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.
Sux to be Comrade T.
You can take your Russian theft machine and stuff it where the sun don't shine in Florida while your Mar-a-Nogo sinks beneath the waves.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
He is the president, not them. Tell them to fuck off and force them to follow the rules.
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.
The ISP argument will be that only the FCC or Congress have the authority to regulate these aspects of their business.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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, 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.
that *BSD 0wned. some i8telligent use the sling.
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/
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?
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 ! " :|
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.
Please link to the proof for this statement, "A majority of Americans from both parties objected to a law".
DRUMPF IS FINISHED NOW!
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.
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.
aal; in order tO go clothes or be a
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.
LOL!
If you hate Texas, why the hell are you moving there?
You're not moving there? Then why the hell do you care?
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???
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.
Let's see this tried in a city that has Internet service.
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.
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.
... 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?