Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Why The US Senate's Vote To Throw Out ISP Privacy Laws Isn't All Bad' (technologyreview.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the watching-the-web-browsers dept.

"Nobody wants their data spread far and wide," write two associate editors at MIT Technology Review, "but the FCC's rules were an inconsistent solution to a much larger problem." An anonymous reader writes: They point out the rules passed in October "weren't even yet in effect," but more importantly -- they only would've applied to ISPs. "[T]he reality is that the U.S. doesn't have a baseline law that governs online privacy," and the truth is, it never did. "The FCC's new privacy rules would have been dramatic, to be sure -- but they would only have addressed one piece of the problem, leaving companies like Facebook and Google free to continue doing much the same thing.
While the repeal still needs approval in the U.S. House of Representatives and the president's signature, their article argues that what's really needed is "a more consistent approach to privacy."

7 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Not the same by GezusK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can choose to not give Google and Facebook my data. I don't get that choice with my ISP. I have only have one available, and they can see all my traffic.

  2. Great thinking! by spikenerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's throw out our current privacy protection because we might get a better one later. I think I'll quit my job now so I'll have plenty of time on my hands in case I find a better one. And would anyone like my car? I need to free up some space in my garage in case someone comes along and gives me a better one.

    1. Re:Great thinking! by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or like trying to repeal a half-baked healthcare system before we actually come up with a new one that addresses the needs to everyone.

  3. Enemy of the good by drew_kime · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The FCC's new privacy rules would have been dramatic, to be sure -- but they would only have addressed one piece of the problem, leaving companies like Facebook and Google free to continue doing much the same thing."

    So instead of repealing the law, how about extending to also apply to Google and Facebook?

    This is a constant refrain from Republicans: "This solution doesn't solve the problem completely or perfectly, so it should be repealed." If there's any meaningful space between that often-repeated position and simply eliminating all corporate oversight, I can't see it.

    --
    Nope, no sig
    1. Re:Enemy of the good by bheerssen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Republicans tell us that government is the problem, and now that they are in power, they intend to prove it.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
  4. Re:Brrr by Immerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Agreed. Sure, replacing it with something more consistent and expansive would definitely be better, but that's not happening.

    So what exactly is "not all bad" about repealing the imperfect protections we *do* have?

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  5. Re:Wrong direction? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Waste of govt time to discard this little bit of regulation, congress should be working on drafting a real privacy law that actually helps people.

    Congress has important tax cuts for rich people and corporations to worry about. They have no time for your measly privacy.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.