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

"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."

Comments

Brrr

[gerf]

Did someone leave a window open? It seems a little shilly in here.

Re:Brrr

[Immerman]

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?

Re:Brrr

[arglebargle_xiv]

Why The US Senate's Vote To Throw Out ISP Privacy Laws Isn't All Bad

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your vote here is only MOSTLY bad. There's a big difference between mostly bad and all bad. Mostly bad is slightly good. With all bad, well, with all bad there's usually only one thing you can do. Go back to debating healthcare reform with Miracle Trump. And remember, you rush a Miracle Trump, you get rotten miracles.

Re:Brrr

[zugmeister]

Bravo! Bravo!

Not the same

[GezusK]

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.

Re:Not the same

[ArmoredDragon]

Prior to automated switchboards, there was basically zero expectation of privacy for phone systems. It used to be that your phone line was shared among numerous houses who could listen at any time, and the operator had to listen in to connect calls and terminate them as requested. Metered calls in particular had to have somebody on the line to keep track of your time (and every minute they'd tell you how many minutes your call was so far) for billing purposes.

When it came time to switch to automated systems out of pure necessity, there was even a large group of consumers who resisted it, called the Anti-Digit-Dialing League.

Great thinking!

[spikenerd]

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.

Re:Great thinking!

[SeaFox]

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.

Enemy of the good

[drew_kime]

"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.

Re:Enemy of the good

[bheerssen]

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

Re:Now it's like telco selling me to advertisers

[ArmoredDragon]

I don't think it makes sense for ad companies themselves to sell that kind of information. That kind of information is valuable to the ad company for their own purposes, and is devalued if they transfer it to a third party.

For example, why would it make sense for Google to sell information it collects on you? Google sells ad placement services, and if this third party wants access to Google's users for marketing purposes, it will have to buy ad space from Google. So why on earth would Google sell this information to the third party? That would only give the third party the means to compete with them for either providing its own ad placement or selling its own ad placement services, thus eating into Google's ad revenue.

Now if you're not in the business of selling ad space or producing ads, THEN it would make sense.

Re:Wrong direction?

[PopeRatzo]

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.