How do we protect ourselves when ISPs are selling our data?

CNET and other "free" sites still have costs such as hosting, networks, equipment, Lee Koo's "exorbitant" salary (just kidding, Lee) but there are salaries and its part of CBS and there are expenses and stockholders. In other words, NOTHING out on the web is really free of charge. So, revenue for Cnet and others is by advertising. Unfortunately, CNET is NOT an advertising agency. They rely on Google/Doubleclick, Taboola and the rest to supply a stream of ads and they all make money. The only thing I've ever objected to isn't CNET, but rather, the ads coming from these companies that have "trackers" built in. So, even if you use Ghostery, most of the trackers are not in Cnet but in the ads themselves. Almost ALL policies on any website that has to make money with advertising have to warn you about what information they collect. So, what it comes down to is this: YOU have to decide if you want to participate or do you really want to have to pay for every webpage you visit anywhere?

I had to study Google's privacy policies and terms and help and FAQs for work. We were dealing with protected criminal justice system data. Protected by Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) rules and someone had the idea to use Google Docs to store the data which would violate those rules (as LAPD found out when trying to implement gmail) because the rules say that anyone with access to that kind of data must have a background check. (Also a log of access and need to know) and Google uses international staff that don't have standardized U.S. government background checks. Pure and simple. You can look that stuff up (from 2011 when it started). Also, if you read the privacy and other docs on Googles websites, they don't allow patient medical records on their site without a BAA-PHI (special business agreement) probably due to HIPAA. There's nothing wrong with Google but you have to understand a few things. Whether it be ISPs or even Cnet, the web exists only because of advertising and while Cnet doesn't really care who you are, the ads they load do try to target more ads so they have to cover that in a privacy policy.

My belief is that everyone should recognize that ads and targeted ads make up the bulk of the world wide web and users must recognize that and make up their own mind what they want to do but to watch out if data needs protection. "It's 400 pages..." or "It's all legal-eze" is really a cop out as far as excuses go if you have true privacy concerns you read that stuff. CNET doesn't do anything wrong.

the isp uses the information to keep the subscription costs down. while it is not free, it is still used to help with the infrastructure costs.

one thing though, it is hypocritical to complain about the gathering of personal info from one group and think it is okay with another.

That's why I usually post about people who mention Win 10 as "spy" software but then use other software that also collects the same data arguing, "Well, one is an OS and the other is a search engine."

While I may have some disagreement with parts of your argument (for example, that there are very FEW choices of OS) it probably would have been easier if, as you said, that you provided better definitions. Since Windows 10, for example, is said to have a privacy policy that users find objectionable, there are other choices: Apple MacOS, IOS, Chrome OS, Windows XP, Win 7, Win 8.x, Win Vista (none of which utilize the questionable privacy policy. Under "search engine" you have fewer choices (a partial list): Google search, Yahoo Search, Amazon Search (but now we are getting into non-general purpose search mechanisms), DuckDuckGo, etc. Then we have "trackers" such as DoubleClick.net, and others. Actually, I can use Ghostery to pull those up right now and you are dealing with a large number of those.

So, if you want definitions (which I felt that you should have provided), we can include such terms as Internet, World Wide Web (not the same as Internet), hosting service, ISP, website, online advertising agency (may be the same as "tracker"), advertiser, "Terms of Service", "Privacy Policy", FAQs/help documents, Operating System/OS, Search Engine, user, and we could go on. However, the whole argument (if you really want to call this an argument) is of little interest to most others out there, in my opinion.

The important definitions to the subject on my end would be "Privacy Policy", "Terms of Use", FAQs/Help (in terms of explaining services and actions). I assume that you are interested in OS, search engine, website, and online advertising agency. While you have proved your point concerning the differences among OS, "Search Engine", etc., in the terms of "optional" vs. "required", I am looking at a bigger picture. That is, if most "free" websites contain advertisements (definition of online advertisements too, I guess) and most of those come from online advertising agencies and if most of those agencies are also considered to be trackers, then we can follow the logic that most free web sites, including search engines, contain trackers that really can't be avoided by the typical world wide web user. So, if an OS is tracking you or not is not important because use of the world wide web is a tracking mechanism in itself, and, therefore most privacy policies are the same, then I fail to see the difference in the use of an OS tracker vs. an ad-based tracking mechanism, vs. a search engine tracker, et. al. If you are going to be tracked as to the activity you generate online, then your information will be taken anyway by any of the mechanisms. I agree there is a limited choice of OS systems out there unless you include LINUX distros each separately, and each OS version separately (Win 7 does NOT have the same Privacy Policy as Win 10, for example). Then, technically, all use of systems are OPTIONAL, where we define OS, WWW, websites, advertisements, trackers, or search engines. That is, if we define ToS and privacy Policy and those contain the same or similar information.

So, as I answered you in the other chain of comments that you referenced, my argument is the same in terms of implication. If all of the objects you mentioned are, technically "optional" as in MY opinion (IMHO) but if many contain the same policies and actually collect data, as Google (example) claims they do, than what is the significance of adding another object such as OS or, now ISP to the mix if their privacy posture is all the same?
We can discuss choices that we do have in terms of ISP or in terms of OS (once again, if you include versions and distributions, I believe there is choice) and they all take on a standard privacy posture, what choice does the typical world wide web USER have to avoid any of those privacy issues? My contention is that if you use any of the objects with that posture, you are going to be tracked, period. You only need one.

Now, do you still need for me to post definitions or would you simply like to point out the fallacies in the argument? Or we can take this private to avoid confusing others. These are all just opinions but if I stated incorrect facts, I'd appreciate knowing that.

@Hforman, You left out Linux, Unix and other Unix-based OSes. ...just sayin'....

I accept as fact that search engines and ISPs have to collect data about our use of the internet to make some money, altho quite grudgingly re. ISPs. But the root issue was, is and will be transparent disclosure of what information they collect and what they do with it. Nobody has any idea exactly what is collected, 'cause they don't tell you.

"ANYTHING" that has or is Google affiliated collects more data than Win 10!
Yet people use it, love it, swear by it and CONDEMN Win 10 for doing the same exact thing!
Must be an awful lot of mushroom loving ding dongs out there!!

"The ISP uses the information to keep the subscription costs down"???? OMG, the subscription costs from my ISP, Charter/Spectrum, keep going up and up and up. They are extracting major money for their service, and harvesting my internet access data to resell adds to their bottom line. They also nickel-dime with bits and pieces of add-ons you do not want. They have a broadband monopoly in my town. Like every monopolist, they behave like Eric Cartman of South Park ("I'll do what I want.), with no repercussions.

This is yet another example of American exceptionalism gone bad, very bad. Broadband costs in the United States are generally 2x higher than in civilized western countries, Japan, and South Korea. To put it another way, with or without ISPs harvesting data, the business model for broadband is anti-consumer and anti-business, unless your business is broadband. Since January 20, 2017, I would say that this business model is unlike to change until perhaps after Juanuary 20, 2021.

I hear you loud and clear. I have comcast with nothing more than the standard tv package and blaster package from comcast. I even use their modem and they rent it to me. I've been a customer forever, since it's either att or comcast. Not alot of options there. It used to be time warner. You'd think they would give me the modem as a "loyal" customer, but no way. I'm always looking for deals to roll back my monthly bill. It doesn't have to be this way. It's just plain ole greed aka capitalism. They're going to use the revenue from ads and selling of your browsing habits to enhance their profit. I use ad blocker software, but really the ads still get through and it appears there's really nothing more than I can do about it. But I despise banner ads! What can we do? Money's one thing, but it seems they never use it to upgrade their system. Just pocket it. Big rip off!!

I've had TWC/RoadRunner ever since it first hit my metropolitan area when they bought out American Cablevision. I was an AC subscriber at the time. I absolutely HATE that Charter/Spectrum has bought TWC out. My bill has jumped $40 month in the last 6 months and I still have the exact same thing as I had with TWC.

In addition to which, Spectrum's "customer service" STINKS!!!...WORSE than even TWC did. At least TWC was getting better there towards the end. Spectrum took it back to the stone age again with the zeros they hire to run their phones.

I wonder just how long the predatory and monopolistic practice of gobbling up your competition is going to last. Ma Bell was broken up for very good reason. Laws were put into place that stopped this from happening again. Those laws should have stayed as they were! Since they've been eroded, Ma Bell has steadily gathered up her flocks and everyone else has had a free-for-all with these buy-outs. Soon there will only be one ISP and any other type of business if it all keeps up.

Really???

I can remember a time starting [in the mid 1990s] when I didn't have to deal with all this forced advertising, tracking and spying on the internet. IF I wanted to find a product I could try to find it on line. I wasn't forced against my will to be bombarded by ads that interrupt my browsing and web use in general, that I have no use for and/or interest in.

A history lesson for you: http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/

A further history lesson for you: Search engines started out being just a simple list of web pages. Here's a chronological list of search engines: http://www.wordstream.com/articles/internet-search-engines-history

I think the web was a MUCH better place to be back before all this forced advertising, tracking and spying started. The way it is today, one would almost be better of not having to use it at all. Sometimes the "old fashioned way" is the very best way.

But the things you mentioned specifically fall into "other" areas of the web. Such as finding out information on a product (some companies' marketing budget) or tech support (some companies' tech support budget). But you might want to ask yourself, "Self, where would the web be without advertising?" Look at my favorite web service, Google. Google has equipment (servers, network equipment, etc.) around the world. They have employees (most without background checks) around the world. They have facilities and stock holders. Would that have been possible without advertising revenues? I doubt it. And now we have trackers running through the ads. Even services like "LiveFyre" which does comments is actually a tracker. Service? Yes but you pay with your privacy.
I've been in IT long before the earliest form of Internet/DARPANet out there, so I've seen all of this. So, what am I saying? I'm saying that I agree with you. But when all we had was a Netscape browser, or even before when there were no ISPs and it cost a fortune to access the Internet with UNIX, the web was not there or was very tiny and would NOT have become what it is today without Advertising. Web Crawler and other search engines were good but limited.
Let me ask you this: Would there be a Cnet or ZDNet or even a full Google like today without ads? I personally don't think so. I think they could have done away with "tracking". Just show us ads and we'll click if we were interested (or not). Unfortunately, we can't have that anymore. What would we have without tracking? A smaller web? I was on the Internet before the web. No browser. Only text. No photos or graphics. Just learning to install TCP/IP on the mainframe's front end.
So would all these wonderful things exist if someone banned ads that track? A very good question. Even though I agree with you. I hate this privacy wormhole. Perpetuated by those who really don't think: like the managers and directors of Anthem ("security is inconvenient"?) I put a stop to a project that was going to put criminal information data on Google Docs because one of our customers for the system had already sued Google because they weren't CJIS Rules compliant (look up LAPD AND GOOGLE).

How did the web exist and survive BEFORE all this advertising frenzy started??? It would STILL exist. Although it would probably still be a lot simpler than it is today with all the advertising. Personally, I don't like being bombarded with ads. They do absolutely NOTHING to sway my views and make me buy any particular product. On the contrary. What I do is if I decide I want something then I set out to find it. True, the web makes that a lot easier and a lot cheaper, too. But, once I do decide on which particular product I would like to purchase I then find a brick and mortar store to go into and pay cash for it. I do NOT buy on line. Unless forced to, I never will. Therefore, ads, to me are a waste of my bandwidth and time.

The "web" came out in the mid 1990's if my memory isn't failing and the Internet was born in 1969, 1970 or 1974 depending on how you define the Internet. You are correct though. I would say that very FEW people had a desktop computer at home. Most people would ask, "What would I use it for?" as there weren't many real applications out there for the home user. So, in the early stages of the WEB, everything was smaller. What came out were actually sites with advertising. Don't think ads. Think of a company "advertising" their hardware or software products in depth. Also, technical support. It was a time when Bill Gates said that the Internet was only a passing fad. Win 95 came out in... 1995. So, you had Windows 3.0 or 3.1 before that. I attribute the rapid rise of the Internet to... the ISP. In the early days, there were few ISPs and you had to pay big bucks to connect. Dial-up (via modem) was the normal way for access for many. Remember that AOL and CompuServe were big back then.
You mentioned buying things. Might want to check when places to buy things were created. Amazon? Sorry, I forgot. BBSes (and AOL/CompuServe) were the only social networking (again, dial-up).
So, which came first? The desktop computer or the web? The Web needed a GUI? If so, MS-DOS was not ideal. But really, I didn't buy my first computer until around 1990 before the WWW and used a modem to connect to work. I guess I should look up desktop sales figures by year but I'd bet you didn't see a lot of any real web use early on.
The point about "ads" is that for a company to have a website, they had to spend big bucks way back then in the early days so the cost would come out of the advertising budget of the company or the support budget. If you're talking buying stuff, that came later. The early web had a lot of free stuff because UNIX guru's and colleges had a lot of people doing cool things back then. But, they didn't have servers scattered all over the world either. Most of the Internet was still military/government/education..

Thanks for the info. Are password keepers really secure? What about products like Mint that keep financial data but say they are secure?

And are you saying that since websites already capture enough of our data, the change of letting ISPs doing it won't make much of a difference? Should we bother to lobby for net privacy?

Anything that has anything at all to do with the internet is not secure. Just look at all the breeches that have happened to large corporations. Just because they are so frequent now that they barely make the news, doesn't mean they don't happen at all. To keep your private info private you just have to NOT put it ANYWHERE that is connected to the web. period. And that includes your passwords and financial info.

If you are talking about Linux Mint, you would be interested in this: https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=210127

I have used lastpass for years. as with any password keepers, over the years there have been some issues but IMO, they were not bad enough to keep me from using it. the last issue they had would have required you to do something stupid in order to expose your info.

before I used it, I was generally using for or five passwords for all of my sites in order to remember them. Now it is easier to have a different password for every site and let it auto login. In addition I use two factor authentication to open lastpass for a little extra security.

anyway, isps/cable companies have been collecting your info for years, long before websites were doing it. they are collecting more info about you than the websites are because it is easier for them to collect it through the modem and digital cable boxes. as far as not making much of a difference and why should we bother? who knows, I doubt there is really anything that can be done

it is really mind boggling how the info is shared. even when they say the info collected is anonymously but when combined with another database, it is no longer anonymous. I believe soon online history, not just social media posts will be used against individuals when they are job hunting , running for office or whatever because there is no limit as what the info can be use for. That is what the lobbying for better laws should be used for.

I uninstalled Ghostery a while back. Why? https://lifehacker.com/ad-blocking-extension-ghostery-actually-sells-data-to-a-514417864 . And that leaves questions, otherwise, as well. THINK about it....

For Firefox there is Lightbeam, Privacy Badger and HTTPS Everywhere. I have all three and they seem to do a great job of nixing the trackers. Here's a list of more that one can try: https://www.hubalternative.com/best-ghostery-alternatives

I'll look into that. I've been using Ghostery mostly to see the numbers of trackers. It's really bad out there.

....THAT is precisely why I used the layered approach to mitigate it!

Yes, we accept the tradeoff with Google, in order to receive a quality search facility without payment. But ISPs aren't free. They charge us, at rates that are fairly high in the US (my rate in Florida is more than twice what I pay in the UK).

So the lunch isn't free, and now the house is giving the ISPs a tip on top.

The part that bothers me is that an ISP has a lot more information about you than typical web trackers. They can match your history up with your home address, your telephone numbers, your credit information (since they bill you regularly). I think your concerns are why some ISPs have already said that they have no plans to collect and sell your information. Now, it would be interesting if Google became an ISP and we know that Google has always tracked you and even admitted reading (or electronically scanning) your GMAIL. And then there is Twitter with Private Tweets going to federal authorities like the "We will destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe's grave" tweet in England.

....going on at ANY time so scary. The fact that a law was passed about it and then another law doing the opposite has garnered so much attention. Before that, people never even thought about such a thing. This has gotten them to think about it and wonder what they can do to protect themselves from it ever happening in the future REGARDLESS of what laws exist or don't exist. I think it's a GOOD thing!

“I guess the formal answer is "Write to your Congressman" but given life expectancy is only about 80 years, that might not be too successful!” Please forgive me for trolling but I would like to elaborate on your statement.

It really is a mess. S.J. Res. 34 of the 115th congress should have never come to a vote in the manner it did. In the Senate it was a straight Republican Party line vote of yea against a straight Democrats Party line vote of nay with 2 Republicans not voting. Republicans got it passed. In the house it was different. 15 Republicans voted nay, 9 representatives not voting, but in the end so many Republicans Party line voted yea against a straight Democrat Party line vote of nay the Republicans got it. Why did it go down this way? Why would any constituents want their privacy sold which leads to did the Republicans just not listen to their constituents or was this a deal made with the Trump Administration? What does it mean to future voters?

Here it is, the ads for candidates can be more focused and that means the voting pool can be manipulated in ways beyond anything we have ever experienced. Now a foreign power can create a shell company and just buy the info, no more need to guess at whom to hack. The Republican Party just handed over the keys to our democracy. This mess is a GIANT SECURITY RISK. If there still is a NSA they should be all over this. Too many people asleep at the switch have made it almost impossible for this to be fixed. So I agree ‘given life expectancy is only about 80 years, that it might not be too successful’ to write to Congress to get it fixed.