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!
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/
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.
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.
The rule/law says that providers can't deny service or charge more for not opting in.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
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?
Facebook only tracks website visits that have Facebook buttons/scripts or are clicked via a link from Facebook itself. Google has their own browser, so...maybe?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Doubtful. That might be possible if the ISP could make more money selling your information than they make selling you internet access. You know how ISP ToSes all have clauses that say they can terminate your service for anything that boils down to being an asshole? Well, they don't make a habit of doing that, because there's more money to be made by tolerating assholes than there is to be made by terminating service.
ISPs have always been in a position legally to sell your information. There is no credible evidence that they've been doing so on a wholesale level. And no, "they're probably doing it and we just don't know" is not credible evidence.
Like when states decided to legalize marijuana, Obama just said it's still illegal under federal law then conduct raids on dispensaries.
OK, so states decide to restrict ISPs from selling user info, and in response the feds conduct raids on [nope, I got nothing]
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
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.
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.
Because we are the ISP's customers and Facebook, Google, and Twitter's products. If ISPs start giving out free internet in while using our data to advertise to us, then you might have an argument.
Let's see this tried in a city that has Internet service.
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!
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.
Run "wireshark" on your PC with no web browsers open. Does your PC try and access Facebook servers? Does it constantly send a stream of data to Microsoft (52.169.64.244)?
"If you want to know who is logging your data, look at whose IP addresses you aren't allowed to block"
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
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