tldr: They aren't aware. They aren't techies.

P.S. We're in a two party system. Just because you agree with some policies doesn't mean you agree with all policies.

I literally do not give a damn about anything else other than lowering my taxes. I don't care about climate change (it is being accelerated by humans, I agree) and I literally don't care about BART or SF public transit or homelessness. Just give me my clean air vehicle tag so I can drive in the carpool lane as a single driver in my Model S.

Yes, there are tens of thousands of people like me in the bay area.

STEM folks are the most susceptible to this, I think -- working in a technical field tends to isolate you from other people. Being wealthy and working in a technical field is horribly alienating. You literally, over time, lose the capacity to understand others or consider them as people.

I'm not a Trump fan (nor even American) but I think your analysis of skin colour based demographics is probably flawed in some way.

Yet if it's privatized it's ok.

I think it's fair to say that the (potential for) harm wasn't sufficiently strong in the public psyche to justify White House-level attention prior to (and probably including) W Bush. Also, the distinction between ISP and Telco was still sufficiently weak that existing Telco regulations designed to protect consumer privacy still had teeth when applied to ISPs. It wasn't until the Obama admin that ISPs starting suing to disentangle themselves from Telco regulations.

As for Obama, well... if you haven't heard net neutrality described as "obamacare for the internet", then you're not paying attention. But there's only so much anyone can do with out controlling the Legislative branch.

No, really, your assertion that Obama-era Net Neutrality rules and privacy rules are disconnected is simply wrong! See "What does that have to do with privacy? " on https://www.epic.org/privacy/netneutrality/

When people talk about rolling back FCC rules on net neutrality, they are -- by definition! -- talking about rolling back these privacy protections. There's no debate to be had here.

More generally, you may be confused by timelines. Hopefully this will help:

pre-2014: Phone companies and ISPs begin tracking customers.

2014 - 2016: FCC begins process of cracking down on this sort of behavior (e.g., see top comment on this story).

2017: FCC reverses course on that crackdown.

Perhaps you are claiming that there wasn't a substantive change in valence on the issue of consumer privacy within the FCC and other regulatory agencies over the past six months. And perhaps "net neutrality" means something very specific do you. But that doesn't mean that late Obama-era net neutrality rules weren't aimed and strengthening privacy protections. They were.

This seems like an unfair claim. Since you didn't provide a citation, I looked for one. I found plenty of articles insisting that Ajit Pai and through association that Trump are both out to harm privacy online, but this is typically an inference based on the fact that Ajit is blocking more regulations placed on ISPs. His reasoning has consistently been anything that makes it harder to compete (the context is in small-medium businesses, think tiny companies trying to upset Comcast or AT&T) is bad, and specifically in this case that extra regulations on ISPs that businesses (read: the entities that actually have virtually all of your data) are not required to follow is unnecessarily limiting to competition. That's really not the same as "Ajit Pai is stoked about this." I will thus consider this bullshit until someone actually asks him what he thinks about this and whether he supports it. I doubt he does, because I doubt anyone does, and because it appears it may already be illegal.

The DNS entry for this site is already gone, though I can't tell if it was an action by GoDaddy or if it was explicitly removed to hide the page. In either case, that kind of response indicates guilt to me, and unless the ISPs are explicitly informing people that this is happening, it may already be illegal. I'd expect a class action lawsuit to determine that, and legislation to make it illegal for ANY ENTITY, be it a business operating on the internet or an ISP, to do this without consent from the user, which is what we really need.

I've been very annoyed at businesses like Spokeo that operate entirely in the realm of selling information about people, and they're fueled by shit that Facebook, Google, and friends freely offer about people, and now worse what about cross-referencing what they already have (everything in this case plus things like residential history, criminal history, etc) with your entire credit history and SSN and more thanks to Equifax and even hashed passwords due to the dozens of leaks we get every year.

I don't think this belongs in the FCC's wheelhouse, this belongs in Congress, because this kind of shit is getting out of hand, and it's not just ISPs.

Voting against the regulations means he did not want them to pass, but they did. They were repealed this year, which logically he must have been happy about. Unless he publicly states otherwise, it is fair to conclude that he is happy with the most direct obvious consequences of the repeal.

In theory it's possible that Pai supports the goals of the regulations but disagrees with the means, but has stayed completely silent about his support and made no effort to accomplish the goals through more appropriate means. There is no meaningful difference between that and simply opposing the regulation because he doesn't like its goals.

Yeah?

http://www.businessinsider.com/fcc-ajit-pai-privacy-rules-is...

It's not about one's dream role/job/company. It's about whether one is willing to tolerate something that makes one ethically uncomfortable for a number on a check... or not.

And although everyone's circumstances are different, I know far more people who work for shady companies and live in McMansions than ones who do it to support their family.

Judgy? Absolutely. But there are a lot of jobs out there: if you work at Comcast / US NSA / Chinese Bureau of Public Information and Network Security Supervision then it's because you don't have a problem with how they conduct business.

(1) These companies (as far as I know) tend to be technically and creatively conservative (in the sense that they don't like new ideas). (2) They have a captive market and effective monopolies. (3) The type of engineer likely to work at such a company values stability over risk. (4) There is C-level and down support for policies / products like the original article that generate profit. (5) It's a small enough industry (in terms of number of companies) that getting blackballed is feasible.

In that context, I don't foresee a logical person making an ethical decision (for leaking or sabotage) when it goes against his or her employer's wishes.

In my opinion, the answer is never no. I speak as someone who has actually refused to implement functionality on the basis of ethics before.

In any case, the market is moving way to fast for professional licensing. Both when it comes to total demand of coders, and when it comes to the churn in required knowledge. A licensed coder that thinks jQuery is the best way to write a web-app is not going to be hired over an unlicensed coder with experience in angular/react.

It's where the word sabotage comes from.

The DSAT in the name of these rounds stands for

Discarding

Sabot

Anti

Tank