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."

Comments

Terms of Service

[transami]

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.

Re: Terms of Service

[Anonymous Coward]

The Minnesota law says they are required to have an opt out provision and can't deny service.

Re: Terms of Service

[cayenne8]

The Minnesota law says they are required to have an opt out provision and can't deny service.

It needs to be OPT IN.....why do they have such a problem making it all opt IN, rather than opt out assuming you want your info gathered, analyzed and disseminated?

This is going to get messy

[lbmouse]

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.

Re:This is going to get messy

[Zaphon]

The bill overturned (which wasn't even in effect yet) only blocked ISP's while allowing Facebook, Google, etc. to do it. How about a full privacy bill!

Re:This is going to get messy

[Opportunist]

That would pretty much invalidate the whole social media business model. Every social media webpage would pretty much lose all its value over night and would have to...

Where do I sign?

Re:This is going to get messy

[gnasher719]

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.

There are two obvious solutions: Make sure that you only sell the data of people outside of Minnesota, and the data of people in Minnesota who have given written consent. OR don't sell that data at all.

Option 2 is much easier to implement, requires absolutely no changes to your existing systems, and is customer friendly.

Re:This is going to get messy

[Opportunist]

Oh, Usenet. I kinda miss it, it was almost like the social media bullshit today. About as much spam, but with more openness and less restrictive.

Plus, as an added bonus, no idiots trying to "friend" you so they get ahead in some bullshit game.

Re:This is going to get messy

[caseih]

Frankly, who cares how difficult it is for the ISPs. This is just a fact of life about how the US is set up and runs. Companies already have to navigate state-specific regulations. And if the states can and should regulate and enforce privacy, why not let them do it and assume the burden?

So while I disagree with almost everything the Republican Party stands for, on this I can certainly see their point. Why not let the local government, who theoretically has a better handle on the needs of its citizens than the federal government, decide what privacy is needed and enforce it on companies?

It's actually a similar thing things like car fuel economy regs. Why does the federal government need to concern itself when California already sets high standards? It's not like car companies are going to make two cars, one dirty and fuel-guzzling for the rest of the US, and another clean, lean one for California. But I digress.

Re:This is going to get messy

[Tablizer]

Companies already have to navigate state-specific regulations.

That's like reasoning that since your backyard pool already has alligators inhabiting it, it's okay to also put piranhas in it.

Why not let the local government, who theoretically has a better handle on the needs of its citizens than the federal government, decide what privacy is needed and enforce it on companies?

It hurts international competitiveness because companies have spend resources dealing with local laws that cover the same issue differently. You could use "broken window theory" of economics to say it creates jobs for lawyers and system implementators, but it will make doing business more expensive in the USA, and thus potentially hurt the exportability of our products and services.

I can perhaps see it from a "political freedom" perspective, but NOT a job creation mechanism for the middle class, like T claimed.

Why does the federal government need to concern itself when California already sets high standards? It's not like car companies are going to make two cars, one dirty and fuel-guzzling for the rest of the US, and another clean, lean one for California.

This directly illustrates the problem. TX won't want to pay extra for cars because CA has higher pollution standards. The "W" Bush admin actually fought with CA on this issue, trying force CA to accept lower standards because most states wanted lower standards to have cheaper cars (or more profits for Detroit).

It seems GOP wants to make it a "states rights" issue when it benefits the 1% but issue nation-wide edicts when states rights gets in the way. They wanted this also on healthcare: force CA to accept TX's low medical standards to allegedly increase cross-state competition.

Thus, "political freedom" is just a rouse for GOP. The 1% is really their focus.

Messy? Who Cares, this is a privacy win!

[adosch]

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.

Re:no borders

[davecb]

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)