The inventor of the World Wide Web has unveiled a plan for a new secure internet

S

senketsu

This whole thing hinges on what they call "Secure User Pod". IMHO there are a whole lot of assumptions right there. How will it be secure, if connected to the internet hackers will just switch to hacking Pod's. Plus the Pod is on Inrupt's servers, are they magically not hackable? As well I'd be concerned having everything about me (including as the article says "the name of your Labrador") in one place connected to the internet.
 

gamerk2

TS Evangelist
The Constitution says"Secure in their papers and persons".
You are omitting a very important part:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 4th Amendment protects against searches and seizures of personal effects by the Federal government. It does NOT protect you from voluntarily giving up access to your personal data to publicly trades companies as part of their Terms of Service.

So yes, no such right exists.
 

mbrowne5061

TS Evangelist
It's a power struggle early on. On one hand millions of POD users could basically say "I won't sign up for your service unless you do so through my POD" at the same time, giants like Youtube or facebook will say... "we don't accept POD accounts (or they are very crippled); if you want access to what we have, then you do it on our terms."

But this is good, because then it creates new competitors at the margins. Vimeo may say "we accept your POD accounts, and are willing to monetize differently." along with thousands of other sites doing the same. Eventually POD may become the standard as people realize they value control of their data more than they do YouTube, and that there are alternatives. Ideally everyone realizes POD is just how you are going to have to get customers... and even the giants capitulate to it. Or perhaps there just becomes a two-tiered internet... sites that you will only use with POD, and sites you are willing to risk not using POD on. Or people who use POD and people who don't. Just like there are people who will use PGP encryption and those who do not.... but at least POD will be a real alternative.

TO pay for POD I see it being bundled in with other cloud services or internet services. I'd gladly pay $10-$50 a year for POD or more, depending how it rolls out. I already pay for Netflix, and amazon prime, and Usenet, and Office 365, and my fiber connection, ...etc. on a yearly or monthly basis. If all it takes is $50 a year to secure all my data and be able to cut people off from it physically and legally when I want to. That's an easy price to pay. And I'd bet there are tens of millions of us. ... in essence POD is a global "pay to remove ads and tracking" fee... that applies to every POD site instead of having to subscribe to hat feature on lots of different sites.
Even then, there really is no reason for Vimeo to *have* to monetize differently. They're still selling targeted ads at the end of the day, the difference is that an individual user can revoke access to their data - entirely - at any point.

Where the risk to the POD plan comes in is when companies just start copying data they receive, and keeping their own secret 'POD' files on their users. The user kills access to their approved POD, and the company feigns compliance, while keeping their own records on the user intact so they can continue to sell it - only now they have even greater confirmation when selling a profile that they are selling the data on a specific user a company is trying to target.
 

Arionic

TS Member
So the article says that you select what data to share with what sites, and afterward, you can change the selection OR remove it entirely, which would make your data disappear from that company, correct?

Am I missing the part where websites and companies don't store or collect certain data on their own? This isn't going to halt anything, just make the data collection game have another obstacle.
 

p51d007

TS Evangelist
Good luck, hope it is successful! But the likes of Google, Siri, Amazon, Bing, CIA, NSA, KGB etc...WON'T allow it if they can help it. ;)
 

bobc4012

TS Booster
This is the reason why Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed. The fight over him about sexual assault isn't real. Just a partisan show. Kavanaugh helped write the Patriot Act. It hasn't come up as far as I know in the hearings. Meaning, neither side cares about our privacy or the 4th Amendment.
He was just one of many participants. But Joe Biden actually takes credit for it (and I bet you would have voted for him). See: https://washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of-the-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html . President Clinton had also proposed a bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. See: https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal95-1100489 . The current Act was passed 98-1 by the Senate, therefore, using your logic, all those Senators should never have been re-elected. If you read the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The keywords are "unreasonable searches" and "probable cause". It becomes like "what the definition of "is" is.
I don't totally disagree with you regarding the 4th Amendment. It might work if all the people involved were being honorable and did the right thing, but as we have seen with this election and the FBI with their phony FISA application, there is too much dishonesty within the government - both with elected and non-elected.
As for Kavanaugh, we don't know how he would actually vote if the case that the 4th Amendment was being violated came to the SC. All the members of the Senate had his cases that he dealt with as a judge and could have asked that question, If they didn't, then there might have been some reasonable explanation for any ruling he made.
If you are saying we can't take the chance, then we can say that about every nominee to the SC (or any federally appointed judgeship). We already have too many un-elected judges who try to make law from the bench rather than follow the Constitution.
 

Danny101

TS Evangelist
He was just one of many participants. But Joe Biden actually takes credit for it (and I bet you would have voted for him). See: https://washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of-the-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html . President Clinton had also proposed a bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. See: https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal95-1100489 . The current Act was passed 98-1 by the Senate, therefore, using your logic, all those Senators should never have been re-elected. If you read the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The keywords are "unreasonable searches" and "probable cause". It becomes like "what the definition of "is" is.
I don't totally disagree with you regarding the 4th Amendment. It might work if all the people involved were being honorable and did the right thing, but as we have seen with this election and the FBI with their phony FISA application, there is too much dishonesty within the government - both with elected and non-elected.
As for Kavanaugh, we don't know how he would actually vote if the case that the 4th Amendment was being violated came to the SC. All the members of the Senate had his cases that he dealt with as a judge and could have asked that question, If they didn't, then there might have been some reasonable explanation for any ruling he made.
If you are saying we can't take the chance, then we can say that about every nominee to the SC (or any federally appointed judgeship). We already have too many un-elected judges who try to make law from the bench rather than follow the Constitution.
Just a concern of mine. May not be anything. I will be following this Web 2.0. closely With all the data breaches and mis-use, something has to change.