https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/ted-cruz-wants-to-stop-the-fcc-from-updating-data-breach-notification-rules/
FCC accused of violating congressional resolution that nullified privacy rules.
Heaven forbid Republicans stand by while the FCC is allowed to go and do something basic to protect consumer rights.
Rafael can go fuck himself.
For anyone who needs a reminder, his name is not Ted. We should honor his wishes and stop calling him by his preferred name.
Since he was born in another country, his parents had to give him a separate 'American' name in order to better assimilate after smuggling him across the border into the US.
The Republican party cares about us and our families. They're protecting us from this obvious overreach. We, as Chinese hackers, have a right to remain anonymous and undetected. We have a right to use the information that we find and it only harms us when consumers are notified that we have their information. Stand up for your rights! Pay off a Republican today!
Ted Cruz's corporate pay-masters want to stop the FCC from updating data-breach notifications rules.
Ted doesn't actually give a shit.
Everyone seems to forget he is the cyber security expert. Well versed in the internets. https://theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/12/ted-cruz-twitter-account-likes-pornographic-tweet
"into" a canyon. If it is just in a canyon he could be at the bottom when yeet doth occur.
Yeet is a technical term. It means to throw as hard as possible.
Kobe is more about precision throwing.
Not relevant. This is about how "in a canyon" can be both from the edge and at the bottom of the canyon with very different results. "into the canyon" means from outside so it assures that the yeet takes place not from the lowest height but the highest.
It's like they're all reading the same copy of 'how not to be a garbage human being' and doing the exact opposite of each lesson...
Ffs! Ars Technica is pretty much unusable now! Not only does their cookie consent prompt reload every time you deselect what you're (apparently but not really) allowed to deselect, effectively looking you out unless you accept all cookies, check out how many fucking companies they were gonna share your data with just from the mandatory ones! 🤬 
So you're saying that with uBlock Origin on, I can just select accept all and I still won't get any of their bullshit‽
I wish I'd known ages ago!
It's better, it doesn't accept any, it just deletes the elements that make up the UI. It's not the government's fault that Ars intentionally made their website unusable. They could just follow the intent of the law and not use cookies at all.
It's not the government's fault that Ars intentionally made their website unusable.
I didn't mean to imply that. The GDPR is a great law and they're actually breaking not just the intent but the actual text of it.
I don't remember the exact paragraph, but it says that sites are supposed to make rejecting cookies no more ardous than accepting them.
That most other sites are in violation of that part too is no excuse, especially not for being one of the worst offenders!
It's better, it doesn't accept any, it just deletes the elements that make up the UI
How do you make it do that? My screenshot was taken in Nightly with uBlock Origin on and Ars not whitelisted..
By default it's not enabled in uBlock Origin. Go to the filter list settings and enable the appropriate Annoyances filters for Cookie Notices (or just enable all the Annoyances filters)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other Republican senators are fighting a Federal Communications Commission plan to impose new data-breach notification requirements on telecom providers.
Rosenworcel's data-breach proposal is scheduled for a vote at tomorrow's commission meeting, and it may ultimately be up to the courts to decide whether it violates the 2017 congressional resolution.
Cruz also protested a recent FCC vote to enforce rules that prohibit discrimination in access to broadband services, calling it "government-mandated affirmative action and race-based pricing."
The key legal question seems to be whether the FCC can re-implement one portion of the nullified rules as long as it doesn't bring back the entire privacy order.
Cruz and fellow Republicans say that Rosenworcel's plan would "resurrect a portion of the 2016 Broadband Privacy Order pertaining to data security."
We conclude that it would be erroneous to construe the resolution of disapproval as applying to anything other than all of the rule revisions, as a whole, adopted as part of the 2016 Privacy Order.
The original article contains 589 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!