GOP Senators' New Bill Would Let ISPs Sell Your Web Browsing Data (arstechnica.com) 300
Yesterday, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and 23 Republican co-sponsors introduced a resolution that would overturn new privacy rules for internet service providers. "If the Federal Communications Commission rules are eliminated, ISPs would not have to get consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing web browsing data and other privacy information with advertisers and other third parties," reports Ars Technica. "The measure would use lawmakers' power under the Congressional Review Act to ensure that the FCC rulemaking 'shall have no force or effect.' The resolution would also prevent the FCC from issuing similar regulations in the future." From the report: Flake's announcement said he's trying to "protect consumers from overreaching Internet regulation." Flake also said that the resolution "empowers consumers to make informed choices on if and how their data can be shared," but he did not explain how it will achieve that. The privacy order had several major components. The requirement to get the opt-in consent of consumers before sharing information covered geo-location data, financial and health information, children's information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications. This requirement is supposed to take effect on December 4, 2017. The rulemaking had a data security component that required ISPs to take "reasonable" steps to protect customers' information from theft and data breaches. This was supposed to take effect on March 2, but the FCC under newly appointed Chairman Ajit Pai halted the rule's implementation. Another set of requirements related to data breach notifications is scheduled to take effect on June 2. Flake's resolution would prevent all of those requirements from being implemented. He said that this "is the first step toward restoring the [Federal Trade Commission's] light-touch, consumer-friendly approach." Giving the FTC authority over Internet service providers would require further FCC or Congressional action because the FTC is not allowed to regulate common carriers, a designation currently applied to ISPs.
it's all over, anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it's all over, anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between a few parties having access to it through means whose legality is under a cloud and anyone with enough money being able to purchase it whenever they want.
Compare this to pre-Internet days. It's as if anyone could buy your phone records from the phone company, or could buy the senders and recipients of all of your mail, and possibly even buy the information describing the kind of mail.
This is taking a situation that was already wrong to start with and making it so much more wrong that it's hard to put into words.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between a few parties having access to it through means whose legality is under a cloud and anyone with enough money being able to purchase it whenever they want.
Compare this to pre-Internet days. It's as if anyone could buy your phone records from the phone company, or could buy the senders and recipients of all of your mail, and possibly even buy the information describing the kind of mail.
This is taking a situation that was already wrong to start with and making it so much more wrong that it's hard to put into words.
Well put. Puntended.
Flake also said that the resolution "empowers consumers to make informed choices on if and how their data can be shared," but he did not explain how it will achieve that.
The protection of your average citizen's privacy is the tech equivalent of mandatory seat belts, child seats, and motorcycle helmets. Sometimes, we have to protect the public from themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Flake also said that the resolution "empowers consumers to make informed choices on if and how their data can be shared," but he did not explain how it will achieve that.
ISPs will raise prices by $10/month, and then offer customers a $10/month discount if they allow their personal data to be shared with "selected, trusted partners" (i.e. anyone with a chequebook).
Re: (Score:3)
It's not so much a matter of "got in bed with the swamp". To drain the swamp, you have to go there. Once you're there, you get the mosquitoes and crocodiles and tsetse flies and yellow fever and all the rest of it. If you still want to drain the swamp, you have to work under those conditions.
Unfortunately, Washington D.C. is the vilest political and commercial swamp on the planet. It's extremely doubtful if it can be drained, or even slightly ameliorated. One of Jefferson's less-quoted predictions was, "Whe
Re: (Score:2)
And because user DNS is insecure, if you use a 3rd party DNS, they can MITM that and redirect you, even if you use someone else's DNS. MITM is legal, so long as you "allowed" it in the TOS you never read.
Re: it's all over, anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Set up your own DNS server [wired.com] to gain direct access to the root servers and use DNSSEC [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop relying on your ISP for DNS. Use open DNS' servers or even Google's at 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 and the DNS searching thing is no more.
In this case, you are replacing Google tracking your DNS lookups (and possibly your ISP if they care to look at the traffic passing) with what your ISP was doing with your mistaken typos to non-existent domains.
One may be better than the other, but don't be thinking you are avoiding tracking doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Put it this way, if previous generations minded their mail getting read by censors and fought hard to put the end to it, why are we now allowing this but "on computer" to come back?!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The internet is a public place. Do not do anything on the internet that you wouldn't do in your front yard. To expect more privacy than that is to completely, utterly fail to understand the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet is a public place. Do not do anything on the internet that you wouldn't do in your front yard. To expect more privacy than that is to completely, utterly fail to understand the internet.
That's the stupidest false equivalence I've heard all day. Truly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ijiot, oh noes, don do no banking, don do no insurance, don do no credit card shoppin, don talk to doctor, just how fukin stupid are u (and you deserved it for that comment). We have a right to privacy on the internet and we have the right to force government to regulate and enforce that privacy with surprise data audit and custodial sentences. Not only should that dick be thrown out of government but a taring and feathering would be appropriate. We the are not the fuck for sale and no lying shit fuck polit
Re: (Score:3)
no, YOU fail to understand 'the internet'.
there is sll, ssh, other secure transports. you CAN have a secure channel and its not hard. I vpn into work when I need to and that's secure, too.
you have given up. that's sad. but stop speaking for the rest of us. many of us refuse to give up and this is a fight worth fighting.
if you are too wussified to fight, that's on you, brother. but the rest of us still have fight in us and we know this is a solvable problem.
all the issues are political. we have had ne
Re: (Score:3)
If someone was following me around 24/7 whenever I'm in public, recording where I visit and selling the info, I'd get a restraining order against them. Public means others can see what you are doing. It doesn't mean they have a reasonable expectation to be able to record you 24/7.
There is a difference between being followed by a PI (something you'll never be able to prevent) and having everyone tracked by some company (something much easier to prevent). Just because something happens to be legal doesn't mea
Re: (Score:2)
Don't do anything on the internet you wouldn't do on the stage at the NFL halftime show ?
Though, by that analogy, there are a LOT of Janet Jacksons out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the text of this particular FCC regulation put into effect by un-elected officials. I wonder if these regs were struck down by Congress because of the desire to do away with privacy or because of other more specific concerns with what is in this 200+ page document.
Keep the those knees jerking though!!
Re: (Score:3)
The agency is appointed by congress - that is congress doing their job. Nowhere, NOWHERE in the US constitution does it prohibit the government from establishing agencies and allowing specialised experts to craft rules on their behalf. You know why it doesn't prohibit that? Because such a prohibition would be flagrantly idiotic. The government would be making decisions on highly specialized knowledge areas - and having it all made by people who have no understanding of the topic they are making decisions ov
Senator's Browsing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case the exemption will probably be based on "As members of government we deal with classified matters, often involving national security, and as such our browsing habits are state secrets"
Nobody is allowed to complain about something done for national security remember. You can't possibly question it unless you're an evil terrorist traitor (or, to an older politician, an evil commie traitor).
Required inversion (Score:5, Insightful)
Tells us the results will certainly be consumer-hostile.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And if it includes the words 'innovation' or 'freedom' in the title, it's an unreservedly awful and corporatocratic bill
Re:Required inversion (Score:4, Informative)
Remember, regardless of party affiliation, when you read a politicians description of a bill, you must invert most of the descriptive language he uses.
You are gonna love H.R.1275 - World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017. [congress.gov]
I shit you not, that is the actual name of the bill.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ah, shit.
Its real. But its not THE plan. Its somebody's side plan.
http://www.snopes.com/is-the-gops-obamacare-replacement-titled-worlds-greatest-healthcare-plan-of-2017/
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GOP's healthcare plan basically consists of "be rich or be dead".
Simple explaination (Score:5, Interesting)
Flake's announcement said he's trying to "protect consumers from overreaching Internet regulation." Flake also said that the resolution "empowers consumers to make informed choices on if and how their data can be shared," but he did not explain how it will achieve that.
It won't. I love how our representatives think reducing regulations on companies increases our protection and/or freedoms.
I'll be waiting for an ISP will sell the Senator's browsing information and/or his inadequately protected personal to get stolen so he can understand how his "protections from regulations" worked out... I imagine it will show he's into Furry Porn.
Is that the best you can come up with? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not even speculation - and it's definitely a bigger issue on the republican side of the aisle. Bush's speaker of the house got convicted of raping kids remember - then the story got REALLY crazy.
See he had bribed the kids to stay silent, quite big bribes too. The kid who reported him and got his ass convicted had gotten a 2 million dollar bribe.
We know... because the good speaker is now suing him demanding his bribe money back because the kid reported the rape and so didn't keep his end of the bribe
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's quite right. The latter is an attack on the entire system of government!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
If you SWAT a politician is that
1) Civil Disobedience ?
2) High Treason ?
3) Using your tax dollars for maximum effect ?
4) All of the above ?
I have no idea anymore... but I'll tell you this, do that and the law will very soon treat SWAT-ing as the extremely serious crime it actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see anyone suggest SWATing him. Just make sure people know his cell phone numbers, his personal email addresses, and which hotels and/or airport restrooms he meets his non-spousal sex partners at.
Re: (Score:2)
But if we have all that... do you REALLY think nobody would SWAT him ?
Re: (Score:2)
The incumbency rate in congress is over 95% - this is a big part of the problem. It costs a hundred, maybe two-hundred grand to get a congressman elected, but once he is elected - he is likely to stay elected for 18 to 20 years.
That makes buying a congressman one of the greatest investments a corporation can make. And it means anybody who is NOT a large corporations is basically fucked because you can't afford to buy your own congressman.
The only cure is to remove the legal "for sale" signs on the congressi
Time for a VPN (Score:3)
All an ISP can then see is that a consumer is enjoying their privacy again.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the FCC is sufficiently emasculated that the ISPs can do some deep packet inspection and slow your encrypted tunnel down to 1 byte per hour, you know, for "QOS",
Re: (Score:2)
So a good fast VPN can work out what an ISP is using and alter its network use.
Think of how the average VPN gets around all of the advanced networking efforts in Communist China.
Question... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we have FPTP, privately funded elections, and no congressional term limits. The combination of these three things mean that even though the approval rating of Congress is at an all time low, the incumbency rate is at an all time high.
Basically, they have rigged the game so that it is far easier to win an election once you are already in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do Americans keep voting for these corrupt bastards?
Because there's nobody else.
The only ones that can make headway in politics are corrupt bastards. It's inherent in the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Because politicians are very good at telling people what they want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some unscrupulously honest people on the hill. Bernie Sanders exists. So does Elizabeth Warren.
Granted they are hugely outnumbered - but you may notice they are also decidedly on the left. The last person on the right who had a reputation for such honesty was Ron Paul (I was never a fan of his policies, I consider them insane, but I'll grant that he probably deserved his reputation for honesty) - his own son is so much of a classic beltway insider that it's a joke.
Those few who make it, make it in
Re: (Score:2)
Write him a note then! (Score:4, Informative)
Contact Senator Flake: https://www.flake.senate.gov/p... [senate.gov]
You don't have to be from AZ - put in whatever information you like. Express your discomfort that he's submitted a bill removing consumer protections that let ISPs violate our privacy and sell our medical, health, and financial information to anyone they want without our permission.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Be sure to attach a $50,000 campaign donation, a bag of blow and, this is the really tricky part, three hookers. Hope that web form is a Web 2.0 form!
Or better yet donate to those running against him (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly that's often how things work, money talks. I like the system Arizona used to have where if one candidate took in private campaign contributions the state would match contributions to the other candidate if they publicly financed their campaign. Sadly this was struck down by the conservative branch of the supreme court who like to think that money == speech.
Re: (Score:2)
R's see dollar signs.
unless your letter carries a suitcase of bills, of the green kind, no R will ever give you the time of day.
they have their daddies. and guess what; its not you!
Contracts are not all powerful. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, but isn't it possible to waive certain rights through a contract?
Serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yesterday, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and 23 Republican co-sponsors introduced a resolution that would overturn new privacy rules for internet service providers."
Seriously question: why are Republican lawmakers so willing to sell out their own constituents? And why do rank and file republican voters go along with it?
They're against anything and everything that would seem to be good for the people of their states and districts- healthcare, privacy protection, consumer protection, environmental protection, financial regulation on banks and mortgage companies, etc etc etc.
I mean, what the fuck?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think about it the root cause is mostly religion. Most recent Republicans have exploited religious leanings and gotten votes from rural America. They are just the best politicians money can buy right now. Dems are no better but generally their vote bank is a little more educated and conscious compared to the right.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think about it the root cause is mostly religion. Most recent Republicans have exploited religious leanings and gotten votes from rural America. They are just the best politicians money can buy right now. Dems are no better but generally their vote bank is a little more educated and conscious compared to the right.
I agree that when it comes to claiming the "religious high ground" that the Republicans are always first to plant the flag. Their faux moral outrage has been honed to an art form over the last few decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that what you just claimed to support is mathematically impossible to ever be true.
A bunch of people doing small scale things at cross purposes cannot EVER come CLOSE to solving the actual problems under the "common good".
And pray tell how those individuals are going to convince big corporations to not dump toxins in your drinking water if that's cheaper than the alternative ? That's the common good too. Pray tell me, how you - acting personally - are going to be able to reliable get food that won't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This dude Flake represents a massive gerrymandered district
This is a perfect example of what I was referring to...the federal court in Richmond found that the primary purpose of North Carolina's "voter ID" laws wasn't to stop voter fraud, but rather to disenfranchise minority voters. The judges found that the provisions "target African Americans with almost surgical precision."
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Easy answer (Score:2)
2. They're largely single issue voters. Either they're the ones doing the buying from #1 and just want low taxes, low wages (for their employees) and no regulations or they're "values voters" who vote on religion, abortion or gun control.
The left is a much, much loser coalition so they tend to lose. Every few years everything goes to shit and the left gets in charge, fixes a few things, and as soon as things get a little better the right take over with their superior or
Re: (Score:2)
Their constituents spend all their time watching "reality" TV.
Healthcare, privacy protection, consumer protection, environmental protection, financial regulation, etc are on a different channel.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, what the fuck?
you understand all you need.
they are evil (almost biblical def of that word). they are liars, cheats, thieves and violate all of 'jesus' ideas' even though they like to think of themselves as the party of jesus.
jesus would have been 100% the opposite. big corps would be seen as evil by him, individuals are golden and he would ensure that everyone gets healthcare, no one has their life ruined SIMPLY due to money issues, etc etc. pretty much the exact opposite of the R mentality, whic
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason they're convinced net neutrality is bad because it denies their corporate donors of their god given dollars. It's the same reason they're against having a consumer financial protection bureau or against banking regulations or environmental regulations or anything else that interferes with their corporate overlords.
What we need is an amendment that clears the money out of politics. As far as I'm concerned, campaign contributions and PACs are legalized bribes and I say this as someone who
Serious answer (Score:2)
Naturally the clever reader will immediately see the flaws in that. There are captured market which are not free (like isp) therefore it is illusory to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
Based on everything I've seen, I'd have to disagree. Neither Democrats or Republicans walk on water, but Republicans seem intent on rolling back a lot of stuff that favors the people as opposed to corporations. For example, the bill mentioned in this very article.
Liberal bias in the media (Score:3)
The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
Based on everything I've seen, I'd have to disagree. Neither Democrats or Republicans walk on water, but Republicans seem intent on rolling back a lot of stuff that favors the people as opposed to corporations. For example, the bill mentioned in this very article.
You're probably swayed by mainstream media bias. They're quick to point out bad conservative actions, and tend to sweep liberal problems under the rug.
For example, Trump withdrew the US from TPP. Slashdot has had several articles about the TPP, everyone was moaning about how bad it was, it was created and promoted by Obama's administration...
For another example, Obama ord
Re: (Score:2)
Except that all those things WERE reported in the mainstream media, extensively, and for example Obama's drone program (which you conveniently regret to mention was started by Bush) counts as one of the number one things liberals disagree with him on and chided him for. This includes liberal pundits as much as liberal voters.
If not for the pundits- how do you think the liberal voters KNEW about it ?
Our accepting that was compromise - you can't get a perfect president. One of the best presidents the US ever
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So would you rather have "it's harder to start a new small bank" or "everybody I know ALSO had their houses reposessed because the banks took stupid betts, and committed flagrant fraud" ?
Because guess what - THAT Is what happened when there was NOT a dodd-frank.
Meantime the reps are trying extremely hard to get rid of ANYTHING that may reduce fraud and corruption in the wankster industry - they are currently trying to come up with a way to destroy the independence of the CFPB. Because protecting consumers f
Re:Serious answer (Score:4, Informative)
> The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
So, do tell, where did the regulations that this bill prevents taking effect come from?
Bipartisan support (Score:2)
> The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
So, do tell, where did the regulations that this bill prevents taking effect come from?
Bipartisan support, of course.
Did you think all the bad stuff from the last 8 years came from one-sided control of government?
Or the 8 years prior to that?
Different word (Score:2)
Nope, you lost all credibility when you started shilling for Trump.
I think the word you're looking for is "advocating".
I'm under the impression that a shill is paid by the house. I advocate for free.
Life isn't so easy when you don't find people willing to lie about your naked shame.
Um... OK. I'll have to take your word on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously question: why are Republican lawmakers so willing to sell out their own constituents? And why do rank and file republican voters go along with it?
They are paid (large contributions from 501c3's) if they do it, and they lose both the contributions and their job if they don't.
Yes, I understand that...but why do rank and file republican voters go along with it? Are they ignorant of what's going on or do they simply not care?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the rank and file voter doesn't care at all about internet regulation.
What they care about is the fear that if they don't vote republican, a transgender pervert is going to rape their daughter in the restroom, and a gun-toting illegal will shoot their son in a gang war,
Do not underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.
Re: (Score:2)
a populist hijacked their party and is taking action that favors the people instead of themselves
I couldn't agree more. President Trump never does anything for his own benefit. He is so unbelievably selfless it's really awe inspiring. Everyday I ask myself, what would Donald do? I can't wait until he finally reveals his true identity as the second coming of Christ, because clearly only the Son of God is capable of such generosity. We mere mortals can only worship him and try our best to follow his example, full of sin as we are.
Re: (Score:2)
>they are vitriolically angry that a populist hijacked their party and is taking action that favors the people instead of themselves.
Why do you believe that this is the case? Why do you believe that an elite like Trump, was sincere when he claimed to represent the people ? What has he done, so far, that you deem to 'favour' the people ? How do you feel he represented the people when he filled his cabinet with the least representative group in decades, and made it the wealthiest cabinet in history ? Do yo
Re: (Score:2)
They are at least partly - flat out willing to lie to their constituents faces. And I don't just mean Trump lying about silly things like crowd sizes. At CPAC last week a panel was held that consisted of a bunch politicians telling the crowds that there is zero risk of harm to human health from air pollution.
Literally - they denied that ANY air pollution has EVER made ANYBODY sick. Remember - this is the party that spent four decades opposing a ban on leaded gasoline, 3 of those after there was absolutely c
Whats a VPN? (Score:2)
This guy spends all day every day just visiting this one IP. Weird!
I blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, the Democratic party bench was so slim, and there were so few candidates interested in running this time, that Sanders was the only serious candidate to pick up the torch. I think someone like Elizabeth Warren could have made a lot more headway against Clinton, for instance, but she declined.
What I wish is that Clinton had gotten herself better general election advisors, that would have told her to do more to actively shore up the base, run ads that tell people about her programs, and not rely on the fact that her opponent was a complete troglodyte. Instead they seemed to think she could coast to victory solely on that, and could make a play for moderate Republicans (as if any still exist that haven't drunk the koolaid) and she wound up badly, badly mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
This never would have happened if Bernie had been allowed to win the nomination.
You bring up a good point and inadvertently another. Bernie never would have been totally excluded from eligibility if we had ranked voting [wikipedia.org] because a Bernie supporter could still vote for Bernie and have the fallback vote. How many "Never Hillary" people would have voted for Bernie, Trump and some other people? Options are good and we need to fix our voting system that is limiting our options.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think a Jewish socialist liberal would've won the Presidency against Trump, you're as stupid as Bernie supporters who voted for Trump out of spite. Obama and Hillary are centrist/centre-right by European standards and still got massacred for being "socialist communist atheist Marxist liberals".
Bernie on the other hand is a traditional centre-left European politician, and would've been annihilated by the GOP and hostile news media for his openly "socialist" (aka social democratic) views. Sanders faced
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be so sure. Bernie would have suffered seriously from corporate opposition crippling his fundraising efforts, and the attack ads for an admitted socialist practically write themselves.
Remember that Hillary nearly won - she actually did win the popular vote. Trump only won because the somewhat strange rules of the electoral collage gave him an advantage.
Some people are in for a surprise (Score:4, Informative)
We all know porn is big business in this country, and oddly, those who whine the loudest about porn's influence on society are the largest consumers of porn.
As far back as 2009, studies showed people in the Midwest and deep South [newscientist.com], heavy bible-belt country, had larger amounts of porn consumption than other parts of the country. A more recent survey showed the same thing but also, in those places where same-sex marriage was outlawed, gay porn consumption was higher than other places [wtvr.com], including where same-sex marriage is legal.
This bill will make it very interesting for those folks to explain why they're getting ads for sexual enhancers, condoms, lube and toys.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand Utah is one of the biggest consumers of porn. [theguardian.com] while at the same time rejecting teaching sex education in school.
Kill it at the root (Score:4, Interesting)
Make aggressive adblockers the default option in browsers, that reduces the value of the information significantly.
Fuck the GOP (Score:2)
Dems aren't any better on the $$$ front, but at least they think about not being evil.
Re: Fuck the GOP (Score:2)
This guy Flake (Score:2)
Replace Internet Data with Telephone Calls.. (Score:2)
It should really be explained to legislators that internet data and telephone calls are virtually the same thing now. If your ISP can sell all of your data, so can whoever you are using for your telephone calls.
Maybe if it were explained in those terms, there would be more support for network neutrality.
Big whoop. (Score:2)
Okay so this rule means they're going to have to get your consent. Will they put it on page 55 of the end-user license agreement you aren't reading and just agreeing to anyway when you sign up?
This solves nothing. The problem is a lack of competition.
I think it's a good idea (Score:2)
If you think that your browsing data is private right now, you're just kidding yourself; privacy regulations are meaningless.
The way to make communications private is through technology, not regulations.
Re: heh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your still seeing ads in 2017, try firefox with a few add ons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The current GOP is falling all over themselves trying to give them whatever they want.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It used to be that the Democrats wanted to solve everything by having the government regulate the everloving sh*t out of it, while the Republicans wanted to encourage/harness open-market capitalist forces to solve everything. It was a pick your poison sort of deal, but, most of the time the two were forced to cooperate and compromise between those two ideas to some degree, and the solution was often at least moderately less bad. Corporations would often be given s
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. I thought it was tagged Republicans because TFA is about a bill sponsored by Republicans.
Must just be a coincidence I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up!