Slashdot Mirror
Minnesota Senate Votes To Bar Selling ISP Data (twincities.com)
Kagato quotes a report from St. Paul Pioneer Press: In a surprise move, the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday voted to bar internet service providers from selling their users' personal data without express written consent. The move was a reaction to a Tuesday vote in Congress to lift a ban on that practice imposed in 2016 by the Federal Communication Commission. Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, offered the amendment onto the Senate's economic development budget bill, saying it was urgently needed to protect Minnesotans' privacy after the congressional vote. Latz's amendment was challenged under Senate rules on the grounds that it would impose a cost on a state agency and thus needed to go through committee rather than be added on the floor. Republican Sen. Warren Limmer, of Maple Grove, broke with his party to overturn the Senate president's ruling and allow the internet privacy amendment to continue by a single vote. Once the amendment cleared this procedural hurdle, it was overwhelmingly added to the bill on a 66-1 vote. The lone critic, Sen. David Osmek, R-Mound, said Latz's amendment needed more study and review before being adopted.
The Register reports that Illinois has also fought back against Tuesday's vote by approving two new privacy measures. "On Thursday, the state's Cybersecurity, Data Analytics and IT Committee approved two new privacy measures," reports The Register. "One would allow state residents to demand what data companies such as Comcast, Verizon, Google and Facebook is sharing about them. The other would require consent before an app can track users' locations."
The only problem with this is "express written consent" just becomes an inescapable back door. They'll just put it into their Terms of Service and you won't be able to get service from any ISP without agreeing to them. So this is weak sauce, that looks good but doesn't;t accomplish anything.
:T:R:A:N:S:
How are ISP going to manage their privacy policies if each states has different laws? This is why the FCC needed to regulate the abuse of user data at the federal level.
Let us all hope so. We get to sort who's corrupt to the core and who's actually interested in their constituency for more than votes.
A strong federal government is important in a lot of ways, but the State's right to redress grievances in court is another important check & balance.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Now I suddently want to move to Minnesota. I'm not considered "meat" but actually a person - something that is an essential part of being in a democracy and participating in free-market capitalism.
Good on you, Minnesota. You are leading New York and Silicon Valley by wide margins.
Perhaps I should consider moving to Minnesota - where government actually gives two seconds of thoughts about folks they represent.
I envy Minnesota's senate. Thank you for doing the right thing. This whole law push through congress is just a pocket-lining exercise for a ton of Republicans who have skin-in-the-game to gain money off selling of personal data.
If the FCC cared, they'd have had this ironed out years ago. The 'Big 3' have been doing this for years (Facebook, Google, Apple) but it's a bit different when it's an ISP; that's probably the most intimate of an agreement you have to get on/in/use the internet of any kind. When that level of privacy is breached, what's left, really?
People are right, and I'm not new to say this: As much as I commended it, so what if a law is passed, in the end as an extreme end-user, I'm doomed by the ISP(s) I have access to pick a service from that don't intertwine the "we-dont-care-what-the-law-says-use-our-network-and-your-data-gets-sold" stranglehold. It's just disgusting anymore.
Wait till those legislators get their porn habits sold!
HAH-AHAHHAHAH!
Trolls are already pushing "it's illegal to pay for the browsing history of the politicians", pointing to an article[1] that says some things "arguaby" may still be prohibited by laws, pased previous to the FCCs regulation. Watch out for "false facts" here.
--dave
[1. http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15115382/buy-congress-web-history-gop-fake-internet-privacy]
see also https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/03/29/1717201/activist-starts-a-campaign-to-buy-and-publish-browsing-histories-of-politicians-who-passed-anti-privacy-law
davecb@spamcop.net
They'll just put it into their Terms of Service and you won't be able to get service from any ISP without agreeing to them. So this is weak sauce, that looks good but doesn't;t accomplish anything.
Depending no how the law is written, any conflicting clause of the Terms of Service would simply be unenforceable. So, it may accomplish quite a bit (if you live in Minnesota, at least).
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
like some of the rest of us-- dept
Why do Google and Facebook get a free pass on this?
ISPs aren't even in this game yet. But Google and Facebook have been curbstomping and strip mining your privacy for years.
If you think this is a win, you have some extremely low standards.
The real game has barely begun.
I thought states couldn't amend federal laws unless the US congress specifically allowed it, and then only in ways that the congress allowed.
the internet has no borders. eventually your data routes through countries or systems that don't have to abide by these feel good laws.
Several democrats who ran for state senate had this as part of their platform. This was an issue that was brought up at multiple caucuses across the state and in the state convention as well. The only surprise is that their were some republicans who were willing to favor people over profit on this vote and join with the democrats.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Because one has nothing to do with the other.
Well if it passes the House and whatever Fed retaliation occurs, this would be a golden opportunity to set up a VPN service that had it's endpoints in Minnesota so that anyone could enjoy the privacy.
Most people seem to be looking at this from the privacy aspect.
I also find it very sad. Sad that ISPs have nothing of value to offer and are reduced to peddling lists of names. Sad that other companies, offering little value themselves, are reduced to buying lists for cold-calling.
That's the American economy these days, selling "opportunities" priced as if they were results.
WOW - the federal government DOESN"T HAVE to DO EVERYTHING. The state's are using THEIR power. Liberal snowflakes, untwist your panties, all is well.
credit cards and banks do this all the time which is far more personal.
I hope my state adopts something similar. This is actually how the "Federalist" model is supposed to work: each state regulates what and how they want to.
However, it can result in fractured laws where a corporation has to consider up to 50 laws (and more if county-specific ones appear) instead of just one. In other words, "poor factoring".
The same could happen to laws on the environment, finance, labor, etc. per GOP deregulation. California has even threatened to start its own space program to launch environmental research satellites if NASA's science is gutted.
State granularity of somewhat similar laws is good job security for lawyers; but efficiency, and thus international competitiveness may take a hit. "Deregulation" may instead result in messy regulation.
Table-ized A.I.
Because they aren't common carriers.
yeah except with the environment your state gets to poison mine regardless of the laws passed in my state. While having 50 privacy laws is a workable, if stupid, way to handle things like ISP data, it doesn't work for the environment.
And if states like California, who already put far more into the federal government than they get back, end up having to fund things like space exploration and environmental protection and basically everything else that is being cut from the budget, what reason do they have to keep paying into the federal government.
Federalism is all about the taker states getting their way while the maker states foot the bill. Its not sustainable.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
If the FCC cared, they'd have had this ironed out years ago.
Perhaps you don't know how the FCC works. They suffer from exactly the same political party biases as any part of Washington D.C. does. They have a board of 5 commissioners and by law no more than 3 can belong to the same political party. The current makeup is 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat and 2 unfilled seats. I don't know why the 2 seats are unfilled. Could be that Obama appointed people and the Senate refused to consider them. As far i know there's nothing to stop Trump from appointing a Republican to one vacant seat and leaving the other vacant, giving the Republicans a 3-1 edge. The FCC has been in Republican control for a really long time now. Michael Powell, Gen. Colin Powell's son, ran them for a while but he was controversial as he always sided with big business on everything they wanted. I don't know if it's fair to say they don't care so much as it is more accurate to say the Republicans have the majority there and they definitely don't care.
Did you know the MN senate is Republican controlled, granted just barely, and that this was a unanimous vote.
We are also one of the few states fighting the whole "real id, register everyone"
I think a lot of the privacy/security support in the MN legislature comes from the medical and data storage influences in the area.
States are weak; given enough time and/or corporate opposition states can be overpowered. Huge multi-state corporations like our ISP monopoly or duopoly powers have more influence than they do at a federal level. This is why local public community ISPs are illegal in some states where the rights of communities are infringed upon.
RIGHT TO REPAIR has been showing just how powerless states are even when their overly represented rural citizens are worked up. Right to repair didn't matter enough until John Deer started fucking over farmers.
It is stupid to think that only one party wants more federal power. Both parties resort to federal power when necessary to achieve their goals. It can be argued the liberals resort to it MORE because their issues are more often social justice issues; therefore, they are about human rights and those belong as far reaching as possible (even if you do not recognize those rights; then such localization talk is just a really opposition tactic to limit the scope of such rights -- such as free speech zones...)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Courts are mostly after-the-fact "solutions". Pollution regulations often require a company to log and monitor their own expulsions. To break the law you have to actively forge documents and test results. If we rely on lawsuits, there is little incentive to "fly right" being a lawsuit could be distant and delay-able with enough legal finagling. Corporations only tend to think about 5 years out. The internal executive mantra is "get big, get laid, then leave for another company".
Table-ized A.I.