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.
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
Minnesota has done a few things recently on a state level that made me think there is a certain amount of mid-western sanity that they should start sharing with the coasts.
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.
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...
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.
The internet has no borders but your ISP is an established business and operates somewhere. If you are using an ISP that is based in MN (as most Minnesotans are) then they have to abide by this law. Of course facebook, google, and others are located elsewhere, but they are also not ISPs. The very headline here explicitly states ISPs.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Sure, we waste a lot of money but at least the taxes are really high. And it's cold.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
If they're doing business in MN, the Minnesota courts can enforce the law. (BTW, that's been around since the Hanseatic league, who introduced it)
davecb@spamcop.net
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
Best avoid that whole region altogether.
It is interesting that MN pulled this off, considering we currently do have a republican controlled legislature.
If you're serious about looking for a sysadmin job, MN has a pretty good tech scene, probably the best outside of the coasts. Just float your resume out there and you will probably find something to your liking.
The GOP is hard at work 'fixing' the cold part.
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.
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.