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.

15 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 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.

  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: 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.

  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. . . .
  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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...
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?