Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Halt Rule That Protects Your Private Data From Security Breaches (arstechnica.com)
According to Ars Technica, "The Federal Communications Commission plans to halt implementation of a privacy rule that requires ISPs to protect the security of its customers' personal information." From the report: The data security rule is part of a broader privacy rulemaking implemented under former Chairman Tom Wheeler but opposed by the FCC's new Republican majority. The privacy order's data security obligations are scheduled to take effect on March 2, but Chairman Ajit Pai wants to prevent that from happening. The data security rule requires ISPs and phone companies to take "reasonable" steps to protect customers' information -- such as Social Security numbers, financial and health information, and Web browsing data -- from theft and data breaches. The rule would be blocked even if a majority of commissioners supported keeping them in place, because the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau can make the decision on its own. That "full commission vote on the pending petitions" could wipe out the entire privacy rulemaking, not just the data security section, in response to petitions filed by trade groups representing ISPs. That vote has not yet been scheduled. The most well-known portion of the privacy order requires ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers before sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other third parties. The opt-in rule is supposed to take effect December 4, 2017, unless the FCC or Congress eliminates it before then. Pai has said that ISPs shouldn't face stricter rules than online providers like Google and Facebook, which are regulated separately by the Federal Trade Commission. Pai wants a "technology-neutral privacy framework for the online world" based on the FTC's standards. According to today's FCC statement, the data security rule "is not consistent with the FTC's privacy standards."
Wow.
Your guy Trump sure is sticking it to the corporations and elites, eh?
As a European I am astounded that companies don't already have a requirement to keep personal data safe. It is something that I just expect to happen. OK: I do realise that what the law says and what companies actually do can be very different, but still - companies do get fined over here for lax security. This must be why people tell me that the USA is not a safe country for personal data.
Correct.
OH! Sorry, thought you meant all the courts and cops and so on. I guess in a Libertarian paradise there aren't any of those, they all get sold to the highest bidder and operated for a profit, paid by those who can afford it.
Yes, because the only thing protecting the consumer is the Government.
Yes, because we have so much robust competition in the ISP market now! We don't need any government intervention, my local monopoly ISP has all my best interests at heart. If they provide poor service or screw me over, I can just switch to - oh, wait, I can't.
By making it less likely that an ISP will be (frivolously) sued for violating the nebulously unclear standard to take "reasonable" measure measures, Trump's government lowers the cost of the legal insurance, which lowers the total cost of doing business. And that's a good thing for both producers and the customers alike.
Of course, because Comcast/Verizon/etc are totally going to pass those savings on to me, the consumer, rather than pad their executives' bonuses or pay more dividends to stockholders.
What a load of rubbish this is. These companies aren't going to cut prices if they get cheaper insurance. They're going to pocket the money and stiff their customers by mishandling their information. How fucking stupid do you think we are, anyway?
"According to Ars Technica, "The Federal Communications Commission plans to halt implementation of a privacy rule that requires ISPs to protect the security of its customers' personal information." From the report: The data security rule is part of a broader privacy rulemaking implemented under former Chairman Tom Wheeler but opposed by the FCC's new Republican majority."
Republicans screwing over the American public? This is my shocked face.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Are you trolling? Slashdot had a section called "Your Rights Online" for as long as I can remember, which dealt with issues like this. This matters because it's a serious privacy issue and the FCC's position is ridiculous. It is ridiculous to equate an ISP to companies like Facebook and Google. It's definitely possible to avoid Facebook and Google by not using their services and blocking their trackers that are embedded within other sites. I block Facebook's scripts and Google analytics, which accomplishes some of that despite using Google for searches. Facebook and Google only have access to what I choose to share with them, and I can avoid them. That isn't the same with an ISP, which, with unless I also use an encrypted VPN, has access to all of my traffic. Even if they can't see the contents of the traffic, they can see any outbound connections. That's a lot of information, and I don't have the choice to avoid using an ISP in the same way I can avoid Facebook and Google. I sincerely hope you are trolling, because your position is about as ridiculous as the FCC's position on this issue.
Why is this not happening with pizzerias or sneakers?
Why am I paying the same price for 75 Mbps up/down today, that I used to pay for 35 Mpbs up/down 6 years ago?
The answer: competition. It is competition, that keeps the services improving and/or the prices dropping.
Once you have a monopoly — such as "Single Payer" education, or healthcare, or Internet-Service provision — the price goes up and the quality goes down.
Only because you asked... I think you are unbelievably dumb and uneducated. Quite obviously, you also lack manners and any semblance of class.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"Once you have a monopoly -- such as "Single Payer" education,
or healthcare, or Internet-Service provision -- the price goes up
and the quality goes down."
what absolute bollocks - USA health costs per person
is about $8000 whereas that bastion of capitalist competition,
Sweden, is $4000 (you can check it out if you know how to
use this thing called the internet).
I think you should think twice before accusing someone
of being "unbelievably dumb" because the world is more
complicated than your view of it.
Don't you get it? In the absence of police, the courts, and so on, people and companies will all choose to do the right thing voluntarily.
The fact that that's repeatedly been the outcome of unregulated economies? Either one, or a very small number of people establish a controlling position, and abuse it to shut everyone else out.
Once you have a monopoly — such as "Single Payer" education, or healthcare, or Internet-Service provision — the price goes up and the quality goes down.
Actually, no - you've got your monopoly on the wrong side with single payer healthcare.
Companies that are monopolies are allowed to arbitrarily increase their prices because they are the single seller.
Single payer health care involves there only being one single insurance company buying goods from the drugs companies, doctors, and hospitals, allowing them to drive the price *down*, not up. That's why healthcare is so much cheaper in Europe than the US.
That'd be a great idea if people had 5 or 6 different ISPs to choose from that had competitive plans and also had different management mentalities, such as protecting clients' privacy or not. Show me how many places have such markets.
I think you missed what the AC's point. The fact of the matter is there is NO competition in most markets. Consequently, competitive market forces do not work. IOW, if someone doesn't like "their conditions," they probably don't have any options which would enable them to say "thanks, but no thanks" to their provider.
And the idea that another will appear to "fill in the gap" is much easier said than done. With the current investment environment, startups are having a tougher time getting cash. And that doesn't consider the issue of how many people are interested in or willing to startup an ISP business. I suspect that's a pretty small segment of the population. So the chance of that occurring seems quite remote.
The "free market" is not as "free" as some people think.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.