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.
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
"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
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
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."
What good is your second amendment right?
You never exercise the goddam right.
The reason you don't is because you only have a right to own guns.
You don't have the right to actually use the motherfuckers.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
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"
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.
VPNs of mass DSTruction.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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?
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