Wednesday, March 29th 2017
US House of Representatives Confirms Senate's Privacy Stance on ISPs
Only yesterday, the United States' House of Representatives carried the US Senate's joint resolution to eliminate broadband privacy rules. These rules, which are now seemingly on their way to political oblivion, would have required ISPs to get consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other companies. Much like last week's Senate joint resolution, the House's voting fell mainly along partisan lines (215 for, 205 against, with 15 Republican and 190 Democratic representatives voting against the repeal) to scrap the proposed FCC rules.
President Trump's desk (and the President himself) are now all that stand before the ISP's ability to collect geo-location data, financial and health information, children's information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications - information that gives the most unthinkable leeway in understanding your daily habits. However, President Trump's administration have issued a statement whereas they "strongly support House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission's final rule titled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services".
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has already issued a statement to today's vote with a statement that "If the bill is signed into law, companies like Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon will have free rein to hijack your searches, sell your data, and hammer you with unwanted advertisements. Worst yet, consumers will now have to pay a privacy tax by relying on VPNs to safeguard their information."
Ajit Pai, the current FCC Chairman, is a staunch supporter of rolling back the rules, claiming that "the FCC will work with the FTC to ensure that consumers' online privacy is protected through a consistent and comprehensive framework."
Those against the FCC ruling argue that it would have placed an unfair burden on ISPs while leaving sites like Google and Facebook free to collect and sell user data. What these supporters don't seem to consider, however, is how different the nature of Facebook or Google is compared to an ISP: you post what you want, when you want, if you want, and you even only use the service and inform it of your usage habits if you choose to do so. You can also choose to make your searches on Bing, or any other search engine. However, you can never pull the plug on your ISP's data collection of your habits and doings on the Internet. And with some customers only having access to one or two ISPs at any given time will also stand in the way of competition through reinforced privacy protection. If Comcast is the only ISP in your area, well, you can always not sign for the service if you don't want your information to be collected. Though you will end up sans internet access.
Unless, of course, you invest on a paid VPN - that is, if you don't already.
Sources:
Engadget, Whitehouse.gov.pt, TechCrunch, Forbes, The Verge
President Trump's desk (and the President himself) are now all that stand before the ISP's ability to collect geo-location data, financial and health information, children's information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications - information that gives the most unthinkable leeway in understanding your daily habits. However, President Trump's administration have issued a statement whereas they "strongly support House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission's final rule titled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services".
Ajit Pai, the current FCC Chairman, is a staunch supporter of rolling back the rules, claiming that "the FCC will work with the FTC to ensure that consumers' online privacy is protected through a consistent and comprehensive framework."
Those against the FCC ruling argue that it would have placed an unfair burden on ISPs while leaving sites like Google and Facebook free to collect and sell user data. What these supporters don't seem to consider, however, is how different the nature of Facebook or Google is compared to an ISP: you post what you want, when you want, if you want, and you even only use the service and inform it of your usage habits if you choose to do so. You can also choose to make your searches on Bing, or any other search engine. However, you can never pull the plug on your ISP's data collection of your habits and doings on the Internet. And with some customers only having access to one or two ISPs at any given time will also stand in the way of competition through reinforced privacy protection. If Comcast is the only ISP in your area, well, you can always not sign for the service if you don't want your information to be collected. Though you will end up sans internet access.
Unless, of course, you invest on a paid VPN - that is, if you don't already.
93 Comments on US House of Representatives Confirms Senate's Privacy Stance on ISPs
This post was made to lean heavily to one side which Ravenlord believes in. And that is where it went badly wrong.
I wouldn't have minded an objective posting regarding it. But I see no objective report but subjective.
It's a sad fact that you get steam roller by the usual suspects for or saying anything resembling anti US sentiment when in fact it's nothing more than an piece on relevant isp data.
As for @rtwjunkie, you can't really argue that a situation can be bad before it is enacted in law when it has been the norm. I respect you but the argument isn't fully logical.
Now about to receive the US backlash. Sad day for open discussion.
Edit. And given the hate, thread should be closed sooner.
If US's a beacon, the world is doomed.
On a similar note, the FDA is clamping down on the use of unprocessed moon dust in all food products.The problem is that the OP is full of so much FUD that there's almost no way to have a real discussion about this. Most of the OP is factually incorrect. It would take a team of lawyers a while to actually analyze and correct the OP before we could actually have an honest discussion.You're right. When our Supreme court starts quoting European law instead of our own law, we are doomed. And they have.
If you ever read the Federalist papers or understood the discussions between the federalist and anti federalist you would know this topic was covered and how the federalists feared idiots like you would exist. You seriously fail to understand the most basics here.
You have the right to do anything you want as long as it does not infringe anyone else's rights. This relates to negative rights.
www.learnliberty.org/videos/positive-rights-vs-negative-rights/
Additionally, the right of privacy is stated in several Amendments and the Declaration of Independence.
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
There is no logical reason to claim you do not have an inherent right to privacy. There are plenty of reasons why someone infringing your right to privacy would negatively hurt your right to liberty, happiness, and so on.The take away from this should be that US Government distributed over 50% of all child porn and the US government is the biggest creep ever. Also the "rational" the government uses to claim child porn is criminal means the government can't distribute it without also being a criminal of epic proportions...but i think this is cover in the FYTW clause between the commerce clause.
This ---> www.gofundme.com/searchinternethistory
I know they will love that, being ass******* by their own law again and again and again, srsly we normal ppl want some privacy this here ain't the 70s or something or at war time come on stupid politicians wake up it's not the normal person they need to attack with this :kookoo:
Thanks for reporting this @Raevenlord.
The "garbage" was only gone for 5 months. They aren't taking away something that the people have had since time immemorial. But that is some people's reactions. They are returning to the status quo that we as a people have allowed for many, many years. Some act as if this is a new erosion of privacy though. Hell, we haven't had any for most of my life.
2 independence referendums in 2 years?
Actually, I supported Yes for the first independence referendum because oil price was high at that time. Now, oil price is crap and, if Scotland goes
independent now, they will feel pain.
The next time someone enjoys using their cell phone, long distance, cable TV, satellite TV, Internet, discount cards, credit cards, store memberships, car insurance, or really most any service anymore...know that in some aspect or another...what you do, when you do it, what you choose, how you go about it, how often you do it, etc., etc., is being mined, collected, parsed, stored and sold over and over and over again and has been for so long that many members here weren't even alive when this all began. Fucked isn't it?
Going backwards on how this industry has been for so many years (or again, decades) would likely be a near impossible feat without getting the majority of society involved and changing their habits of who, what, where, when and why they spend, browse, etc. Stopping all the shit people choose to do and how they live on a daily basis, including myself because I'm guilty of having and using services that I know track me...it's harder to find services that don't than do anymore.
Consider this too, the folks that started it are likely retiring or have retired...so we've been doing this so long that it is normal! It is truly disturbing. They've had government support for so long too, that stopping this monster would be a huge feat...bring on the zombie apocalypse or Cold War 2 or WW3 or other huge and horrendous global-scale changing event, because otherwise I don't see things changing all that much.
Many could give a shit less how they're tracked as-long-as they get the best deals on Amazon, get their Netflix, get their grocery store discounts or 3 cents/gal cheaper fuel, extra speed for Internet, extra channels on their cable package, etc. Profit is profit, and we've let them profit from us for so long...that we're all addicted to it's design and really helped design it. Plus there's varying levels of data mining that many folks don't even consider, and at the end of the day, they all have taken bits of our privacy away to the extent what we view as privacy is like living in a fish tank or terrarium when we're at home. :banghead:
Permission slips need to die too :/
In Europe there is no such thing as selling ISP data to the public, i'm sure it's for now all about 'big data' and not personal browsing history. But it will be in the very future now that that law is here.
A proper ISP in USA should never sell it's consumers data, i'm pretty sure that a few of them can actually make a good revenue out of it for simply not doing so.
After W7 is EOL, i'm heading over to Linux, and be focussing on using a VPN anyway. There is no such thing in trying to gather or track my browsing data or data that i send over the line i rent.
It's as hiring a house, and the owner is looking daily on who i let in and out. It's none of their personal damn business.
MS, Google, Yahoo, all of them are just as bad as those ISP's that vouched for this. Buying games these days is you never own a hard copy, but always have these stored in some cloud where you dont have access to. We live in strange times with a not so bright future.
So now, here we are, with the OP acting like Americans are suddenly losing privacy rights with the repeal of a 5 month old statute (which only returned a minuscule portion of our privacy), and people up in arms thinking the same thing as the OP, because hardly anyone, including the OP did their own research.
And THAT is my objection: people acting as if this is new. Well, since they are obviously clueless and happy about what they didn't have in the first place, then returning them to that status should be no big deal.
To be clear, I object to lack of privacy. It is my fundamental right. But I am pragmatic enough to understand that other than clear Governmental intrusion on the 4th Amendment, that ship has sailed, and all I can do is be cautious, though it is only partially effective in this open world.