Slashdot Mirror
California May Restore Broadband Privacy Rules Killed By Congress and Trump (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A proposed law in California would require Internet service providers to obtain customers' permission before they use, share, or sell the customers' Web browsing history. The California Broadband Internet Privacy Act, a bill introduced by Assembly member Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) on Monday, is very similar to an Obama-era privacy rule that was scheduled to take effect across the US until President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress eliminated it. If Chau's bill becomes law, ISPs in California would have to get subscribers' opt-in consent before using browsing history and other sensitive information in order to serve personalized advertisements. Consumers would have the right to revoke their consent at any time. The opt-in requirement in Chau's bill would apply to "Web browsing history, application usage history, content of communications, and origin and destination Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of all traffic." The requirement would also apply to geolocation data, IP addresses, financial and health information, information pertaining to minors, names and billing information, Social Security numbers, demographic information, and personal details such as physical addresses, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers.
I know where I'd like to setup a new VPN service.
Its not really the history aspect that concerns me. Its the potential of throttling netflix or hulu, paid "fast lanes" and ISP's potential to shut down site's they dont agree with that concerns me.
Google is CA company, they can continue as always.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's nice of them to do this, but it seems to me that having an opt-in will still basically force people to allow it due to few viable alternatives.
Saddam had VPNs.
Something like this should never have been set at a national level to begin with. Let states decide what makes sense from a privacy standpoint and then consumers can decide where they want to live based on restrictions they have to liver under making sense or not.
Isn't there a big cost to patchwork of states' policies? It also allows broadband companies to jurisdiction-shop non?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Superkendall with super-stupid response again. Do all you do is troll slashdot all day and post pro-trump garbage?
For freedom, let's geofence the internet and then make people move for their privacy rights. Freedom!
You're a fucking idiot. Still.
"By clicking you are agreeing to use our services. Click "no thanks" at the bottom if you do not agree."
And when you click "no thanks" you are brought to a blank page.
If you agree, you get these constant emails stating the the terms and conditions have changed. And then you have to read hundreds of pages of legaleese. Apple, eBay, PayPal, .... all of them are fuckers who are out to fuck us.
That's how these fuckers work. It's their way or nothing.
I think EULA's should be deemed not enforceable just for that fact.
EULA == EVIL.
Except not everything should be on the Federal level. I think a good argument exists for this issue to be Federal and would argue that it ought to be Federal but it is not a stupid response.
You need to start thinking about how powerful you want the Federal Government to be. Are you scared of what the Trump administration can do? If so then you ought to consider curtailing the power of the federal government - and you ought to also be cognizant that others were just as scared of the Obama administration as you are of the Trump.
What does that mean in this case? Stop having a knee-jerk reaction that everything ought to be decided at the Federal level. Even in cases where you think the Federal level is better it may, perhaps, be better for it to be state level.
We need to reduce the power of Imperial Washington.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
So you prefer the top down centralized approach where all things flow from the federal government? The same on that's been spying on Americans, withholding zero day flaws, and creating hacking tools that got released into the wild?
Or are you just a fucking idiot. Still.
At the same time they kill our second amendment rights.
Would you rather Trump later on passes some kind of regulation that all ISPs must send all customer data to the RNC for targeting voters? I don't see any reason he could not do so, since after all he controls appointments to the FCC.
Now he has not done so and probably would not, but you are supporting the kind of system that makes that reality way more possible than I personally am comfortable with.
You should never support a system that is so powerful where it actually matters who gets elected to control it.
Or to reduce the point to something you might be able to comprehend I give you The Link Of Clarity.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Except for the whole cost of living thing, Northern California is looking nicer and nicer form here in my Republican controlled moral cesspool. (Which is probably part of the reason cost of living is so high.) But it isn't like I could afford the house I own in the nice neighborhood a mile from downtown SLC if I were to buy it today either. It has gone up 182% in value since I bought it 7 years ago during the tail end of the housing crisis.
Except he is absolutely right. Plus, he provides a cogent and well-thought-out argument. You, on the other hand, say nothing that contributes to the discussion, and do so anonymously, to boot. So, really, who's the idiot?
To summarize, "Don't ask what the current administration will do with this new law. Ask what the NEXT one will do with it."
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Let states decide what makes sense
So, what is a person to do when all of the states supporting his or her real life needs adopt the same "screw the citizen" approach? This notion that a person can just move to a city or state that works for them or take their money to a business that is not trying to screw over the consumer in an endless pursuit of unreasonable profit is bullshit. Choice tends to not exist in the practical sense, because there is no alternative when all are the same. This is specifically true for profit driven businesses. What are you going to do when your state of choice creates a legal and regulatory environment not to your liking? Are you to insist that it be decided at the town/city level?
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
So, really, who's the idiot?
You, for being trolled, by the troll, who was trolling the troll.
Kinda obvious, SuperKendall does it himself.
Something like this should never have been set at a national level to begin with.
Indeed, corporations should have never even thought of such things, but what can you do? Expect them to grow some decency? Hardly.
Thus we even need laws to keep them from poisoning their workers and their consumers.
Let states decide what makes sense from a privacy standpoint and then consumers can decide where they want to live based on restrictions they have to liver under making sense or not.
Nope! I want to be protected by the national government of which I am a citizen, wherever I may go within the nation(as specified in the US Constitution), and to be honest, I want my NATIONAL government to protect me if I go into a foreign country as well. So not only should they protect my rights within the country, they should negotiate some sort of International Telecommunications Union to ensure that my rights are securely protected and respected.
See, I like to travel in this nation, and it turns out that I actually have an ISP that relies on the regulations of the FCC anyway, because it operates through this mysterious force called the Electromagnetic Spectrum. Which does not respect mere borders of geography. That means I can contract with an ISP in one state, and yet be communicating with them in another. That makes is a necessary matter of interstate commerce, and one which the Federal Government needs to answer for, not ignore or worse yet violate for political convenience of a few disgruntled entities.
I know you don't want to take away my rights, so you must want to defend them, don't you?
Every great once and a while California does something right.
no, it should NOT be on a per-state basis. why do you think some states 'deserve' privacy and others do not?
no PERSON would want to give away their privacy. any fails on net-neutrality or privacy is solely due to politicians collecing kickbacks when they sell us all out. they stopped representing us a long time ago.
no, basic human rights (of which privacy IS one) should not be sold out based on which state (and more so, which color your state is) you are in.
if you think states should decide this, maybe you also think states should allow slavery again? or that child labor is 'ok' in some states.
some things should be national. human rights and quality of life issues are NOT state-specific!
oh, and fuck trump and his GOP 'screw everyone but the rich' agenda. impeachment can't come soon enough for that orange idiot.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
So what happens when the federal government adapts a "screw the citizen" attitude?
The constitution gave most of the power to the states. Every yahoo who wants to enshrine their special interest has lobbied to do it at the federal level. And now we are ruled by corporations.
What makes you think humans are evolved enough to run a democratic system that large?
Freedom of Speech in Kentucky but not Georgia, you can murder in Boston but only on Tuesdays. Make sure not to each chicken or you must divulge your browser history during May in Ohio.
They can just throw the Constitution on a Twister matt and will just start spinning to make up the rest.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
IANAL, obviously, but often state regs do get tossed by the courts when they drift into areas already regulated by the feds. I would personally much prefer to have my privacy protected anywhere I am in the country so I would like to see this nonsense outlawed by the FCC. That said, there is no reason you can apply substantial taxes to something that you can't regulate. No reason not to apply sales tax to the sale of all personal data if we can't regulate it. These advertising companies are benefiting from our educated citizenry and able to sell more stuff because of our roads they ship the stuff over. Let these low-life spam merchants pay the cost of our roads and schools like everyone else does.
We interrupt our daily, reflexive dose of Trump bashing to attempt to have a legitimate conversation. Like too many things on modern slashdot, this post starts off with the bashing of all things Trump and non-liberal ideology, instead of actually just talking about the issues in an honest way, and evaluating the proposed solutions to get to the truth.
A little investigation yields that there are elements of hyperbole and FUD in the article and the issue general. At the simplest level, it seems easy to feed into the wrong-headed narrative that Trump and conservatives are anti-liberty, even thought the opposite is generally true. A deeper look into the issue has more nuance. Almost as if people are not cartoon villains and have different perspectives in looking out for the greater well being. Almost.
The counter argument is that the Obama era bill only provided protections against what ISP companies can do with your data. In limiting the scope, it actually opened the door for other companies like say M.S., Apple, or Alphabet to be a little more nefarious in their data collection rules. The current rules in house GLB Act and the existing FCC standards on the book already provided larger scale protections than the new rules, so replacing them is actually harmful to consumer.
Now, I am not a lawyer, and I will admit to not being the 'net expert of many of the readers of these forums. If the existing rules do not go far enough I am happy to hear an honest non-partisan name calling discussion about why. I am also curious to see if the new California bill actually improves things, or if it is well meaning but damaging?
Worse, is it a bill that sounds nice, but when you look at it, it was written by tech sector lobbyists to gather more data? I guess I am really struck by the line Nick Fury says in the Avengers, "you say you want peace, but I think you mean that other thing."
In case you are curious, here is a link discussing the other side of the issue. I am sure that there are others.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...
The question becomes, are people on these forums remotely interested in finding answer to issues, or is it going to be non-stop tribalism all the time?
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
So, we have another Obama Era rule that never applied for a single day of Obama's eight years in Office?
Might have been harder to just toss the Rule on the ash-heap of history if it had been effect already, as opposed to being something that wouldn't inconvenience the Obama White House in any way....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
States need to step up in the absence of a fully functioning federal government, on this and a great many other things.
It has been observed that we have now been without a President for nearly six months, cabinet positions in the executive branch have either been allowed to stand vacant, (with inadequately vetted, less than fully qualified or competent underlings forced to do the jobs of their former bosses,) or filled either with complete incompetent morons, or people whose purpose in life before appointment was fighting the very agencies they now "lead", or both. MEANWHILE, the US Congress is itself in crisis, as doddering old men who need their lines whispered into their ears, people who are bought-and-paid for and only represent their donors' interests, bicker and get a whole lot of nothing done, except when they can manage to force something through but it is almost never a good thing that they do.
MEANWHILE, the court system tries to hold out against the tide of destruction of our governmental institutions, but it too will succumb over time as the corrupt, Gas & Oil Party ("GOP") gets to appoint its own judges, while the Demonrat Party tries and fails again and again to stop them because they're weak, also bought, corrupt, useless, and what's worse, the people they had been counting on to vote for them all this while KNOW IT, and THAT, friends, is why the Repulsiveans win... they cheat. They screw over their constituents (and the nation, and the world and all the people and animals and plants etc. thereon,) who are too stupid to know they shouldn't vote for them. The Demonrat Party's biggest problem is that their average voter isn't as stupid as the Repulseans' voters, and knows that voting Demonrat is pointless and a waste of time, leading to lower turnout.
By the way, they're going to get CREAMED in 2018, because the people in the party itself are stupid and incapable of learning from their mistakes, and so they will make the same mistakes over and over and over and over..., like when they ran the most deeply-flawed, pro-corporate, racist, sexist, shrill, unpopular, BITCHY candidate they could find in their "party," and she lost to a MONSTER, which is EMBARRASSING
SO... Bottom Line: US states need now to start to step up and fulfill the role abdicated by the federal government, and start to do things for themselves. My prediction is they will, with California leading the way, I suspect, and stop sending the federal government money, and be prepared for the federal government to stop funding the states, and prepare for another civil war.
Best thing for California to do, really, as it's often decried and derided by the drooling, pin-headed morons in flyover states as being full of hippies and stoners and so-called "illegal" immigrants, and so on, who live in states that are THEMSELVES welfare queens, taking more in federal funds than they give back in anything useful or taxes, UNLIKE California.
California is the state America was supposed to grow up to be, and it needs to start acting like a nation, since the federal government is in the process of collapsing, and probing new depths of utter uselessness. I give it a few more years at the outside. I am convinced that the only way America as a country survives Trump's tenure as Russian Puppet in Chief, is if the tenure ends early, followed by the immediate resignations of most of the federal government, so they can be replaced by people who are NOT so corrupt and useless.
Else it will continue to fall apart, like Somalia.
California may restore broadband privacy rules that basically gave Google a legal monopoly and the right to steal whatever they wanted from the user?
While most people are in favor of rules that enforces the privacy of the users, the proposed law actually excluded Google (BY NAME) and even protected the company from any legal liability if it violated other laws.
So what happens when the federal government adapts a "screw the citizen" attitude?
Special interests own politicians at all levels, and this will never change. It might just be the wealthy family on the hill that has in their pocket the supposedly elected by the people mayor of Tiny Town, USA. It may be a global conglomerate behometh that owns half the U.S. House. This might be less of a problem if politicians were not allowed to have consecutive terms, and terms were kept short enough. It would be harder to buy individuals with so many in play and when the person isn't to be in office long enough for something desired to be brought to fruition through corrupted mechanisms. By the way, that wealthy family probably owns your state and federal representatives as well since the ruling class is the wealthy class. Politicians are either wealthy or a puppet for the wealthy.
The constitution gave most of the power to the states. Every yahoo who wants to enshrine their special interest...
Just as with all bad situations, society would have to work to improve our goverment. We'd work to change a government that had adopted a "screw the citizen" attitude. We don't have to abandon the Federal system to do this. Now, independent of this, I'd advocate for further changes to the constitution through more amendments and shift more power from state governments to the Federal government. While our forefathers had great foresight, they could not anticipate all and planned entirely for what the country and society faces now and will face as it all continues to evolve. I'd also make a lot of other changes from top to bottom, government and otherwise. A problem with leaving more up to the state or even local government entities is that what happens or doesn't happen in Gary, Indiana, does, at least indirectly, affect people living in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Even though we are a federation of states, people, products, and services move across borders. Polluted air and water, disease, and economic hardships do as well. So, the people of one state have a vested interest in how things are done in other states and should have the ability to affect this before becoming victims of short-sited agendas, weak regulations, and outright disinterest in what is best.
What makes you think humans are evolved enough to run a democratic system that large?
I actually have little faith in the general population's ability to do anything where self-interest isn't the highest priority. Individuals are selfish and would have to first think about the short-term and long-term needs of the group for any type of system to function effectively, and this includes thoughs elected as representatives. Individuals must consider how their decisions and actions are to affect the world, and they aren't good for this. Now, I do still believe we should not give up on this idea of working together and should try. We should then hold accountable those that work against this.
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
if you think states should decide this, maybe you also think states should allow slavery again? or that child labor is 'ok' in some states.
Barely 50 posts, and we're soooooo close to Godwin... come on now, don't disappoint.
It should be illegal to access any of that information without a warrant, period.
Re "So, what is a person to do when all of the states supporting his or her real life needs adopt the same "screw the citizen" approach?"
The USA was not set up to take all powers from the states.
Federally the US gov has some tasks, roles and has to protect some rights.
If too much power was granted to a new US gov the States would have never agreed to become part of the USA.
Re What are you going to do when your state of choice creates a legal and regulatory environment not to your liking? Are you to insist that it be decided at the town/city level?
A lot of really great rights exist and are fully protected to seek State and federal gov changes to laws.
Need a private internet? Buy into a trusted VPN.
If some people just want cheaper internet, why not offer that service with less regulation?
Less regulation, less costs to enter the marketplace, more freedom, more new US start ups, more competition due to fewer compliance costs, new services and new products to select from.
Or select from a few big brands that use "Privacy" costs to stop any change to their networks.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If this passes I'm moving to California. I'm sick of being spied on..
What a useless exhortation, as the regulation of interstate commerce has been within the purview of the Federal government for quite some time.
That, and the problem here is the abnegation of responsibility, not the exercise of power. Under the facile pretense that underlies most conservative thought, that government is evil.
A better question to ask, is how to make those in government accountable and be sure they are holding the interests of the people in mind.
Unfortunately, when it comes to themselves, conservatives are not interested in even the appearance of that, as that hinders their own preferences.
No doubt Obummer will retire there.
Remember, the rules that were recently rolled back were themselves a rollback of previous privacy protections that were arguably much better.
The FCC and FTC are in the process now of restoring the privacy regulations dismantled over the past few years.
Yes, it's unfortunate that this has gotten so complicated, such a story of double and triple negatives. In short, though, Congress and the president worked to undo the previous undoing of privacy rules. It's part of an effort to make internet privacy regulations stronger, not weaker.
no, it should NOT be on a per-state basis.
Why?
why do you think some states 'deserve' privacy and others do not?
Why not? Let people decide for themselves instead of forcing your values upon them.
no PERSON would want to give away their privacy.
Facebook exists.
any fails on net-neutrality or privacy is solely due to politicians collecing kickbacks when they sell us all out. they stopped representing us a long time ago.
Then it doesn't matter who is in power. Trump is just as good as anyone else, so why complain about him specifically?
no, basic human rights (of which privacy IS one) should not be sold out based on which state (and more so, which color your state is) you are in.
No privacy is not a human right in the US. If a police officer comes to your door with a warrant, you cannot claim they are violating human rights.
if you think states should decide this, maybe you also think states should allow slavery again? or that child labor is 'ok' in some states.
Going rather hyperbolic don't you think? The states individually decided those things are bad. Enough states did so that they are enforced federally. That is how federations work. That is how your government has always worked.
some things should be national. human rights and quality of life issues are NOT state-specific!
Of course quality of life issues are state specific. Few people will need heating assistance in Hawaii. Take that away from the poor in Minnesota and many would die.
oh, and fuck trump and his GOP 'screw everyone but the rich' agenda. impeachment can't come soon enough for that orange idiot.
Again with the emotion driven irrational sensationalism. You already said you believe that politicians don't represent us, therefore any politician is no better or worse than Trump. And you ought to be careful who you call an idiot. He seems to have a better grasp on how the US government runs than you do.
or is it going to be non-stop tribalism all the time?
Many partisan democrats are saying put Pence in charge. What d'you think is tribal about that? Trump is a fucking psychotic, narcissistic man child, and is utterly, utterly incompetent.
"Trump bashing". He's the worst president you dumb fucks have ever elected. He makes GW Bush look smart, for fuck's sake.
...just pull out of California.
HA HA AH HA,,, pure gold right there.....
EVERY person who chooses to use Facebook or MySpace or Google or any number of other free services has chosen to give up their privacy.
WTF.. get with the program... If the service is free, YOU are the product.
Despite all the hype, the rules were never put in place. They were proposed rules that were not adopted.
Or was this before when he was a civilian and was referred to by his name only?
Regulating interstate commerce is in the purview of the Federal Government. I would agree that the Congress DOES have the authority. But it doesn't mean it should (as oppose to leave it to the states). Now, in this case, I do think it ought to be decided on the Federal issue.
However, there is no reason that states cannot decide for themselves whether or not to increase the level of privacy protection for their citizens.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Let people decide for themselves instead of forcing your values upon them
That's why there's opt-in. Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. You should be able to choose.
oh, and fuck trump and his GOP 'screw everyone but the rich' agenda. impeachment can't come soon enough for that orange idiot.
Yeah, this was such an important policy for Obama that he made an executive rule on his way out of office that wouldn't go into effect until a couple of months into the next Presidency. Obviously, it was *really* important for Obama, right? He had 8 years to do it, and he didn't. That way, he didn't have to piss off his corporate overlords and clueless people like you could then blame Trump. Pathetic.
Do you have ESP?
Exactly....
The states created the Federal Government, not the other way around.
Powers not specifically granted by the constitution to the Federal Government are reserved for the states.
If you don't like it, change the constitution or move to a country with a better system... good luck.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Regulating interstate commerce is in the purview of the Federal Government. I would agree that the Congress DOES have the authority.
It is stated forthrightly in Article I, most people can recognize that, the nature of the Internet being what it is, makes it inherently a federal matter.
But it doesn't mean it should (as oppose to leave it to the states).
The false question that was asked, was what about an administration (of presumably nefarious intent) having a law with power. However, recognizing that said authority arises from the Constitution exposes the obviousness of that fraud. But the real problem, in this case, is the lack of any capacity towards making them follow any kind of standard or principle instead. The hand-wringing over "Look what they can do" is really meaningless, a shell of an argument with no substance behind it. It's even hypocrisy once you expose the truth.
Now, in this case, I do think it ought to be decided on the Federal issue.
Which means the problem is the decision being made, as it always was. Not the ability to make a decision and enforce it. Of course, since the problem has been the grueling process to address it (net neutrality has taken the better part of two decades to get into effect), that was kinda obvious.
However, there is no reason that states cannot decide for themselves whether or not to increase the level of privacy protection for their citizens.
Legal precedent is against you on that one, and mysteriously, the same administration and party is making the argument that states should NOT have that authority either. Same as they did with fracking, marriage, and slavery.
It's kinda obvious, which is why the argument of devolution of powers is fraudulent, as usual. A pretense used to advance an agenda, without the slightest integrity behind it. Nothing but disingenuous hysteria.
Exactly....
...the opposite of what you portray.
The states created the Federal Government, not the other way around.
The people created the states. The people created the Federal Government because having states wasn't effective for a variety of reasons. The people are superior, not the other way around.
Powers not specifically granted by the constitution to the Federal Government are reserved for the states.
Not a problem here, now is it? Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 has been there since the BEGINNING.
If you don't like it, change the constitution or move to a country with a better system... good luck.
We did. No less than 3 times. I might even go as far as 8, depending on how far back I get to count, and what I include. I could even go so far as to reach for 18 to 28, but at that point, it might get a bit excessive.
The federal government can also regulate intrastate commerce or no commerce (personal activities) as long as it affects interstate commerce.
Godwin is about frequency not relevancy.
The US Constitution explicitly lists all the stuff the federal government is supposed to do, leaving the reader to assume anything else is clearly the purvue of the states and individual citizens. When the Bill of Rights was added, this arrangement was made explicit in the form of the 10th Amendment. For decades, Democrats have insisted that the 10th Amendment is nearly meaningless as they injected the federal government into nearly everything. When right wingers complained that some stuff was not the business of the feds, the Democrats called them crazy or even down-right un-American. When TEA Partiers kept yelling about the 10th Amendment as Obama took over student loans, grabbed the car companies from their share holders, and jammed Obamacare through to federalize healthcare, they were called racists.
Now that the far left idiots of the bay area are no longer happy with Washington DC under its new management, they suddenly seem to appreciate the 10th. As a right-leaner who lives in California and opposed the Obama rule as a federal overreach, I heartily embrace this move - with ONE CAVEAT: The rule should not only apply to companies that tend to support Republicans (the Telcos) but should also apply to the Democrat-supporting companies that actually know more about us: Facebook, Google, and Apple.
I will not be shocked if the hypocritical Dems expose themselves by claiming they're all for protecting our privacy while NOT applying these rules to the companies most in need of them, but who buy this insulation with partisan political contributions.
Legal precedence allows California to expand upon Federal EPA standards.
At issue is whether or not something is a Federal or State issue issue. And it's a complicated issue, further complicated by both sides willing to push the envelope into, what seems to me clearly, contravening the US Constitution.
Example of states overreaching : sanctuary cities and non-compliance with Federal immigration law.
Example of the Federal govt overreaching: enforcing federal marijuana law in states that legalized growing and possession.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond