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.

Comments

EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:This is how it should be

[GLMDesigns]

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.