Slashdot Mirror
FCC Proposal: Internet Providers Must Ask To Share Your Data (foxnews.com)
The FCC has unveiled a new privacy proposal Thursday that is sure to appeal to millions of internet users. Internet service providers? Not so much. The proposal would require ISPs like Verizon and Comcast to get your permission before sharing your precious info with advertisers. Fox News reports: The Federal Communication Commission has changed its broadband-privacy plan since it was initially proposed in March. The wireless and cable industries had complained that under the initial plan, they would be more heavily regulated than digital-ad behemoths like Google and Facebook, who are monitored by a different agency, the Federal Trade Commission. The FCC explained its new approach Thursday and plans to vote on it Oct. 27. The revised proposal says broadband providers don't have to get permission from customers ahead of time to use some information deemed "non-sensitive," like names and addresses. The previous plan called for customers to expressly approve the use of more of their information. This time around, customers still need to OK broadband providers' using and sharing a slew of their data, like a phone's physical location, websites browses and apps used, and what's in emails. And customers must be told what types of information is kept and how it will be used, and agency officials said they can still say no to internet service providers using other data, like names and addresses.
I see there are Comcast employees actively participating on Slashdot...
That may be true, but I am not one of them. I am simply someone who has been involved in cable franchising for a long time and have kept up with the changing legal landscape on that topic. And I choose to correct those who claim that exclusive franchises still exist. If you want to bash Comcast or TW, do so for any number of valid reasons; spreading falsehoods about their legal status is neither necessary nor appropriate.
There are federal laws prohibiting exclusive cable franchises, which are how government-granted monopolies in that industry were created. While there may have been a government-granted monopoly in some places (none of the places I've lived has had an exclusive franchise even when they were legal) they have long ago expired and must now be non-exclusive. I have repeatedly challenged claims of current exclusive franchises by asking only that a link to one be provided, and one has yet to be produced. Some have pointed me to franchises that are quite explicit in saying that they are non-exclusive, so it is clear that those people have failed to read what they are using as proof.
And there are, of course, NO government-granted monopolies for ISPs and never have been.
I do not give permission for my emails to be scanned.
Neither do I, which is why I run my own e-mail server. Sure, I have no control over the other end, but at least my side is reasonably safe from interference.
Not that I don't see a boatload of intrusion attempts from China and Virginia (not a lot of difference, these days) against both the e-mail server and DNS... But so far, so good.