Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai Gives Carriers Free Pass on Privacy Violations During FCC Shutdown (arstechnica.com)
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai refused to brief a Congressional committee Monday about mobile carriers' ability to share their subscribers' location data with third parties. From a report: House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) asked Pai for an "emergency briefing" to explain why the FCC "has yet to end wireless carriers' unauthorized disclosure of consumers' real-time location data," and for an update on "what actions the FCC has taken to address this issue to date." Pai's FCC could take action, despite the 2017 repeal of the commission's broadband privacy rules. Phone carriers are legally required to protect "Customer Proprietary Network Information [CPNI]," and the FCC's definition of CPNI includes location data.
[...] Pai did not agree with Pallone, it turns out. "Today, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai refused to brief Energy and Commerce Committee staff on the real-time tracking of cell phone location[s]," Pallone said in a statement yesterday. "In a phone conversation today, his staff asserted that these egregious actions are not a threat to the safety of human life or property that the FCC will address during the Trump shutdown."
[...] Pai did not agree with Pallone, it turns out. "Today, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai refused to brief Energy and Commerce Committee staff on the real-time tracking of cell phone location[s]," Pallone said in a statement yesterday. "In a phone conversation today, his staff asserted that these egregious actions are not a threat to the safety of human life or property that the FCC will address during the Trump shutdown."
The entire Trump Presidency is encapsulated in this : Moron shuts down the government on a tantrum-whim, consequently his "regulators" use that excuse to not do their jobs, as he obviously picked them not to.
Get a rope.
Well, perhaps it would be more apparent if someone were to track Mr. Pai's phone, and map it, and ask him if he felt threatened by it's disclosure of his travel patterns, or if the location of his whereabouts might indicate when his vehicle or home is empty for his property to be accessed by others who don't belong there.
I can't help but think lobbyists or ordinary citizens might be interested in knowing whether he really IS busy in meetings elsewhere or if his staff is really just blowing people off. Because I'd love to be able to bump into him in a grocery store to share our respective points of view on various items before the commission.
I'm also thinking of those people who have had their investment portfolios cleaned out as they were on a long flight and inaccessible to see the accounts being drained.
Am I wrong in seeing a threat to high value targets in gaining executives' locations to those who want to kidnap them?
Anyone? Anyone?
The President looked at that small concession, wasn't happy it wasn't a "BIG WIN", and decided he'd pass and wait for something better.
I think it's even simpler than that.
The Democrats won the house. So, Trump shut down the government.
The house did pass a bill. It was never taken up for a vote with the senate. As far as the emergency nature of this, it does seem like this has immediate life threatening implications as the Streisand effect of this capability will likely lead to an ex boyfriend/girlfriend/whomever finding where someone is hiding and assaulting them.
Everyone time someone says that the meta data the government collects isn’t that important or, in this case, that allowing anyone to get real time location info on anyone else in the nation isn’t that important, I wish they would give me carte blanche to prove to them that it is not the case. Ajit had to hire a bunch of security guards because nobody likes him (outside of corporate board rooms). I would love to show him how dangerous this info is. But of course, doing something like that is illegal and I would get prosecuted for it without it actually fixing anything. I wish he’d just put his money where his mouth is and let someone prove him wrong.
Perhaps you are too young to remember that the government budget isn't supposed to be a string of "continuing resolutions"
Well into my fifties actually. As someone already pointed out, been a hot minute since we've had a comprehensive budget lock, stock, and barrel. But you're confusing the point I'm making about a CR. If you cannot at the very least sign a CR, then screw you. Yes, make a budget, make it balanced too, but should all else fail, at least agree that status quo is good enough until a compromise can be had. Not even agreeing to that is a pretty shitty attitude to have.
Congress can overturn a veto if they have enough votes
And that is what some are banking on, but at the moment the Senate Majority leader is preventing anything that will be vetoed from being brought to the floor. That's called favoring party over country, because it is very clear that a Republican held Senate overriding their own President would been seen as an indication that the Republican platform is not united behind their standard barer. If you're attempting to do "the right thing" (and of course that's objective, hence quotes), you tend to ignore how something will look party-wise and just go ahead and do it. Typically, the party can play an override without too many ramifications, but the current President has played the RINO card a lot. Additionally, those who shunned him and lost their bid, the President has made too much of a big deal about that. So the President has, by his own hand, amped the loyalty aspect way too much. So no matter how you slice it, with how it is within the Republican party at the moment, any override by the Senate would be seen as a fracture in the Republican platform and that would make a handy plank in the Democrats platform. Whatever the "right thing" is defined as aside, the Senate overriding the President at this point would create a schism between hard-core Trump supporters and traditional Republicans.
If Congress has the will, they could end this
I feel there is enough moderate Republicans that if they wanted to they would but I'm sure the Whip is keeping folks toeing the line. If there is no break in the Democrat stance, it will only be when enough hurt befalls the moderate Republicans to out power the Whips influence, will there be any breakthrough.
It is quite common, in fact a standard practice these days, for Congress to put multiple things in a single bill
Yeah, that's what a comprehensive budget is for.
some of which they want but the President doesn't
Yeah, because we don't live in a Monarchy. No single person gets what they want, it's kind of a collective, you get yours and I get mine kind of deal.
expecting the President to sign the whole thing so he gets the things he wants
Yeah that's called compromise. The President get's the start of his wall. The Democrats would have gotten what they needed for DACA.
You must be very young indeed not to have seen this before Trump
You are assuming a whole lot.
The standard response is then to claim the President vetoed the bill because of something he himself wanted, when the truth is he vetoed it because of all the extra crap that Congress stuffed into it
Well typically, what happens is the President indicates to his party within Congress what line items they would like to see changed. A whole lot of debating goes on and eventually line items before it even gets out of committee are changed etc. If a President vetos a budget because of some random line item, then the President has been asleep at the wheel here. There are several points during the process for the President to speak up and have his/her party object, table motion, refer to committee, filibuster, etc, etc, etc... any particular line item. That's why Congress ki