House panel approves broadened ISP snooping bill

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps it's different in the US, but the overwhelming majority of people in the UK pay regular bills, such as internet bills, by direct debit - a regular payment taken directly from a bank account. Naturally, in order to do that, the ISP has to store the bank details. I'm certainly not aware of this having caused any problems for anybody - I pay pretty much all my bills by direct debit, because it's the most convenient method of doing so.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by direct debit. What we (my husband & I) do is pay using our debit card that is attached to our bank account. We do not give any company direct access to our checking account, period. While the debit card is attached to the checking account, it is set up like a credit card and charges can be disputed/reversed/credited very easily just like a credit card.

[HarryT]

A direct debit is a banking arrangement for making periodic payments to a company. Essentially you authorise a company to make withdrawals from your bank account. It's protected by all sorts of guarantees and protections against fraud. It's the way that most people in Britain pay their bills, because it's totally automated.

[speakingtohe]

Strange though it seems, I would like to see child pornography and other expoitational internet sales and services stomped on or at least significantly limited even if it causes an inconvenience to me.

Helen

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Strange though it seems, I would like to see child pornography and other expoitational internet sales and services stomped on or at least significantly limited even if it causes an inconvenience to me.

Helen

I have no belief that this act will stop child pornography whatsoever. It will allow the government to track you...but stop child pornography? Not in the least. The guys who are serious about it will just get better.

The rest of us who have had to give up our freedoms to intrusive governmental agencies will simply be hacked.

[Pinecone]

Those who give up freedom for security end with with neither.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps it's different in the US, but the overwhelming majority of people in the UK pay regular bills, such as internet bills, by direct debit - a regular payment taken directly from a bank account. Naturally, in order to do that, the ISP has to store the bank details. I'm certainly not aware of this having caused any problems for anybody - I pay pretty much all my bills by direct debit, because it's the most convenient method of doing so.

In the US, people have had trouble with companies continuing to make charges after the account has been closed.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

In the US, people have had trouble with companies continuing to make charges after the account has been closed.

This is a fact! While I will authorize a payment from my account for certain bills, I will never allow any company to go in and take the money automatically, it will always be done from my end, not theirs.

[lestatar]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I have no belief that this act will stop child pornography whatsoever. It will allow the government to track you...but stop child pornography? Not in the least. The guys who are serious about it will just get better.

The rest of us who have had to give up our freedoms to intrusive governmental agencies will simply be hacked.

Originally Posted by Pinecone

Those who give up freedom for security end with with neither.

Could not agree with the above thoughts more. Absolutely right. The phrase "slippery slope" should never be far from everyone's minds. Ever.

Like pornography, I know "reasonable security measures" when I see it - this proposal is NOT and needs to die.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

This is a fact! While I will authorize a payment from my account for certain bills, I will never allow any company to go in and take the money automatically, it will always be done from my end, not theirs.

Yes! Remember AOL? *shudder* I got caught in that.

[Hellmark]

I have my car insurance come out automatically, because they give a pretty good discount for doing it (Basically $80 off every six months if I have monthly automatic payments instead of paying it all at one time every six months). However it is a pain, because you never know exactly when the money is going to come out. It is setup to come out on the 20th, and they claim that is only when it would be, however real life practice of it is upto 3 days on either side of it, so could come out on the 17th or 23rd.
If I get paid on the 19th, I can't just expect all the be good, I have to keep money in the account from my previous paycheck.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Yes! Remember AOL? *shudder* I got caught in that.

My parents had AOL for 2 weeks back in '96. They used a 30 day free trial they got in the mail, and like I said only used it for 2 weeks, because AOL had tried charging $438 dollars to their credit card. Apparently, when they would dial in, AOL would roll the call over to a 1-900 number, and charge a 6 dollar connection fee and 8 dollars an hour (minimum 1 hour). So, if they logged on, checked email and logged off 15 minutes later, they were slapped with $14. If they were on for an hour and one minute, they'd have $22 in charges. They found out about it, because they went to go see how much time they had left on the trial, and was told that there was still the full amount left, because they were being charged this other way.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

My parents had AOL for 2 weeks back in '96. They used a 30 day free trial they got in the mail, and like I said only used it for 2 weeks, because AOL had tried charging $438 dollars to their credit card. Apparently, when they would dial in, AOL would roll the call over to a 1-900 number, and charge a 6 dollar connection fee and 8 dollars an hour (minimum 1 hour). So, if they logged on, checked email and logged off 15 minutes later, they were slapped with $14. If they were on for an hour and one minute, they'd have $22 in charges. They found out about it, because they went to go see how much time they had left on the trial, and was told that there was still the full amount left, because they were being charged this other way.

Whaat? That is ridiculous! Wow.

I just had the we're not going to stop billing you, you will have our service problem. What they did to your parents? That's criminal.

[blue_skies]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps it's different in the US, but the overwhelming majority of people in the UK pay regular bills, such as internet bills, by direct debit - a regular payment taken directly from a bank account. Naturally, in order to do that, the ISP has to store the bank details.

Harry, I'm in the US and I pay my bills directly through my bank. (As do most people I know.) My ISP has nothing at all to do with it other than providing me online access. My Internet Service Provider is in no way involved with any of my direct debit transactions and I would be seriously upset if they were storing my personal banking details.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

Those who give up freedom for security end with with neither.

I started a slow clap after reading this, and all my coworkers gave me odd looks. Then I recited the message, and they joined in.

Bravo.

[Daithi]

People get all worked up over this issue, but the Orwellian named "Bank Secrecy Act" has been in place for about 40 years now and requires banks to maintain a copy of all your Account Statements for 5 years. Additionally they are required to keep a copy of checks you write that are in excess of $100, and all deposits you make that are in excess of $100. If the transaction is greater than $10,000 (incl. aggregate transactions that occur within 24 hours) the bank not only needs to keep copies of the transaction, but they are required to report you to the government.

So what is the difference between the government forcing banks to spy and report on you, and from forcing an ISP to spy and report on you? Well, I guess the ISP doesn't report on you yet. But, shouldn't the ISP report you to the government if you viewed some child porn, visited a known terrorist website, was looking at militia websites, was looking up instructions on making bombs, or buying fertilizer? After all, if you are doing nothing wrong then you don't have anything to worry about. <In case it's not clear, I'm being ironic.>

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Strange though it seems, I would like to see child pornography and other expoitational internet sales and services stomped on or at least significantly limited even if it causes an inconvenience to me.

Helen

If your ISP was monitoring you they would have to report to the government that you said

"I would like to see child pornography".

Yeah, sure, it is taken out of context, but their filter system doesn't look for context, and don't worry it'll all get sorted out during a government review or after you're charged. No worries.