Slashdot Mirror
In an Accidental Email To TechDirt Editor, Telco Lobbyists Outline How They Intend To Shift The Blame For Privacy, Net Neutrality and More To Internet Companies (techdirt.com)
Technology news outlet TechDirt on Thursday published a hell of a story about the ways telecom lobbyists are going to try shifting the blame for a range of recent developments -- including net neutrality, competition, privacy, and cybersecurity -- to internet companies. The outlet cites talking points that it received in an accidental email that was supposed to go to a different Mike. Here's an excerpt from the story, which shares the privacy section: MESSAGE: Here is the modern reality of consumer protection: the greatest risks are posed by companies on the internet's edge. Privacy is a shared responsibility -- and the burdens and obligations can not rest solely with ISPs and must be applied equally across the internet ecosystem.
The increased scrutiny of Facebook and other edge provides offer a significant opportunity for Congress to implement clear and consistent rules that apply equally to all companies in the internet ecosystem. And when they begin the process of establishing best practices for privacy, they will need to look no further than broadband providers.
For years, our members have embraced strong consumer privacy policies, because they understand the success of any digital business depends on earning their customers' trust.
Consumers and companies alike deserve one set of protections and rules of the road. This is the best way to ensure consumer protection while also providing the necessary flexibility for a competitive and innovative marketplace. TechDirt editor Mike Masnick writes: There's a brief section later in the document, suggesting that they play up Trump now fighting with Google, and suggest that's a good point to drop in the "same rules for edge" providers meaningless argument:
Trump/Google Drama: People have spent years clamoring for ISP net neutrality. We need same rules of the road for edge. On net neutrality: MESSAGE: Our nation's broadband providers strongly support net neutrality -- without 1930's-era regulations -- and with consumer protections that are consistently applied across the entire internet ecosystem. Read the full story here.
The increased scrutiny of Facebook and other edge provides offer a significant opportunity for Congress to implement clear and consistent rules that apply equally to all companies in the internet ecosystem. And when they begin the process of establishing best practices for privacy, they will need to look no further than broadband providers.
For years, our members have embraced strong consumer privacy policies, because they understand the success of any digital business depends on earning their customers' trust.
Consumers and companies alike deserve one set of protections and rules of the road. This is the best way to ensure consumer protection while also providing the necessary flexibility for a competitive and innovative marketplace. TechDirt editor Mike Masnick writes: There's a brief section later in the document, suggesting that they play up Trump now fighting with Google, and suggest that's a good point to drop in the "same rules for edge" providers meaningless argument:
Trump/Google Drama: People have spent years clamoring for ISP net neutrality. We need same rules of the road for edge. On net neutrality: MESSAGE: Our nation's broadband providers strongly support net neutrality -- without 1930's-era regulations -- and with consumer protections that are consistently applied across the entire internet ecosystem. Read the full story here.
It's like, the pipes are the ISP. As long as Facebook isn't sending corrosive liquids down the pipes, what business is it of the ISPs?
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Because ISP and content providers are not the same thing.
Your ISP is only one of many ISPs that your data passes through when you use the Internet. You may select the bestest most trustworthy ISP, but somewhere between you, your ISP, and the end link are several other ISPs for which you have no recourse if they record and distribute your sessions, or if they downgrade your QoS. Your ISP's EULA is not their EULA.
This is why ISPs must be regulated - so they all play by the same laws, and so you can know what those rules are.
Suppose I have a contract with some ISP and I use it only for my on-line banking. I do not want anyone to know what bank I access. I really don't want that.
Facebook, Twitter, etc cannot learn about my having an account that bank because my bank's EULA tells me it does not share that information. They have no way of getting that info unless my bank gives it to them. However, numerous ISPs see who you connect to, even ones you have no relationship to.
You could start by RTFA. It pretty mush shows point by point how the lobbyist message is not so much a direct lie (that is Yes, google and facebook are a privacy problem), but a "creative omission" (telcos have been doing worse for years but you won't find mention of that in the lobbyist's message).
We're all on the putting green and the lobbyist points and exclaims "LOOK! it's the Goodyear blimp!" and then casually pushes the ball in the cup with his foot while everyone looks where he pointed. I have no idea why you want to believe so badly that you couldn't see that.
This is great stuff if you're looking for your telecom stock to go up.
This stuff is PR foam and goo and reality distortion if you're anyone but a telecom stockholder.
Utility regulation in the US was made for a very good reason, which is that utilities will turn into monopolistic snakes in lieu of being forced to act even reasonably human. They are snakes and toads and lizards.
These distractions are designed to take concern away by a makeover of the worst, most misleading kind. It smacks of the propaganda campaigns so moneyed in current western world politics.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I've read the article but a) I don't even think this an effective tactic on their part and b) most of the points whether intended as a distraction or not I agree with. but At the moment the republicans are ripe for a compromise on net neutrality. Conflating these two things may very well play into the hands of those advocating for net neutrality if they can exploit Trump's current ire about "de-platforming". You can argue that the two are unrelated but if you actually want to get something done: "You're concerned about deplatforming and protecting communication on the internet Mr President? So are we, let's talk." -Might well be very effective.