued new bulk #mobile messaging guidelines for businesses, how it affects you: http://ow.ly/HtbH309Q2il
New CTIA Messaging Guidelines - What Businesses Need to Know
The CTIA recently released new mobile messaging guidelines. Here are some insights into what you need to know.
14 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/104645992042097796503 Wireless Repair Roundup 2017 : The Branding Network is excited to be an official event partner! #EXPO #RepairEVENTS WirelessRepairEVENTS.com...
The Branding Network is excited to be an official event partner!
#EXPO #RepairEVENTS
WirelessRepairEVENTS.com
http://ow.ly/cMk2309RJ2A
GSMA Launches 2017 Mobile World Congress Americas, in Partnership with CTIA
The GSMA today announced the first details of the 2017 GSMA Mobile World Congress Americas, in partnership with CTIA, including confirmed exhibitors,
16 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/116469825263275018168 Oakley Cell Tower : Today, America’s world-class wireless networks are enhanced by small cells: pizza box-sized antennas...
Today, America’s world-class wireless networks are enhanced by small cells: pizza box-sized antennas that built to handle more data, apps and services. For America to lead in #5G deployment, the FCC can take these steps to ensure continued innovation and wireless investment http://ctia.it/2mmqle2
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cfOgc_2iKVE/WMBifGDFgQI/AAAAAAAABEs/rweTBdjjzM8aKhutXvS8tCTepIh0GGKdgCJoC/w506-h750/small%2Bcell%2Bsocial.png
21 days ago - Via Reshared Post - View -
https://plus.google.com/109718930181343793552 CTIA : We need new rules for new wireless networks. Here’s how the FCC can keep up with mobile innovation and...
We need new rules for new wireless networks. Here’s how the FCC can keep up with mobile innovation and unlock industry investment for #5G http://ctia.it/2mmqle2 
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cBP8BKLEJGg/WMBiS6s3_YI/AAAAAAAABEs/FC8mTZsBYpQWCXO3wi_oha1sA4kj5gfeQCJoC/w506-h750/small%2Bcell%2Bsocial3.png
21 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/117340188320345124793 Tony Montanna : For United States to lead the world in wireless, we need to reallocate spectrum, streamline infrastructure...
For United States to lead the world in wireless, we need to reallocate spectrum, streamline infrastructure and continue to invest in #5G; read CTIA’s latest blog to learn more 
The Global Race for 5G Leadership
The wireless world is focused on Barcelona this week—and one thing is clear: the global race to lead the next generation of wireless has begun. From Canada and China to Japan and the U.K., countries are recognizing the benef...
24 days ago - Via Reshared Post - View -