Slashdot Mirror


GOP Senators' New Bill Would Let ISPs Sell Your Web Browsing Data (arstechnica.com)

Yesterday, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and 23 Republican co-sponsors introduced a resolution that would overturn new privacy rules for internet service providers. "If the Federal Communications Commission rules are eliminated, ISPs would not have to get consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing web browsing data and other privacy information with advertisers and other third parties," reports Ars Technica. "The measure would use lawmakers' power under the Congressional Review Act to ensure that the FCC rulemaking 'shall have no force or effect.' The resolution would also prevent the FCC from issuing similar regulations in the future." From the report: Flake's announcement said he's trying to "protect consumers from overreaching Internet regulation." Flake also said that the resolution "empowers consumers to make informed choices on if and how their data can be shared," but he did not explain how it will achieve that. The privacy order had several major components. The requirement to get the opt-in consent of consumers before sharing information covered geo-location data, financial and health information, children's information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications. This requirement is supposed to take effect on December 4, 2017. The rulemaking had a data security component that required ISPs to take "reasonable" steps to protect customers' information from theft and data breaches. This was supposed to take effect on March 2, but the FCC under newly appointed Chairman Ajit Pai halted the rule's implementation. Another set of requirements related to data breach notifications is scheduled to take effect on June 2. Flake's resolution would prevent all of those requirements from being implemented. He said that this "is the first step toward restoring the [Federal Trade Commission's] light-touch, consumer-friendly approach." Giving the FTC authority over Internet service providers would require further FCC or Congressional action because the FTC is not allowed to regulate common carriers, a designation currently applied to ISPs.

13 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. it's all over, anyway by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Insightful

    just to put a point on it: nothing, no way, no how, is private after exposure to the internet.

    1. Re:it's all over, anyway by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a difference between a few parties having access to it through means whose legality is under a cloud and anyone with enough money being able to purchase it whenever they want.

      Compare this to pre-Internet days. It's as if anyone could buy your phone records from the phone company, or could buy the senders and recipients of all of your mail, and possibly even buy the information describing the kind of mail.

      This is taking a situation that was already wrong to start with and making it so much more wrong that it's hard to put into words.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:it's all over, anyway by taustin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The internet is a public place. Do not do anything on the internet that you wouldn't do in your front yard. To expect more privacy than that is to completely, utterly fail to understand the internet.

    3. Re: it's all over, anyway by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Set up your own DNS server to gain direct access to the root servers and use DNSSEC.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  2. Senator's Browsing by PineHall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I bet lobbyists will pay top dollar for a Senator's browsing data.

    1. Re:Senator's Browsing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Politicians always sort themselves an exemption for this kind of thing. It's like how you're gonna be screwed for health insurance, but they get that sweet taxpayer-funded coverage which would be evil socialism if you were to have it.

  3. Required inversion by lq_x_pl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember, regardless of party affiliation, when you read a politicians description of a bill, you must invert most of the descriptive language he uses.
    ...consumer-friendly approach.
    Tells us the results will certainly be consumer-hostile.

    --
    An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
    1. Re:Required inversion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if it includes the words 'innovation' or 'freedom' in the title, it's an unreservedly awful and corporatocratic bill

    2. Re: Required inversion by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The GOP's healthcare plan basically consists of "be rich or be dead".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  4. Serious question by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Yesterday, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and 23 Republican co-sponsors introduced a resolution that would overturn new privacy rules for internet service providers."

    Seriously question: why are Republican lawmakers so willing to sell out their own constituents? And why do rank and file republican voters go along with it?

    They're against anything and everything that would seem to be good for the people of their states and districts- healthcare, privacy protection, consumer protection, environmental protection, financial regulation on banks and mortgage companies, etc etc etc.

    I mean, what the fuck?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  5. I blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's times like these that I think Damn, why did the Dems have to run Hillary. This never would have happened if Bernie had been allowed to win the nomination.

    1. Re:I blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz by kronix1986 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think a Jewish socialist liberal would've won the Presidency against Trump, you're as stupid as Bernie supporters who voted for Trump out of spite. Obama and Hillary are centrist/centre-right by European standards and still got massacred for being "socialist communist atheist Marxist liberals".

      Bernie on the other hand is a traditional centre-left European politician, and would've been annihilated by the GOP and hostile news media for his openly "socialist" (aka social democratic) views. Sanders faced zero scrutiny during the primary campaign because absolutely everybody thought Hillary would win the nomination and the Presidency.

      There was a fuckton of opposition research waiting to be done on him and the only thing we can be sure of is he would've faced as much hostility as Hillary did. Possibly even more, because "Jewish socialist" lends itself very well to conspiracy theories about the NWO, Jewish takeovers, Deep State coups and all the other shit the average mentally damaged Trump voter believes.

    2. Re:I blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Socialism and multiculturalism = death of a nation. You can NOT have both; you can only pick one.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.