A sad, sad day for the Internet and our freedoms

[Taem]

https://thenextweb.com/politics/2017/03/...w_beo9lEo9

Republican Senators just sold your privacy to the highest bidder

by Bryan Clark — 1 hour ago in Politics
Republican Senators just sold your privacy to the highest bidder
Credit: Shutterstock

This morning, Republican senators voted to remove Obama administration restrictions designed to keep internet service providers (ISPs) from selling your private data. The vote passed along party lines, 50-48.

The policy, originally proposed by then acting FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler outlined clear guidelines for how ISPs were to handle your data. In short, they couldn’t use it without your permission and they certainly weren’t able to share sensitive information like browsing history and location data with advertisers.
“This event was off the charts”

Gary Vaynerchuk was so impressed with TNW Conference 2016 he paused mid-talk to applaud us.
FIND OUT WHY

As of today, that rule is a step closer to being a memory. Congress essentially just opened the floodgates to some of the sleaziest corporations on the planet using your data however they see fit, and they did it while assuring each of us that it was in our best interest.

Worse, the ruling could put the FCC in danger of not being able to create similar ones in the future. According to the Congressional Review Act:

Once a rule is thus repealed, the CRA also prohibits the reissuing of the rule in substantially the same form or the issuing of a new rule that is substantially the same, “unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.

If you’re wondering how we got here, follow the money: the 22 Republican senators behind the push to strike down the original ruling have pocketed more than $1.7 million from telecom companies since the 2012 election.

On its own, the lack of privacy each of us face on the internet is already a scary proposition. Removing the few guidelines that protect us from shady backroom deals is outright terrifying.

This is just the opening shot in an on-going war. Already through the Senate, up next is the House of Representatives, where it’s expected to get the needed number of votes thanks to a Republican-controlled House voting along party lines, and finally Trump’s desk. He’s expected to sign the bill.

It’s no secret what Trump and his Republican-controlled Congress plan to do to the internet: shift control to corporate interests. Newly-installed FCC chairman, Ajit Pai has made it clear he intends to dismantle net neutrality rules. Last month, he even went as far as blocking language in the privacy rules that required ISPs to adopt reasonable security measures to protect our data, and notify each of us when a breach occurs.

It’s a dangerous precedent. As Gaurav Laroid told Buzzfeed News:

If Republicans and the industry want to [work] hand in hand with consumers and come up with a comprehensive privacy regime, we’re happy to meet them at the table. But repealing the broadband privacy rules doesn’t get us any closer and instead leaves a regulatory black hole where there is no effective privacy protections for customers of broadband ISPs.

Overturning net neutrality guidelines, when coupled with a complete lack of privacy, seems to put us on a one-way collision course with the antiquated cable TV model. That means tiered pricing, prioritized service, and always-on monitoring of your internet activity. And thanks to this sacrifice at the alter of capitalism, ISPs are set to profit handsomely while doing away with any notion of an open internet.

For the rest of us, we’re at the mercy of a group of rich suits, a group we’re now trusting to ethically handle data containing our most sensitive information.

What could go wrong?

[kandrathe]

For the rest of us, we’re at the mercy of a group of rich suits, a group we’re now trusting to ethically handle data containing our most sensitive information.

What could go wrong?

This was a new FCC rule made last October, to be implemented within 6 months (or, about now).

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attach...-148A1.pdf

So, the congress said NO to a change that has not been implemented. Now, don't get me wrong, the FCC changes would be a boon for consumers. But, the carriers have costs in following all the FCC requirements as well. So, rather than " opening the flood gates", what happened was the failure to put and end to the wild, wild, west of internet consumer (as the product) exploitation.

This is why all the ads on my various devices show me local gyms I should join, as I did do some google searches for health clubs near my home, and work. Spooky, but that's the world we live in. I hope Target doesn't think I'm pregnant.

How will the .net change from yesterday? Zero. What we lost was a potential change. I also don't see this as affecting "Net Neutrality", or the premise that all data moves at the same speed (e.g. Netflix can't pay more to get exclusive priority speeds on COMCAST then up-charge it to their customers).

[Lissa]

For the rest of us, we’re at the mercy of a group of rich suits, a group we’re now trusting to ethically handle data containing our most sensitive information.

What could go wrong?

This was a new FCC rule made last October, to be implemented within 6 months (or, about now).

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attach...-148A1.pdf

So, the congress said NO to a change that has not been implemented. Now, don't get me wrong, the FCC changes would be a boon for consumers. But, the carriers have costs in following all the FCC requirements as well. So, rather than " opening the flood gates", what happened was the failure to put and end to the wild, wild, west of internet consumer (as the product) exploitation.

This is why all the ads on my various devices show me local gyms I should join, as I did do some google searches for health clubs near my home, and work. Spooky, but that's the world we live in. I hope Target doesn't think I'm pregnant.

How will the .net change from yesterday? Zero. What we lost was a potential change. I also don't see this as affecting "Net Neutrality", or the premise that all data moves at the same speed (e.g. Netflix can't pay more to get exclusive priority speeds on COMCAST then up-charge it to their customers).

The costs would actually be minimal for what the FCC guildlines were to do, that being to simply have the customers of the ISPs opt in or opt out of having their privacy protected. In essence, the ISPs would have to create a new column in the customer database stating whether the customer gave permission to have their information shared or not. Creating a simple column in a database isn't going to take a lot of work from a DBA (probably 5 minutes at most). Since the ISP also likely provides emails to the customer, either through the ISP itself or a given email address the customer has provided, it simply sending an email message to the customer with a link to a website that will link the customer's wishes on opting in or out. The most expensive portion would be creating a webpage to takei in said information and linking it back to the database (maybe a week or so of creation and testing and looking for possible exploits in the coding of the page). So, no, this wasn't going to be something expensive to do, it was simply the Republicans being lobbied by the ISPs so they can make more money off their customers instead of the Republicans actually trying to protect the public's privacy (the Democrats voted for this FCC guildline to go into effect).

[kandrathe]

For the rest of us, we’re at the mercy of a group of rich suits, a group we’re now trusting to ethically handle data containing our most sensitive information.

What could go wrong?

This was a new FCC rule made last October, to be implemented within 6 months (or, about now).

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attach...-148A1.pdf

So, the congress said NO to a change that has not been implemented. Now, don't get me wrong, the FCC changes would be a boon for consumers. But, the carriers have costs in following all the FCC requirements as well. So, rather than " opening the flood gates", what happened was the failure to put and end to the wild, wild, west of internet consumer (as the product) exploitation.

This is why all the ads on my various devices show me local gyms I should join, as I did do some google searches for health clubs near my home, and work. Spooky, but that's the world we live in. I hope Target doesn't think I'm pregnant.

How will the .net change from yesterday? Zero. What we lost was a potential change. I also don't see this as affecting "Net Neutrality", or the premise that all data moves at the same speed (e.g. Netflix can't pay more to get exclusive priority speeds on COMCAST then up-charge it to their customers).

The costs would actually be minimal for what the FCC guildlines were to do, that being to simply have the customers of the ISPs opt in or opt out of having their privacy protected. In essence, the ISPs would have to create a new column in the customer database stating whether the customer gave permission to have their information shared or not. Creating a simple column in a database isn't going to take a lot of work from a DBA (probably 5 minutes at most). Since the ISP also likely provides emails to the customer, either through the ISP itself or a given email address the customer has provided, it simply sending an email message to the customer with a link to a website that will link the customer's wishes on opting in or out. The most expensive portion would be creating a webpage to takei in said information and linking it back to the database (maybe a week or so of creation and testing and looking for possible exploits in the coding of the page). So, no, this wasn't going to be something expensive to do, it was simply the Republicans being lobbied by the ISPs so they can make more money off their customers instead of the Republicans actually trying to protect the public's privacy (the Democrats voted for this FCC guildline to go into effect).

Costs are not always implementation costs. Also, lost opportunity costs and competitive favoritism....

"The argument from ISPs is that they are being put under a harsher regime, while the status of social media sites remains unchanged. Facebook and the like would have a clear advantage when it comes to digital advertising, while ISPs dispense the time and resources in compliance with new regulations."

[Lissa]

For the rest of us, we’re at the mercy of a group of rich suits, a group we’re now trusting to ethically handle data containing our most sensitive information.

What could go wrong?

This was a new FCC rule made last October, to be implemented within 6 months (or, about now).

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attach...-148A1.pdf

So, the congress said NO to a change that has not been implemented. Now, don't get me wrong, the FCC changes would be a boon for consumers. But, the carriers have costs in following all the FCC requirements as well. So, rather than " opening the flood gates", what happened was the failure to put and end to the wild, wild, west of internet consumer (as the product) exploitation.

This is why all the ads on my various devices show me local gyms I should join, as I did do some google searches for health clubs near my home, and work. Spooky, but that's the world we live in. I hope Target doesn't think I'm pregnant.

How will the .net change from yesterday? Zero. What we lost was a potential change. I also don't see this as affecting "Net Neutrality", or the premise that all data moves at the same speed (e.g. Netflix can't pay more to get exclusive priority speeds on COMCAST then up-charge it to their customers).

The costs would actually be minimal for what the FCC guildlines were to do, that being to simply have the customers of the ISPs opt in or opt out of having their privacy protected. In essence, the ISPs would have to create a new column in the customer database stating whether the customer gave permission to have their information shared or not. Creating a simple column in a database isn't going to take a lot of work from a DBA (probably 5 minutes at most). Since the ISP also likely provides emails to the customer, either through the ISP itself or a given email address the customer has provided, it simply sending an email message to the customer with a link to a website that will link the customer's wishes on opting in or out. The most expensive portion would be creating a webpage to takei in said information and linking it back to the database (maybe a week or so of creation and testing and looking for possible exploits in the coding of the page). So, no, this wasn't going to be something expensive to do, it was simply the Republicans being lobbied by the ISPs so they can make more money off their customers instead of the Republicans actually trying to protect the public's privacy (the Democrats voted for this FCC guildline to go into effect).

Costs are not always implementation costs. Also, lost opportunity costs and competitive favoritism....

"The argument from ISPs is that they are being put under a harsher regime, while the status of social media sites remains unchanged. Facebook and the like would have a clear advantage when it comes to digital advertising, while ISPs dispense the time and resources in compliance with new regulations."

That would be the case except that Facebook and Google have been under pressure to do exactly as the FCC ruling was going to do to the ISPs (and from the sounds of it, FB and Google were going to implement that level of privacy for their users). Now, this means that not only will the ISPs not be doing it, but FB and Google will reverse their decision on the topic as well.

[Bolty]

A full-page ad in the New York Times.

[Taem]

Costs are not always implementation costs. Also, lost opportunity costs and competitive favoritism....

I always pegged you as a libertarian, advocating the rights of the individual, not spouting jargon supporting the privileged ultra rich and their constituents. Net neutrality has been talked to death on these forums so I know you're intimately aware of the potential negative repercussions this vote could have on the way we surf the net as consumers, from what we're allowed to see, to mom-and-pop websites not showing up on your computer because they didn't pay Time/Warner or Comcast $X dollars to have their site show up on your ISP. This vote doesn't change that, but if you read the article at all, it's perfectly clear that's where we're headed under the Trump administration! Your coyness is nothing short of disgusting, but I suppose everyone changes.

[FireIceTalon]

Pretty rare that I agree with Taem on anything politically, but in this case it would be impossible for me not to. I find this whole thing pretty disturbing, though hardly surprising. Conservatives will always choose big business interests over working people.

I could see this affecting us though, in ways beyond being consumers....It isn't just to get our information on what we buy, what we look at, and so on, but also to censor us and potentially put those with undesirable views on "watch lists". In the Arab Spring in 2011, the first thing the ruling classes did to try and sabotage the revolution was censor or limit what was being reported on the internet, or even shut it off entirely....granted, we aren't in the middle of a revolution in America at the moment, but the ruling class isn't dumb either.

[kandrathe]

I guess this battle between FCC & FTC has been in play for awhile.

"The staff comment opens with the can’t-be-denied fact that consumers care about privacy and security. The massive collection and storage of personal information, the risk of identity theft, the release of sensitive stuff people view as private, and the potential use of data by employers, insurers, creditors, and others are just some of their concerns. To the extent that trepidation deters consumers from doing business online, companies may be concerned, too."

FTC comments on FCC rules proposal.


Text of the full FTC staff comments

In a nutshell, one other possible reason this was struck down is that Consumer privacy, and protection are considered FTC matters (at least by the current head of the FCC, FTC and majority of Congress).


"All actors in the online space should be subject to the same rules, enforced by the same agency," Pai and the acting FTC chairwoman, Maureen Ohlhausen, said in a joint statement upon the FCC's data-security stay last month. "Until that happens, however, we will work together on harmonizing the FCC's privacy rules for broadband providers with the FTC's standards for other companies in the digital economy."

[kandrathe]

Costs are not always implementation costs. Also, lost opportunity costs and competitive favoritism....

I always pegged you as a libertarian, advocating the rights of the individual, not spouting jargon supporting the privileged ultra rich and their constituents. Net neutrality has been talked to death on these forums so I know you're intimately aware of the potential negative repercussions this vote could have on the way we surf the net as consumers, from what we're allowed to see, to mom-and-pop websites not showing up on your computer because they didn't pay Time/Warner or Comcast $X dollars to have their site show up on your ISP. This vote doesn't change that, but if you read the article at all, it's perfectly clear that's where we're headed under the Trump administration! Your coyness is nothing short of disgusting, but I suppose everyone changes.

So.... Don't jump to assumptions. I often gather data on the opposite side just to present both sides objectively. I already said earlier I support better privacy protection, but I'm always suspicious and careful when gulping the "government can fix it" cool aid. Getting free highest speed internet, with complete anonymity would be glorious. But, who pays for it? To be objective, one must not just assume the opponents position is "spouting jargon supporting the privileged ultra rich and their constituents." Maybe some of those 51 Republicans have some other motive? I'd like to understand both sides of the argument. If you see my careful, pragmatic, reasoned approach as coy or disgusting, then so be it. I find too many people in this world are guilty of a rush to judgement, and overly politicize every issue and aspect of our lives.

I already pay my cable company too much per month, so the prospect of the option of them data mining me in exchange for a much cheaper price may be a fair trade. I would expect to have the option to opt out. I also understand why the ISPs would want a level playing field in competing with other companies doing data mining for profit. If you have a communication(FCC) business unit one set of rules apply, if you just have a non communication service other (FTC) rules apply. Ultimately, what we are debating are government restrictions on contracts between people and their corporate service providers. The libertarian position is to maximize freedom, and minimize government interference. But, unfortunately in these contracts, people are duped, or ignorant (sometimes intentionally exploited) by corporations requiring regulations to stop the hucksterism.

Unfortunately we have imho, incomplete definitions which have evolved (through courts) on the exact Rights that apply to groups of people in common contracts (i.e. Corporations, organizations, unions, etc.). Which is why we end up with some questionably bad decisions, like Citizens United.

But, me? I'd like there to be some common sense rules in this wild Wild West of the Internet, so I don't need to be a lawyer before I read and digest the 50 page EULAs (contracts) I agree to for the sites I subscribe. This is the pragmatic moderation to a pure anarchist position. For those things we share in common, like roads, air space, wires, earth, air, water... We need some rules to protect our common interests. But, often, I think the rule making goes too far and usually in favor of some special interest, or the hubris of law makers, or simply anecdotal knee-jerk reactions. I could offer a plethora or examples... Do you think it is possible we may be over regulated in some areas, and maybe lack regulations in other areas?

[LavCat]

I don't recall Bolty has updated the EULA in a long while.

[kandrathe]

I don't recall Bolty has updated the EULA in a long while.

HE IS SELLING OUR DATA!!!

[Bolty]

Nobody wants data on gamers who argue about politics. Terrible demographic.

[kandrathe]

Nobody wants data on gamers who argue about politics. Terrible demographic.

How about Russian hackers? Totally untapped potential.

[kandrathe]

Another interesting article by former FTC chairman, and former FCC General Counsel.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/10/fcc-internet-privacy/