@calfoxwc said:

Do understand this correctly? That google, etc etc would have the information, and all the other data

collectors weren't allowed to collect it, too?

1. Google and other similar sites only have the information you give them(searches, etc.)

2. ISP can collect all your data

3. When you go to Google\bing\yahoo searches you are trading goods for a service

4. ISP's you are paying them for internet connection, when they sell your data they won't give you anything more in exchange

5. If I want to hide my online foot print from sites its not very hard, hiding online footprints from ISPs require a VPN.

@westside-steve said:

Never really thought about it. Besides that I don't care a whole lot. What I do care about his phone solicitors but no amount of Do Not Call lists seemed to have an impact on them so...

WSS

PS a Microsoft ad popped up in the CNN article.

WSS

Well that would be a good example, by enabling the different browser settings you could place yourself on a Do Not Advertise or Do Not Collect my data list. But the new ruling would remove that all together, allowing ISPs to gather and sell your data without consent or without a returned value to you.

@westside-steve said:

Gee I guess you're right Woody. I was just on and email and I had a pop up from Amazon showing me a picture of the Surface Pro I was looking at recently. I agree with you.

Just like Storm Troopers kicking down the door. Exactly. Thanks for the heads up.

WSS

You realize you can block that if you wanted to, usually a few clicks to enable? But if your ISP is able to sell your information, outside of using a VPN, you can't do anything about it.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html

You know for a political party that wants people to have guns to protect themselves, they just opened a door that will allow more of your personal data to be given to the highest bidder.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

What is how to sound like the Republican party for the last 8 years?

Its warning about possible phishing attacks, so if you gave them any "info" to sign up for something it may be compromised.

Went to click on the link above and got this from Norton:

Norton Rating

Norton Safe Web has analyzed constitution.com for safety and security problems. Below is a sample of the threats that were found.

The Norton rating is a result of Symantec's automated analysis system. Learn more.
The opinions of our users are reflected separately in the community rating on the right

I consider myself a kid at heart, even though I am 37 and have not lived at my parents since I was 19(minus a month when I was moving).

Ivanka Trump will run for president in either 2020(if her dad does not run for a 2nd term due to health or something else) or 2024. Her dad has been getting her involved in a lot of diplomatic situations and now setting up an office in the West Wing, almost like he is grooming her to take over.

So per the FBI wiretap of Trump tower is a dubious claim, but Russian Collusion is possible - http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/trump-russia-gorsuch-latest/index.html

Also NSA director- "We didn't ask the UK to spy on Trump"

@stinkhole said:

Wrong. Educate yourself liberal.... lame duck presidents don't get their choice of a Supreme Court Judge.

You better believe the opposite would have occurred with a Republican prez.

This is not exclusive to a party,

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/

So....the longest period between getting nominated and having a confirmation hearing before Garland was 100 days set in 1916 for Louis Brandies. Garland went 300+ days without a hearing. Even your article says it, there is a precedent for rejecting, not a precedent for just not having a hearing in a reasonable amount of time.

I don't think the dems have much choice, but that being said, they should pull out any thing to delay it they can. What the republicans did last year, and it was a year ago, to prevent an up or down vote on Garland was horrible representation of what our political system has become. So if they drag it out an extra week or so that would be ok with me.

@westside-steve said:

Well let's see who did it benefit? Oh yes the Democrats. Had who took more money from the Russians than the Hillary Clinton team? Nobody. So I would say there's as much or more chance at the DNC colluded in this affair. Right?

WSS

How did it benefit the Democrats, if anything it hurt them going into the election, I would guess out of everyone involved Rex Tillerson and his former company Exxon had the most to gain or lose. As it was estimated Exxon lost hundreds of billions when US sanctioned Russia over Ukraine

@westside-steve said:

Of course no evidence is necessary for the Phantom claims of collusion with the Russians that the Democrats have filled the echo chamber with.

WSS

When there is evidence of Russian involvement of the DNC hack, and there are claims of possible collusion plus key people who are or were a part of his campaign keep lying about meetings with Russians during the campaign, there is enough evidence to at least warrant a more in depth investigation(it doesn't mean collusion happened only that it warrants an investigation).

@calfoxwc said:

probably wasn't the British intel agency...

but WAS faked, to make it look like they did.

or, British ex-spy arranged it, while being paid by the dems

and Obamao's FBI........

to make it look like that.

Something IS going on.

If the evidence doesn't fit your false narrative, it goes into the waste basket.

@calfoxwc said:

msispoke... there doesn't have to be evidence that it happened, when the

British and whoever in the American intel kept asking for FISA warrants...

and were finally given one.....

and surveillance would have been discontinued and any traces would be swept away.

Don't you watch any of the spy movies ? Come ON, Sad.

about those british spying on us

@calfoxwc said:

msispoke... there doesn't have to be evidence that it happened, when the

British and whoever in the American intel kept asking for FISA warrants...

and were finally given one.....

and surveillance would have been discontinued and any traces would be swept away.

Don't you watch any of the spy movies ? Come ON, Sad.

Cal spy movies are works of fiction. Occam's razor may be good thing to think about, maybe there is no real evidence b/c nothing happened.

If the evidence doesn't fit your false narrative, it goes into the waste basket.

@calfoxwc said:

there doesn't have to be evidence it happening -

If the evidence doesn't fit their liberal false narrative, it goes into the waste basket.

"

@boo-fagley said:

Not your ordinary investigation.

Obama had all the time he needed between golf games to plan out this caper. We are dealing with the best in the business at blaming everyone else and covering up his trail of deceit and crime.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-justice-department-wiretap-evidence-20170313-story.html

I usually don't make a point out of what Presidents do to "relax" but someone who was extremely critical of Obama's golfing outings, has already gone golfing at least 9 times in 7 weeks.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/saturday-president-trump-golfing-article-1.2995302

Can't wait to hear how the microwave was being used as a "listening device" on the 20th.