Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the back-to-square-one dept.

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.

39 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 sinij · · Score: 2

      Sure, but "exposure to the internet" is constantly getting redefined.

      Put it this way, if previous generations minded their mail getting read by censors and fought hard to put the end to it, why are we now allowing this but "on computer" to come back?!

    3. Re:it's all over, anyway by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      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.

      Well put. Puntended.

      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 protection of your average citizen's privacy is the tech equivalent of mandatory seat belts, child seats, and motorcycle helmets. Sometimes, we have to protect the public from themselves.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:it's all over, anyway by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ijiot, oh noes, don do no banking, don do no insurance, don do no credit card shoppin, don talk to doctor, just how fukin stupid are u (and you deserved it for that comment). We have a right to privacy on the internet and we have the right to force government to regulate and enforce that privacy with surprise data audit and custodial sentences. Not only should that dick be thrown out of government but a taring and feathering would be appropriate. We the are not the fuck for sale and no lying shit fuck politician should ever dare attempt to do so, WTF!

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:it's all over, anyway by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      no, YOU fail to understand 'the internet'.

      there is sll, ssh, other secure transports. you CAN have a secure channel and its not hard. I vpn into work when I need to and that's secure, too.

      you have given up. that's sad. but stop speaking for the rest of us. many of us refuse to give up and this is a fight worth fighting.

      if you are too wussified to fight, that's on you, brother. but the rest of us still have fight in us and we know this is a solvable problem.

      all the issues are political. we have had network privacy in the tech area for years and years. its the spymasters and marketing pukes that want to roll it all back.

      oh, and wussies like you.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. 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.
    7. Re:it's all over, anyway by footNipple · · Score: 2

      https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1_Rcd.pdf

      Here's the text of this particular FCC regulation put into effect by un-elected officials. I wonder if these regs were struck down by Congress because of the desire to do away with privacy or because of other more specific concerns with what is in this 200+ page document.

      Keep the those knees jerking though!!

    8. Re: it's all over, anyway by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Yup, because using 8.8.8.8 can still be intercepted. Encryption and signatures are the only way to ensure you got what you asked for.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    9. Re: it's all over, anyway by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      The agency is appointed by congress - that is congress doing their job. Nowhere, NOWHERE in the US constitution does it prohibit the government from establishing agencies and allowing specialised experts to craft rules on their behalf. You know why it doesn't prohibit that? Because such a prohibition would be flagrantly idiotic. The government would be making decisions on highly specialized knowledge areas - and having it all made by people who have no understanding of the topic they are making decisions over. Regulations would be written by politicians over things they don't understand at all.
      As it is - that ignorance is part of why lobbyists are so powerful in Washington - the politicians don't understand half the shit they are talking about, the lobbyists 'explain' things the way they want them understood and the politicians parrot the explanations.

      You do NOT want politicians to have to know about everything - even if they could, it would leave very little room for them to know about the thing they ARE supposed to be experts at: the administrative duties of running the country. So they establish specialized agencies where experts in the field can draft rules, and take a strictly oversight rule.

      This is, not, in fact ideal. It can be better - the best case scenario is where - for certain critical things - the constitution itself establishes agencies which exist WITHOUT government oversight - but has the power to excercise oversight over the government. Politicians may appoint the directors of these agencies but cannot fire them without a super-majority vote of no-confidence, are required to obey their findings as they would a court of law (and if they feel it is wrong have to challenge it in the court system so only judges can overrule the agency). South Africa has such a system, Chapter 9 of the constitution establishes a number of specialized agencies who perform specific oversight roles over government and society with powers independent of the legislative government (essentially parallel in power to courts but with a different focus). Chapter 9 agencies include the office of the Public Protector -whose job it is to investigate corruption, her findings (the last two have both been women) can include remedial action - which has the power of a court order, and can be used as evidence in subsequent criminal charges. The Human Rights commission who has the duty to investigate and mediate human rights abuses (be they by government or private citizens), ICASA which has the duty to perform oversight of telecoms industries etc. etc.

      These have, generally, been very successful. Notably the previous public protector Thuli Madonsela is a national hero. Her successor is far less popular so far - lots of people think she's political stooge - but this could also be a case of trying to fill the shoes of an immensely successful and popular predecessor (with a flare for public relations seldom found in serious legal scholars).
      If anything, the US would be better off if organisations like the EPA, FCC and FTC were established - not by congress - but by the constitution itself and could act INDEPENDENTLY of congress - indeed having the power to veto or force changes to acts of congress within their domains. Much like the supreme court can do - but with specialized expert knowledge which neither congress nor the court has ready access to.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:it's all over, anyway by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      If someone was following me around 24/7 whenever I'm in public, recording where I visit and selling the info, I'd get a restraining order against them. Public means others can see what you are doing. It doesn't mean they have a reasonable expectation to be able to record you 24/7.

      There is a difference between being followed by a PI (something you'll never be able to prevent) and having everyone tracked by some company (something much easier to prevent). Just because something happens to be legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:it's all over, anyway by Archtech · · Score: 2

      It's not so much a matter of "got in bed with the swamp". To drain the swamp, you have to go there. Once you're there, you get the mosquitoes and crocodiles and tsetse flies and yellow fever and all the rest of it. If you still want to drain the swamp, you have to work under those conditions.

      Unfortunately, Washington D.C. is the vilest political and commercial swamp on the planet. It's extremely doubtful if it can be drained, or even slightly ameliorated. One of Jefferson's less-quoted predictions was, "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe". Luckily for him, he did not foresee a time when the USA would have cities larger than European ones.

      The Founding Fathers had a good deal of political foresight, and did their best to protect future generations against the major threats they knew about. It would have been far harder to anticipate the threats arising from population growth, industrialization, and the resulting social changes.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  2. Senator's Browsing by PineHall · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Remember, regardless of party affiliation, when you read a politicians description of a bill, you must invert most of the descriptive language he uses.

      You are gonna love H.R.1275 - World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017.
      I shit you not, that is the actual name of the bill.

    3. Re: Required inversion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah, shit.
      Its real. But its not THE plan. Its somebody's side plan.
      http://www.snopes.com/is-the-gops-obamacare-replacement-titled-worlds-greatest-healthcare-plan-of-2017/

    4. 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. Simple explaination by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    It won't. I love how our representatives think reducing regulations on companies increases our protection and/or freedoms.

    I'll be waiting for an ISP will sell the Senator's browsing information and/or his inadequately protected personal to get stolen so he can understand how his "protections from regulations" worked out... I imagine it will show he's into Furry Porn.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Simple explaination by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      If you SWAT a politician is that
      1) Civil Disobedience ?
      2) High Treason ?
      3) Using your tax dollars for maximum effect ?
      4) All of the above ?

      I have no idea anymore... but I'll tell you this, do that and the law will very soon treat SWAT-ing as the extremely serious crime it actually is.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  5. Time for a VPN by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    Just buy a good, fast VPN and your ISP gets nothing.
    All an ISP can then see is that a consumer is enjoying their privacy again.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why do Americans keep voting for these corrupt bastards?

  7. Write him a note then! by Notabadguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Contact Senator Flake: https://www.flake.senate.gov/p...

    You don't have to be from AZ - put in whatever information you like. Express your discomfort that he's submitted a bill removing consumer protections that let ISPs violate our privacy and sell our medical, health, and financial information to anyone they want without our permission.

    1. Re:Write him a note then! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Be sure to attach a $50,000 campaign donation, a bag of blow and, this is the really tricky part, three hookers. Hope that web form is a Web 2.0 form!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Contracts are not all powerful. by RLBrown · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just to chime in on a couple of trends I noticed in the earlier posts. First just because a vast population of hackers out there may be able to view your browser history, does not mean they will. Frankly, you are not interesting to hackers. You are interesting to advertisers, which what the Congressional Bill favors. Second, if there was an FCC privacy rule protecting you, it can not be overridden by a Terms of Service agreement. A TOS is just a contract between you and the ISP. In the hierarchy of law, that is the lowest level. If there is a local, state, federal, or Constitutional provision that protects you, that ends the story right there.

    --
    -- Perhaps I see less than some, but more than many.
  9. 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...
  10. 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 Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Funny, you say that like it was the DNC who picked her, not the millions of people who voted for her in the primaries. I voted for Sanders too, but Clinton did actually legitimately win. The only thing that was going to beat her was another Obama-type candidate who could mobilize and win over enough people on both the left and to the center to outweigh her name recognition and connections.

      Unfortunately, the Democratic party bench was so slim, and there were so few candidates interested in running this time, that Sanders was the only serious candidate to pick up the torch. I think someone like Elizabeth Warren could have made a lot more headway against Clinton, for instance, but she declined.

      What I wish is that Clinton had gotten herself better general election advisors, that would have told her to do more to actively shore up the base, run ads that tell people about her programs, and not rely on the fact that her opponent was a complete troglodyte. Instead they seemed to think she could coast to victory solely on that, and could make a play for moderate Republicans (as if any still exist that haven't drunk the koolaid) and she wound up badly, badly mistaken.

    2. 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.

  11. Some people are in for a surprise by quonset · · Score: 3, Informative

    We all know porn is big business in this country, and oddly, those who whine the loudest about porn's influence on society are the largest consumers of porn.

    As far back as 2009, studies showed people in the Midwest and deep South, heavy bible-belt country, had larger amounts of porn consumption than other parts of the country. A more recent survey showed the same thing but also, in those places where same-sex marriage was outlawed, gay porn consumption was higher than other places, including where same-sex marriage is legal.

    This bill will make it very interesting for those folks to explain why they're getting ads for sexual enhancers, condoms, lube and toys.

  12. Kill it at the root by johanw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Make aggressive adblockers the default option in browsers, that reduces the value of the information significantly.

  13. Or better yet donate to those running against him by MountainLogic · · Score: 2

    He is up for reelection in 2018. Looks like he will have a competitor on his right (is that possible???) and of course there will be a democrat in the race too. Donating, then write him a note explaining why you are donating!

  14. Re:Who cares??? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

    When did the lack of revenue from tracking and selling customer data become an expense? I know it's been a few years since my accounting courses but I'm pretty sure that doesn't adhere to GAAP.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  15. Re:Wait... ISPs are common carriers? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

    The ISPs want all the benefits and protections of common carrier status, without having to actually act like a common carrier (i.e., having to do anything that would benefit the customer rather than the ISP).

    The current GOP is falling all over themselves trying to give them whatever they want.

  16. Is that the best you can come up with? by hackwrench · · Score: 2

    I'm sure furry porn is way too pedestrian for our esteemed government people.

  17. Replace Internet Data with Telephone Calls.. by WimBo · · Score: 2

    It should really be explained to legislators that internet data and telephone calls are virtually the same thing now. If your ISP can sell all of your data, so can whoever you are using for your telephone calls.

    Maybe if it were explained in those terms, there would be more support for network neutrality.

  18. Big whoop. by detritus. · · Score: 2

    Okay so this rule means they're going to have to get your consent. Will they put it on page 55 of the end-user license agreement you aren't reading and just agreeing to anyway when you sign up?

    This solves nothing. The problem is a lack of competition.

  19. Re:Serious answer by BoogieChile · · Score: 3, Informative

    > The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.

    So, do tell, where did the regulations that this bill prevents taking effect come from?

  20. Liberal bias in the media by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.

    Based on everything I've seen, I'd have to disagree. Neither Democrats or Republicans walk on water, but Republicans seem intent on rolling back a lot of stuff that favors the people as opposed to corporations. For example, the bill mentioned in this very article.

    You're probably swayed by mainstream media bias. They're quick to point out bad conservative actions, and tend to sweep liberal problems under the rug.

    For example, Trump withdrew the US from TPP. Slashdot has had several articles about the TPP, everyone was moaning about how bad it was, it was created and promoted by Obama's administration...

    ...but when the problem was solved by a conservative we didn't hear a peep. Despite there being at least 3 firehose submissions about it.

    For another example, Obama ordered the drone-killing of a US citizen, and then drone-killed the son some weeks later. Outside the theatre of war, with no trial, and in a cafe killing 8 others as collateral damage.

    Obama then classified the legal justification for why he had the power to do that, so that no one could question it.

    That's the sort of thing we don't hear from the mainstream media, it's called the liberal bias and it's well known.

    That's why you probably think Democrats are better.

    They're still running under the "lesser of 2 evils" model.