Slashdot Mirror
Seattle Restored ISP Privacy Rules in the First Local Blow To Trump's Rollback (fastcompany.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: A majority of Americans from both parties objected to a law passed by Congress and signed by President Trump in April that gives internet service providers the go-ahead to collect and sell users' browsing history without users' consent. This week, Seattle became the first municipality in the country to fight that rollback, in effect restoring ISP privacy rules for city residents under municipal code. The city's Cable Customer Bill of Rights, dating back to 1999, gives the city authority to set privacy standards over cable providers. In a new rule added on Wednesday on the urging of Mayor Ed Murray, cable internet providers must obtain opt-in consent from users before collecting their web-browsing history or other internet usage data, including details on a person's health and finances.
It should be called Republican rollback. Trump probably https://politics.slashdot.org/... no idea what an ISP does!
Go prove they aren't collecting that data and selling it, regardless of the laws in place.
This is exactly what "states rights", etc. are all about. The creeping definition of "interstate commerce" has resulted in too much centralized bureaucracy that doesn't understand the real impact.
We need to roll back the authoritarians at the Fed (on both sides) and instead allow states to determine the rules.
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
Facebook and google already have all your browsing data, even if you don't want them to have it.
As it should be, figure out that shit at the state and local levels, don't need title II garbage.
Nope, states have jurisdiction over themselves not the federal government.
You should obey the law of the state you are in and stop trying to act like the US is one state.
There's no legal pot in Texas for instance, but Colorado? It's legal, and no I don't mean medicinal.
The ISP argument will be that only the FCC or Congress have the authority to regulate these aspects of their business.
This is no blow to Trump. It shows what he did might make more sense than some (even myself) thought. If states can regulated it, then the feds don't need to. If states choose different models, then we might find the best one and others will follow.
This is a completely pointless law then isn't it? The cable companies will simply add to their ToS that they can do that and either A) you don't get internet or B) they sell your stuff.
States deciding the issue for themselves is exactly the kind of thing Trump expected would happen, so this isn't any kind of resistance.
As a Californian, I hope Trump stays consistent with the state's rights theme and allows my state to continue setting our own auto emissions standards which 13 other states have adopted.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Yea that's why Illinois (Obama's home state and the birthplace of the democratic machine) is seeing higher rates of people leaving than ever before and Texas is seeing huge growth. Poor argument saying people want to be there because they are "nicer".
Insane taxes to fund a bunch of state regulations is just as stupid as the Federal ones. If you want anonymity on the internet, buy a service that routes you through something that adds anonymity. Everyone here knows that. This is Slashdot not an Apple forum. Your personal preferences are not a commercially protected right. If you want something, you usually have to pay for it. Everyone is looking for secondary means of revenue. Identifying people's online habits is the #1 selling commodity and marketing is one of the top spending areas for most companies. This is capitalism at it's finest and I'm fine with it. Sure beats the far extreme of the left with government running everything and deciding what you can and can't see on the internet (i.e. China)
Dissenter
"There is no knowledge that is not power."
"States can" isn't necessarily a good motto for why federal shouldn't. There is technically no limit to what states are capable of regulating.
Nope, states have jurisdiction over themselves not the federal government.
This is an FCC matter. Right or wrong this will probably get killed in court.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Yea, States rights were EVIL before Trump was elected, now all sorts of people have had whiplash change of mind or are "rediscovering" Federalism. Bottom line...many people LOVE Federal power when their people are in charge and LOVE states rights and decentralized power when their people are NOT in power. It's hypocritical, but then why should that surprise me?
Opt-in consent = signing a subscriber agreement.
This, right here.
Not everything has to be ruled-over by the federal government (see also the whole Federalism thing itself). Personally, de-centralization is a *good* thing in this case, as it will force ISPs (well, those who operate in multiple states) to unify their rules under a 'most-restrictive' policy, if only to prevent excess expense in having to maintain/keep up separate policies for separate states/municipalities.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Illinois isn't a blue state. Illinois is red with two blue spots on it - that happen to have huge populations. And Chicago is just overpopulated and full of crime - leaving is more to do with urbanization than politics. There are a lot of cheap places to live in Illinois and cost of living is generally low.
Expensive, yes. "nicer places to live"? Maybe not.
Sure, they have all the cultural goodies and conveniences that one may want, but they also have correspondingly higher crime rates, denser living conditions, nastier traffic conditions, more pollution (in general), far more restrictive environments for small business owners, excessive taxation, a more restrictive set of rules/laws on one's personal conduct, etc.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Texas was growing only due to NASA, military contracts, and missile defense (all defunded now), so good luck!
move to a left leaning state. The trouble is, they tend to be nicer places to live (go figure) so they're expensive. And no, it's not all the Taxes and burdensome regulations. It's all the people moving there to escape the crap our crummy two party political system and antiquated Senate & Presidential elections force down their throats. Seriously, only in America can a majority of Americans vote against a guy and he still wins. At least in North Korea they have the courtesy to fix the elections for real.
The system is meant to provide states with less population a more equal-footing in electing the president. That way the President isn't as influenced by the larger States, ignoring the smaller ones.
because he remembers working as a computer tech and the singular "restrictive regulation" he experienced in 8 years was when he hauled a bunch of computers to the dump and they made him drive it to a special section so it wouldn't contaminate the ground water. That, sir or madam, is your "Burdensome Regulations" in a nutshell. They barely register with small businesses. Now, _big_ businesses who would like to build factories like they have in China that kill everyone without cancer resistant genes (google "Cancer Villages"), they might have some additional things to watch for. Oh, and Wall Street. About every 8 years we elect somebody to reign them in long enough so they can crash the economy the next time...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It can be a good enough reason in many cases.
I doubt it... the FCC generally has no problems with a locality being more restrictive on an ISPs conduct than federal rules, since there's no violation of what the FCC is trying to accomplish.
By way of example, I direct you to Coho - a local wireless ISP in Oregon (so, not just an ISP, but one that rents radio spectrum). Coho specifically blocks all peer-to-peer (read: BitTorrent) traffic. They proudly say so on that link I posted.
Now one would think that, under your theory, the FCC would get mad at that. Turns out, they don't care, and haven't for years.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The rule hadn't yet taken effect. Interesting how stuff like this apparently was of no importance to Seattle until they saw an opportunity to "oppose" Trump.
Do you have ESP?
Illinois isn't a blue state. Illinois is red with two blue spots on it - that happen to have huge populations. And Chicago is just overpopulated and full of crime - leaving is more to do with urbanization than politics. There are a lot of cheap places to live in Illinois and cost of living is generally low.
That's still an argument against "all the people moving to left leaning places".
At least in North Korea they have the courtesy to fix the elections for real.
You get that here if you vote in DNC primaries. Just ask Bernie Sanders. In fact he pissed them off so much they are going after his wife now, stay classy DNC.
What a joke it is to hear liberals talk about voting rights now. Not a word about rigged primaries that they run, but they can find voter fraud everywhere else now.
Illinois isn't a blue state. Illinois is red with two blue spots on it - that happen to have huge populations.
In that sense, so is Oregon (Portland, Salem, Bend), California (SanFran Metro, LA Metro, San Diego Metro), Washington (SeaTac and maybe one other metro area), and likely lots of other states just like it. :)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It's nice they passed this for those living in Seattle, although I doubt it will do much good.
How I see it playing out:
Option 1: 1TB usage cap, 150Mb/s speeds and we don't sell your online habits for just $99.00 / month.
Option 2: 1TB usage cap, 150Mb/s speeds and we can* sell your online data for just $79.99 / month.
* = bundling your data with others data and selling in bulk since they can't legally sell individual data. Still trivial to determine what data belongs to who when cross-referenced with other databases ( which are also for sale ).
Option 2 will be considered the " Opt In " option.
Take a guess what 99% of folks will go with? All the while the ISP can honestly say " We let the customer decide what was best for them ! " :|
Article Ten.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The people are the ultimate limit.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Collectively, ISPs already wield an alarming amount of power in DC. An individual ISP in a single state though probably has even more influence, given the number of local people they employ, the grip on infrastructure they hold, and how much easier it is to grease the palms of local politicians (though they don't seem to have a problem buying congress-critters). And precisely because I may live in one state that protects my privacy, but a company I'm doing business with is headquartered in a state that does not, this actually is an interstate commerce issue.
Unless you are proposing that state laws mandate a company that collects personal data must abide by the state privacy laws of all users' state of origin?
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
It's a terrible argument. Why allow the states to regulate, when the county can regulate? Why allow the county to regulate, when the city can regulate? Why allow the city to regulate when the person can regulate? Just because something CAN be done by a smaller group of people, doesn't mean it is inherently in the best interest for them to.
but they also have correspondingly higher crime rates,
Actually blue states are typically much lower crime rates.
The only potential exception to that might be Florida in general, which would of course apply during times it goes blue, however it's a swing state and it's currently both.
denser living conditions, nastier traffic conditions,
Those only apply to a very small number of huge cities.
Of course the same is true for most huge cities no matter being blue or red.
But for the sake of argument, there are currently more huge cities in red states than blue states, simply because red is currently the majority.
more pollution (in general),
I don't believe that one to be true either, and would love to see your sources and numbers that make you say that.
far more restrictive environments for small business owners,
Yes that's kinda the point. Blue states have laws that protect us citizens, unlike red states that tend to have more laws protecting corporations abuse of citizens.
This is not a bad thing.
excessive taxation,
One blue state having slightly higher than average taxes is far from "excessive", and there are more blue states than just California alone. Pick literally any other blue state and they are anywhere from within average to exceptionally low.
a more restrictive set of rules/laws on one's personal conduct, etc.
Any examples of that? I can't think of a single one to even begin to counter that claim.
Missouri (Kansas City, St Louis). Yup, seems to be a common thing.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Seriously, only in America can a majority of Americans vote against a guy and he still wins
A "majority of Americans" didn't vote against the winner, because that would first require a majority to vote.
Please link to the proof for this statement, "A majority of Americans from both parties objected to a law".
DRUMPF IS FINISHED NOW!
You are making a terrible argument. Speaking in generalities as you are doing is a terrible way to argue. Nobody ever said that because something can be done it is inherently in the best interest, you just came up with that out of nowhere. I could argue the opposite, that just because it CAN be done by a larger group..blah blah.
Maybe you need to talk about the specific issue and make your case as to the best approach. It would be more productive.
If ISP's are allowed to sell your data, the government no longer has to go through legal channels for warrants -- they can just "buy" what they want.
Looking at the county-by-county election map shows pretty much the same thing.
http://i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/election-2016-county-map.png
Like when states decided to legalize marijuana, Obama just said it's still illegal under federal law then conduct raids on dispensaries.
Also stop using your ISP-provided email and use something like Proton Mail. Let's see how much they can monetize ZERO data.
We seem to be on near opposite ends of the political spectrum, but on this I agree with you. If you're a leftist, a liberal, a person who can't get enough of Big Brother, you might enjoy living in state like that, and they might enjoy having you. You likely already live in one, so maybe stay there in California instead of moving to Texas. If you lean right, if you're conservative, if you want to make your own decisions, you might like Texas and Texas might like you.
It's a bit silly to argue about which is "better"; people have different preferences. That is unless you have a specific measurable goal in mind, such as economic growth. If you want economic growth, you can decide to look at the economic growth number from each state and find out which policies work well.
There are two things that a lot of people do which are silly, illogical, no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on at the moment. The first illogical thing is to flee the effects of policies in one state, and bringing those failed policies with you. If you're leaving a state that has high unemployment and a ridiculously high cost of living, amd high taxes, going to a state with low costs, high pay, amd low taxes, recognize that those conditions were created by policies. Don't try to get the new, better state to start doing things the way the old, failed state did them. I'm sure it goes both ways, but here's the example I always see because I happen to be in Texas:
Me: Welcome, I hear you just from California?
Them: Yeah I got a much better job here in Texas. The salary is the same dollar amount, but in Texas that buys a big house. In California I could only get an efficiency apartment.
Me: I understand. I like that I bought a 3,500 sq foot house in Dallas for $243K.
Them: I hear you guys have NO state income tax here, so my take-home pay is more also.
Me: Yep, that's true.
Them: Just one thing I don't like about Texas, public transportation. In California we've been building this awesome $50 billion light rail line for the last 30 years. I can't understand why you guys in Texas won't do that. Your light rail here isn't as good as California's will be, when it's done. I'm going to start a petition for more light rail here in Dallas.
Me: Face-palm
Similarly, if you love doing things the liberal way, the Democrat way, in your Democrat state, why the HELL would you want the Republican Congress and Donald Trump to control more? Wouldn't you want your liberal state to be able to do things the liberal way? For example the latest health care bill is basically a list of things that each state can now decide for themselves. That's pretty awesome if you're a liberal in a liberal state.
It worked great when we allowed states to regulate which humans counted as people, for instance.
If facebook, google, twiter can build a list of sites and things you like/thump up and follow you based off your cookies. Why can't the ISP do the same thing?
Don't believe me request the data facebook alone has on you.
I'm no Trump fan or supporter of any kind, but isn't calling this a "blow" to the rollback wrong? I thought this was exactly what they stated the rollback was for, to put the power to regulate this in the hands of the states.
This assumes we need a system of evolution to know that network providers shouldn't be utilizing their position to make their customers a product. I feel like we figured this one out a long time ago.
In that sense, so is Oregon (Portland, Salem, Bend), California (SanFran Metro, LA Metro, San Diego Metro), Washington (SeaTac and maybe one other metro area), and likely lots of other states just like it. :)
Not quite, but certainly the perception of California, Washington, and Oregon as total Commie-Pinko Hippie territory is wrong. Reagan was elected governor of California. Reagan. The idea that the state is a far leftist fring? A lie.
But here's a shocker, so is the perception of the country as a Sea of Red. It's a lie. A damnable one.
When the value of selling a person's information exceeds the cost of creating localized policies, then the company may pay for it.
You also implicitly recognize that restrictions are inherently a good thing and you're arguing it's better to let the influence of the more restrictive markets shape the global behavior than to just restrict it at the top level? Either the restriction is a good thing, in which case why not implement it at the federal level, or the restriction is of dubious value so it would be bad if one area could enforce national behavior.
If you think the obvious contradiction with the Republican "states' rights" platform is going to stop them from trying to fight this you haven't been paying much attention to politics. Neither major party has a platform that is even remotely internally consistent and I have no doubt that Trump will fight this.
There literally is a federal case being tried - right now - on Russian hackers stealing from Seattle businesses.
keep up, this is 2017 not 1967.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Seriously, only in America can a majority of Americans vote against a guy and he still wins.
Well, no shit, Sherlock; where else would you expect to find Americans voting? Oh, yeah, I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's moot. Like it or not, the guy who came in second in the popular vote somehow figured out that it's the Electoral vote that actually decides the winner of the election.
Writing a Constitution that would be ratified by every single state legislature required compromises. The electoral college was one of those compromises. If you're from the USA, then at some point, your state joined the union by accepting The Constitution. Using the electoral college is not "fixing" the election, it's the method that the states agreed to use.
"a majority of Americans vote against a guy..."
People cast ~74 million votes for presidential candidates other than Trump. That's only 23% of the U.S. population and only 30% of the adult U.S. population. Hardly a majority.
we might find the best one and others will follow.
We might also find that most states don't adopt any ISP privacy rules and every horrible scenario people were worried about. You can't possibly know which will come to pass. Neither can I.
All we know for sure is that a municipality has now decided that removing those privacy rules was so monumentally stupid that they're going to put them right back. Stop trying to spin that outcome as "this is exactly what I was hoping for!" Nobody was hoping for this outcome. Not even Seattle.
Using your own language: Fuck off and quit pushing your fascist ways on the rest of us.
certainly the perception of California, Washington, and Oregon as total Commie-Pinko Hippie territory is wrong.
Your 3D map of California you link to shows otherwise. The margin of victory for blue in California is not only high, it's high across much of the state. More so than Oregon and Washington.
"States can" isn't necessarily a good motto for why federal shouldn't
That's cute, A complete opposite of what the Constitution actually says in the 10th Amendment. It says (basically) that unless it is specifically authorized by the Constitution, it is reserved to the States and People. The real reason for the Civil War wasn't slavery (and white supremacy), it was Federal supremacy. We won the battle (slavery), but lost the war (tyranny) in the process. We're just discovering how costly that loss really was.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
However, it means that people in small states have much more voting power in Presidential elections. It also means that most people are disenfranchised. If my state's vote is sufficiently close that my vote might possibly be important, the Republicans have won anyway. The only people whose votes actually matter are the ones in swing states.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
LOL!
If you hate Texas, why the hell are you moving there?
You're not moving there? Then why the hell do you care?
Because... That's what the constitution of the United States says it should be? Been like that for over 200 years, but some Washington bozos overstep their bounds all the time.
Umm, I think it's actually the FTC now that regulates internet service matters, or soon will be. Still, federal supremacy applies if Seattle law conflicts with federal law.
Of course, it won't be as simple as that. There will be endless stays and other procedural and legal roadblocks thrown up because applying and enforcing the straightforward letter of the law as written is for when dealing with the 'deplorables' in flyover country, not for the extreme political left in Seattle, because some animals are more equal than others.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Oh, that;s right, trump. totally liberal.
Who claimed that the vote was rigged? Trump
Who claimed that they only lost california because of 3 million illegal aliens voting in massive fraud? Trump again.
So trump is a liberal???
Like when they figured out Ma Bell was fucking everyone over? Or when the power companies were fucking everyone over? Or when the banks fucked over the whole country?
Jesus wept. Why don't we let the states set standards for medical practice too, manage airplanes in their skies, waste disposal?
When a city, a fucking city, has to pass a law prohibiting the invasion of your privacy that means Americans are not allowed privacy, only people that live in Seattle.
What is next? Americans are not allowed to watch more that 30 hours of Netflix per month unless you live in Chicago, Tulsa, St. Louis or Spokane?
Do we really need every city in the nation to legislate us privacy?
Maybe they can have some sort of agency to encompasses all of those cities pass that law all at once. So that all cities that exist within its boundaries get covered by that law all at once. Some sort of nation or something. Like a centrally managed government. They could even get a bunch of people from all over, or "representatives" for the people, to decide on all this.
No, it is not. It is an FTC issue, which is what the order stated.
If votes only matter in swing states, start trying to convince people in your state to vote opposite the majority.
I wish I could have modded this up!
Exactly the point, though.... Federal govt. really shouldn't be passing blanket laws over small details on how business is done. It has a role to play when it comes to regulating interstate commerce, since that pits state against state otherwise, trying to determine if some transaction is allowed and who is in the wrong, if not.
But when I pay for broadband internet access, I do so from a company doing business in my own town, subject to a lot of local regulation. Federal govt. really shouldn't have to intervene with any of this stuff.
I think in many ways, we got lost in the whole concept of Federally regulated monopolies. (Essentially, we made the leap of logic that because it was Federal govt. who had to grant a company monopoly status, that automatically meant it was Federal who got to give it rules on how it should operate.) When you think about it, the realities of the marketplace help illustrate why that's rather flawed. (We still have local and state governments placing rules and restrictions on monopolies all the time. There's no way Federal govt. is even capable of micro-managing things at the level needed for your power companies, water and gas companies, or cable companies.) May as well just let the states and cities dictate ALL of the terms and conditions of service since they've been dictating quite a bit of them anyway, all along.
Um, no, the Civil War was entirely about slavery. If you think the South was all about 'states rights' you're buying a bunch of BS. Take one look at the Fugitive Slave laws, or Dred Scott and you'll see instantly that the Confederate states had no problem imposing THEIR views on the Northern states... they only objected when slavery was threatened.
No, it does not say that states have rights, only that the constitution was a limit on federal rights.
Dumbass.
Moreover, that merely disabuses the other poster who said the "Oh, why not the individual, then?" idea was bad because nobody said it was better if it was left to smaller groups, because that's what YOU are saying the constitution means, even if it doesn't use those words.
So if it's left to the people, why the hell should the state overrule the individual? Why are the states there at all, if the rights are for the people and the states, the people just tell the states to fuck off and the state, being not a person, but a grouping, gets no say otherwise.
This should be modded up. C'mon, didn't we fight a war that settled whether states can treat people differently?
"States can" isn't necessarily a good motto for why federal shouldn't
That's cute, A complete opposite of what the Constitution actually says in the 10th Amendment. It says (basically) that unless it is specifically authorized by the Constitution, it is reserved to the States and People. The real reason for the Civil War wasn't slavery (and white supremacy), it was Federal supremacy. We won the battle (slavery), but lost the war (tyranny) in the process. We're just discovering how costly that loss really was.
Liar.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.[1]"
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
certainly the perception of California, Washington, and Oregon as total Commie-Pinko Hippie territory is wrong.
Your 3D map of California you link to shows otherwise. The margin of victory for blue in California is not only high, it's high across much of the state. More so than Oregon and Washington.
Is that the lesson you want to take? Because while the margin in California was indeed, very high in 2016, 8,753,788 to 4,483,810, as that's about 2:1 ratio, that's still over 4 million Trump voters in California, the only states where he got more votes were Florida and Texas(coincidentally, the only states where Clinton got more votes than in those two were California and New York).
It gets even more apparent when you look back to prior years where California is the number 1 for both parties, like 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012...
Sorry, omnichad, but the concept of partisan polarization by state is deeply flawed by such misconceptions. More complicated pictures abound
excessive taxation,
One blue state having slightly higher than average taxes is far from "excessive", and there are more blue states than just California alone. Pick literally any other blue state and they are anywhere from within average to exceptionally low.
a more restrictive set of rules/laws on one's personal conduct, etc.
Any examples of that? I can't think of a single one to even begin to counter that claim.
Let me help you with your lack of knowledge try looking at MN. It's taxation rate is not average or low.
Let's see this tried in a city that has Internet service.
Hackers exist. It is true. Some are from Russia. WTF? It is 2017, not 1988.
I wish I could have modded this up!
No you don't, Archangel Michael is a paint-huffing hypocrite, he'll turn right around when it's convenient for his partisan biases.
Exactly the point, though.... Federal govt. really shouldn't be passing blanket laws over small details on how business is done.
Why not?
It has a role to play when it comes to regulating interstate commerce, since that pits state against state otherwise, trying to determine if some transaction is allowed and who is in the wrong, if not.
But when I pay for broadband internet access, I do so from a company doing business in my own town, subject to a lot of local regulation. Federal govt. really shouldn't have to intervene with any of this stuff.
Most people realize that the Internet is about communicating outside of a given state, even the whole country. Why should your local town be involved? Are they qualified? Is there some special need to have them set all local regulation? And you do know most of the larger companies are not actually in your town, like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T...
I think in many ways, we got lost in the whole concept of Federally regulated monopolies. (Essentially, we made the leap of logic that because it was Federal govt. who had to grant a company monopoly status, that automatically meant it was Federal who got to give it rules on how it should operate.)
In what universe do you think that happened? Because it wasn't in this one, in fact, when it came to cable, the Feds were the ones who had to decide to break up the locally granted monopolies.
When you think about it, the realities of the marketplace help illustrate why that's rather flawed. (We still have local and state governments placing rules and restrictions on monopolies all the time. There's no way Federal govt. is even capable of micro-managing things at the level needed for your power companies, water and gas companies, or cable companies.)
In reality, the regulatory environment shows why your idea is flawed, as power companies are regulated, especially with their interstate (and international in places), grid, water is especially a federal concern, the largest gas pipelines cross state lines, and I already mentioned the cable companies. Add in pollution, wireless, and your argument is lacking much in the way of convincing status.
May as well just let the states and cities dictate ALL of the terms and conditions of service since they've been dictating quite a bit of them anyway, all along.
Well, if you want to rewrite the US Constitution, and devolve everything down to that level, you could try, but absent that, we still have the Supremacy Clause, and it turns out the Federal government has been doing a lot of necessary regulation.
But go ahead, pretend otherwise.
I have absolutely no issue with the states having control over their laws. I have a problem with people assuming, without and justification, that it's automatically better for everything to be handled by the state. There are things that should/need to be regulated at a federal level. People may argue about what does and doesn't need to be, but only an idiot would argue that the federal shouldn't only on the grounds that the states can. THAT was my point.
It's actually a great reason why the Federal Government shouldn't. What with the 10th Amendment and all... This is a power clearly not explicitly defined to be for the Federal Government, hence it is explicitly reserved for the People or the States.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No, it does not say that states have rights, only that the constitution was a limit on federal rights.
The 10th Amendment, in its entirety: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]
Dumbass.
Yes, you are, indeed! Powers not delegated BY THE CONSTITUTION to the Federal Government are reserved to the States OR TO THE people. If it's not called out in the Constitution - it's for the States OR the people. Meaning the power can be for the States OR the people. Kind of hard to twist those words in the 10th Amendment, but you keep trying, AC, you keep trying!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Except every state in it's succession notification specifically named slavery as the reason. Cut the "it was about state's rights" bullshit.
No, it is a perfect motto. Just like how the feds, state, or local government should not regulate when your kid brushes his teeth because you are capable of doing that.
One interesting thing to note is that this concept was Bernie Sander's most prominent and strong political stance. He did not even agree with Gay marriage legislation because the states themselves were capable of legislating that themselves.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The cops say it's Russians. They don't know shit. It's too easy to fake. But you're falling for it, just like the idiots who wanted war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if the the roles between dems and reps were reversed, you'd be saying the same damn thing. This whole Russian thing is nothing but a bunch of butthurt sore losers crying *Unfair!*. You lost! Because you put up a shitty candidate, and tried to win with your 'lesser evil' bullshit. I'm counting on that and your constant whining to cost you what little territory you have left. So far we are on track towards those ends. So please, keep up the good work!
It isn't a difficult concept. There are things that are better legislated at the federal level, and things that aren't. Basing your argument of whether it should, solely on whether the states can is wrong. Just because something CAN be done, isn't a valid argument that it should be done.
Based on the recent political environ and positive legislation, and the generally higher awareness and intelligence of CA residents,
it appears that CA has it's shit together far better than the rest of the idiot American population!
That is to say that I cannot believe that the rest of the country is okay enough with the totally un-serving crap that this Trump administration is allowing!
CA seems the place I ought to be!
So I am loading up the truck and moving to Beverly! Hills, that is!
Oh! Wait! I mean some other CA city; away from all that Hollywood weirdness!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
OK, I am just saying that the Republicans And the Bernie supporters would disagree with you. Probably not an actual majority of the nation, but a mega majority of the politically active part of the nation.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
... I have a fiber connection, not a cable connection. Does that mean I'm still fucked? Will CenturyLink still be able to sell my porn predilections to whoever wants it?
That would either be futile (the most likely case) or it would cause my state to turn into a swing state, in which case I'd have to start trying to convince people to vote as they did.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yeah, get rid of overly burdensome federal regulations, like the thirteenth amendment. Those rules kill jobs!