Rights Groups Push For Strong Broadband Privacy Rules (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A coalition of rights groups has sent a letter to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission asking for tougher privacy regulations on providers of broadband internet services. The letter was sent by the ACLU, the EFF, Public Citizen, and over 50 other groups. "Critics say broadband providers are already harvesting huge amounts of consumer data for use in targeted advertising, the groups wrote. 'This can create a chilling effect on speech and increase the potential for discriminatory practices derived from data use,' the letter said." FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said such firms need to ensure their data is protected, and that consumers should know more about what data is being collected, but he hasn't addressed whether the data should be harvested in the first place. He expects the FCC to review these practices "in the next several months."

Comments

Rules? Please!

[fustakrakich]

Better to push for better privacy equipment to protect us from the toothless "rules"

HTTPS Privacy Rules

[WhiteKnight07]

HTTPS is the only real answer. Rules like what are being proposed are hard to enforce. But properly implemented authentication and encryption will make such rules unnecessary.

Damn straight

[Just Some Guy]

I'm a Verizon cell customer. They added an opt-out "feature" where they'd track all web traffic, so I opted out. Six months later, I found through a news story that they'd silently added another opt-out tracking feature which didn't obey the earlier misfeature's disable flag. So now I pay Verizon for my phone data, and pay a VPN service for the right to browse the Internet without my own damn ISP spying on me.

No, I can't easily switch providers - my family's phones aren't all AT&T-compatible, and T-Mobile doesn't have good coverage in some of the places we visit often. But more to the point, I shouldn't have to.

I offer another proposal to Chairman Wheeler: allow the carriers to choose between common carrier status (with all its legal protections) and, what, data portal status maybe (with zero liability protections for transmitted content). If Verizon, Comcast, et al want to snoop traffic, then they should be legally on the hook for the content of that traffic. If they don't want to be liable for every possible copyright violation or prohibited content flowing through their network, then they damn well better choose to be dumb pipes.

Re:Damn straight

[clonehappy]

I offer another proposal to Chairman Wheeler: allow the carriers to choose between common carrier status (with all its legal protections) and, what, data portal status maybe (with zero liability protections for transmitted content). If Verizon, Comcast, et al want to snoop traffic, then they should be legally on the hook for the content of that traffic. If they don't want to be liable for every possible copyright violation or prohibited content flowing through their network, then they damn well better choose to be dumb pipes.

I agree whole-heartedly. However, this uses an incorrect assumption. The assumption being that we still have a functioning republic with a just legal system. We don't, it's been usurped and the big boys just make up the rules as they go.

Once you understand that, the problem is this: given the option they'll gladly choose to be a "data portal". Of course, they won't be held liable for *every* possible copyright infringement or prohibited content that flows through the network, only the content deemed by the corporate overlords and elitists to be dangerous. At which point such content will be banished from the network. This will happen every time a slave gets uppity and creates or consumes content that is dangerous to their complete control over the population.

The "fines" for allowing the banished content will always be a slap on the wrist, putting on airs for all us proles to feel good about. Unless, of course, people who know better stand up now, not now but RIGHT NOW, and demand an end to all of this nonsense. But time's running short; a few more years and there won't be many of us left who understand what the free, open internetwork is supposed to look like, and once the network's gone full-on cable-TV replacement, we've lost for good.

Re:HTTPS Privacy Rules

[fustakrakich]

HTTPS is the only real answer.

I doubt that very much

And note the irony in the last question in the link

Re:HTTPS Privacy Rules

[mike.mondy]

HTTPS is the only real answer. Rules like what are being proposed are hard to enforce. But properly implemented authentication and encryption will make such rules unnecessary.

Nope.

HTTPS is necessary, but woefully insufficient for protecting your privacy. Even with everything encrypted, your ISP still knows what sites you connect to - they do route the packets, after all.
Would it be OK if which ads are displayed on your TV to be affected by which sites you visit? And "you", of course, includes anyone in your household and your WiFi guests. Which snail mail adverts are sent to your billing address or service address? Or, in general, whether or not your name appears on various targeted advertising lists? Or lists that aren't at all about advertising...

A VPN will prevent your ISP from doing this, but then gives your VPN host the same capabilities.

On a similar note, we've had a bunch of articles here about how it's almost impossible to prevent web browser fingerprinting from allowing you to tracked from one web site to another. But, your ISP is in a special position to know all that you visit and who/where "you" are.