Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Proposes New Restrictions On How Broadband Providers Share Data

Posted by BeauHD on from the problematic-for-cable-providers dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In a 3-2 vote, the FCC agreed to propose new privacy rules for broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon, as part of the FCC's new powers under Section 222 of Title II. The proposal will now enter a comment period, in which providers and other stakeholders will weigh in, before the commission can vote on whether to approve it. Under the proposed rules, providers would have implicit permission to collect any data necessary for providing internet service, typically including name, IP address and other basic subscriber information. Unless the customer opts out, providers would also be able to collect and share data specifically for the purpose of marketing other communications services. Any other use of the data, like sharing it with third-party marketing programs, would require explicit consent from the customer. The rules would also institute new transparency and data security requirements.

23 comments

  1. violations followed by puny fines by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    and No convictions. that's our system!

  2. Rates going up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like our rates are going up. Again.

  3. Opt-out/in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd love to see an addition that anything a customer has the option of opting out of must be clearly and assertively stated up front. The things that I've discovered I'm allowed to opt-out of (and must legally be allowed to do so) were never even made clear to me in the first place until I went digging. I can't opt-out if I don't know what I'm already in.

    1. Re:Opt-out/in by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > The things that I've discovered I'm allowed to opt-out of

      Such as? What have you discovered that you can opt-out of?

      I haven't checked lately but Slashdot lets you opt out of stuff - you just have to not visit. No, seriously... That's about the totality of what the opt-out was.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. Not just broadband .... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we need are sane fucking data protection laws which says if you collect my information for business purposes, you may NOT use that for ANY reason other than why you collected it.

    Sharing MY data to make more money for YOU makes you a complete asshole.

    It's time we stopped fucking pretending that anything corporations do to make a profit is inherently good, and start realizing that corporations are greedy assholes who need to be reined in.

    Unfortunately, the idiot law makers are so heavily on the payroll they're incapable of doing anything BUT promote corporate interests.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Not just broadband .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear!

      We also need rules against retaining things after we DELETE THEM. Google and Facebook are two KNOWN liars about deleting stuff.

    2. Re:Not just broadband .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need are sane fucking data protection laws which says if you collect my information for business purposes, you may NOT use that for ANY reason other than why you collected it.

      The day after they add a clause to their terms of service saying they are collecting it in order to be able to profit from it in the future. Please try again and insert another 25 cents

    3. Re: Not just broadband .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, and make it impossible to sell my data as an asset in bankruptcy.

    4. Re:Not just broadband .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, the universe is not on our side. It's not YOUR data any longer once you've made a copy and given it to someone, regardless of what laws a politician comes up with. The most obvious thing is how do you prove that the specific copy the defendant has was the copy used in a way you don't like / did not agree to? How do you prove that they didn't get the copy in question from someone else? How do you prove that they KNEW you deleted that data and "should have" deleted their copy? (A.K.A. I burned my copy of the book, so you should burn yours too.) Even if you can prove it was that specific copy, and you get it deleted, how do you KNOW there's not a backup somewhere? (And don't say because a judge ordered the destruction of all of the copies.) More importantly for USians, how do you prove you are a victim of a crime? Just having evidence of the information in question available to the public is not enough to sue a specific individual or group, and you can't sue everyone. (Although this is the US we are talking about, it would not surprise me if a US lawyer found a way.) Do you have the resources to fund discovery? How do you get the legal authority to get the evidence you need to sue, if you can't prove you are a victim of a crime without it?

      The simple thing people are forgetting here is this: Any evidence that a specific piece of information has been copied, accessed, destroyed, created, or otherwise used, is a completely separate piece of information from the information it describes. That evidence therefore may be withheld without anyone else being aware of the act.

      I do agree that the mass capitalization on people's privacy needs to stop, that it's immoral, and unethical. But anything that would be effective would ultimately be the end of the internet as we know it. (Either via a fuckton of mandatory DRM being implemented to enforce the new laws, (never mind that still wouldn't fix the issue of non-compliant systems or offline backups.) or via the complete unwillingness of others to host anything due to fear of lawsuits being filed against them for the tiniest of things. (As the result of a blanket ban. Most likely using something like the DMCA take-down requests that we have today.))

      For the same reason, see also Verizon and their supercookies, and the most likely response to this challenge from the FCC: You will automatically opt-in to the data collection and marketing clauses as part of your ToS, or you will not get service. (Or you will get very shitty service, due to poor lines, "malfunctioning" equipment, etc...) Of course this assumes the FCC has come up with a solution for the problems I've already mentioned, specifically how to prove you are a victim of a crime and therefore have the grounds to sue.

    5. Re:Not just broadband .... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Exactly how is it YOUR data? If I tell you my name, is that my data or yours? People learn things about me all the time, but that doesn't mean I own a part of their brains. I don't like all this spying, agree with you there. But ultimately how can we say that any information one can observe is the property of the observed and not the observer?

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    6. Re:Not just broadband .... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Just been thinking about this for a while. I think there is a standard of intent, or maybe the good old reasonable person standard. If I paint my house, or wear a certain shirt, or I tell Facebook I read a book, there is either an intent to share that information, or a reasonable expectation that people will observe the color of my house and perhaps tell their friends. In cases like this one cannot claim ownership of the information. But what about information that isn't intended to be shared, or could not reasonably be expected to be public? For instance, if Facebook infers that I am gay from what sort of books I read and post about, I don't think Facebook can claim those data, those are still mine.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    7. Re:Not just broadband .... by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      It is about choice.

      You choose to give your information (like your name) to someone. You have every expectation that the person will do evil with that information, but it is possible. That is a risk you knowingly take.

      This is about the information that you never consented to give away in the first place.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re: Not just broadband .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Times of being a customer are over...we are merely a commodity now!

  5. Consent? by nytes · · Score: 1

    Any other use of the data, like sharing it with third-party marketing programs, would require explicit consent from the customer.

    And you will give your consent or you will simply not get internet service.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    1. Re:Consent? by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, the collectors of the data will simply buy a 0.5% share in the previous "third party" companies, turning them into second party data recipients! No need to ask you anything, you whiner.

    2. Re:Consent? by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      While not that far from the truth, AT&T is being pretty misleading about their "special offers" gigabit plan. Basically, if you want gigabit service it'll cost you twice as much to not have 3rd party marketers not having access to all of your browsing history.

      The worst part is, there is no way for the customer to verify that paying double is actually protecting your data. If AT&T can spy on you with your consent, they can do it secretly without your consent.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  6. the problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unless the customer opts out, providers would also be able to collect and share data specifically for the purpose of marketing other communications services.

    This is just a rubber-stamp for companies to continue the practice of burying a blanket "we collect and share data specifically for the purpose of marketing other communications services.", "you are able to opt out of this" in their terms of service and now they can claim that you AGREED to allow them to hoover up all kinds of private info, by accepting their terms of service. Then of course they can hide the opt out and make it confusing as hell. They might even be able to say well you can opt out by using a different (and completely undesirable) service package.

    None of this stops the shitheads from doing shithead things.

    1. Re:the problem with this by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      *If you choose to opt out, installation will cost $500 and mandatory equipment rental fees will double.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  7. Internet provider or marketer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet providers should only be allowed to do that - provide Internet service. I am not signing up to a service that sells my information to everyone. I am signing up for Internet access.

  8. I think Google Fiber is in trouble... by steve6534 · · Score: 2

    They almost certainly harvest all kinds of information about their users to help subsidize the low price of service.

    1. Re:I think Google Fiber is in trouble... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Psychopathic need for unlimited profits mean low price has nothing to do with anything, they will charge the maximum price possible whether by cabal control or establishing a monopoly, they will run the worst possible service they can get away with, the will provide the worst cheap arse support they can, they will harvest every bit of information they can about you and sell it to all comers and that includes data sold for extortion purposes. Never to forget espionage agents from various countries getting in, just like the high level Google executive exposing himself as a Mossad agent (you have to be careful doing that shit with investor money, it is fraud and stealing when costs are generated without profit to engineer criminal revolutions in other countries, it is also morally reprehensible).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  9. It's my information = PAY ME by acoustix · · Score: 1

    All selling of personal information should be illegal unless the person agrees to it. It should not be required in order to use a specific service. And the person should compensated if their information is sold. After all, it is *their* information.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  10. Opt-out should go the way of pre-existing conditio by asjk · · Score: 1

    Opt-in should be the rule. Trying to keep current with opt-out is a part time job.