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."

Comments

How is this false?

[SuperKendall]

What the carriers are doing is horrible, no doubt. They should be stopped from selling location data to anyone, full stop.

But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.

If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already authorized by previous government bills, and move on.

Re:How is this false?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.

It very well could be a threat to life. A cost of $300 is small change for a stalker or killer to track someone.

Re:How is this false?

[ZoomieDood]

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?

Re:How is this false?

[EndlessNameless]

If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already authorized by previous government bills, and move on.

Screw that. Pass a bill to restart the government, then debate the wall like adults. Holding the government hostage is not acceptable.

Plus... why wasn't this $5b funded when Republicans held both houses? Presumably, they could have worked with Trump earlier. They funded the DoD and a few other agencies through Oct 1 (start of the government's next fiscal year).

Stupid manufactured crisis.

Re:How is this false?

[Anonymous Coward]

trump rejected the *REPUBLICAN* budget bills late last year (ya know, when he had the fucking majority in both houses), ones that did include *some* 'wall' funding.

now he and mcconnell (who is doing trump's dirty work, not even letting a bill get a fucking vote to pass; which would force trump to veto.. which would cause a shitstorm, even among his sheeple), and their russian puppetmaster, are holding the entire country hostage for the 'full' amount (and it's not even the 'full' amount, but rather what some estimate would be barely five percent of the final cost after it's all built.. and most of which would end up in republican "donor" pockets). never mind the fact the fucking wall should be debated and funded independently of any other appropriations and legislation, which is what the sane members of congress want.

we do not negotiate with terrorists. trump is owned by russia. he is an enemy asset. HE IS A FUCKING TERRORIST. his allies in the senate are co-conspirators. DO NOT GIVE IN. EVER.

Re:How is this false?

[slack_justyb]

But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.

No arguments here. This totally can wait till the government is reopened.

If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already

No. That just sets a new standard that if the President refuses to sign a CR then eventually they will get their way. If we were literally talking about any other piece of legislation outside of a CR, maybe. But refusing to sign a CR (or in the Congressional sense vote for a CR) makes a person(s) look like an asshat. That applies to anyone and everyone regardless of political party.

authorized by previous government bills

Which if you might remember Trump was going to veto. First President I've known of who had exactly what they wanted and then threaten to veto it. Nah, he got his chance in March when the first pieces of his wall were addressed in the 2018 Omnibus spending. He shot it down, at this point he can kick rocks. The President wanted his cake and to eat it as well. I'll continue sending care packages to the local TSA agents and helping out friends who are furloughed till the 2020 election if need be. The President blew his one chance, he ought not get another. If you get three inches in anything government, you take that small bit and roll with it. 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. Doing that in anything government is call being a greedy fool.

Re:How is this false?

[slack_justyb]

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

Re:How is this false?

[Darinbob]

If Congress has the will, they could end this.

And don't forget that if the president has the will, he could end this too. When there is an impasse the fault never lies solely with one side.

America is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a nice run but it's time to admit the experiment our founders put in motion all those years ago has failed. Undone by ignorance, complacency, and unfettered capitalism.

It was nice while it lasted. It's all over but the shouting now.

This is BAU for Pai

[rsilvergun]

he sides with the corporation over consumers almost every single time (he did some stuff for rural communities that you can chalk up to his party needing that voting block).

We all know this by now. The question I keep asking is, is this going to change how anybody votes in 2020? So far I haven't got a single answer of "yes". As such, I would expect him to continue this behavior since it seems to be working out just fine for him.

Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Day one, they passed a set of micro-budgets. 7 of them. So the Senate could start turning on some parts of the federal government while still letting a shutdown affect one department (for face saving). The Senate never voted on them.

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C

[alvinrod]

People who kill other people tend to be more impulsive than they are intelligent. The number of people who are aware that they can access this data, intelligent enough to be able to gather and put it to use, but also willing to kill someone is incredibly small.

It's not that this can't happen, it's just a lot less likely. If we're interested in preventing spousal murders (or just violence in general) there are plenty of other things that we should be far more worried about. The sad thing is that something like this would get sensationalized and focus and effort that could be better spent elsewhere for better overall outcomes will instead be pointlessly squandered.

Re:Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration

[sdinfoserv]

Bullshit. 2 months ago the GOP had the House , Senate and Oval Office - yet couldn't get a budget done. The GOP refused to give Lord Trumpkin his silly wall. He was ready to sign a budget deal without the wall till FoxNews made fun of him and he threw a tantrum... You like having a Commander if Chief taking marching orders from a propaganda organization? It doesn't bother you he idols are Putin and Kim Jong-un
And, BTW, this shutdown is the longest in history, so there's comparison with Obama or anyone else.
Trump is a spoiled brat petulant child in the White House.
People are sick and tired of politicians owned by corporations raiding the Treasury for corporate benefit... In 2018 the GOP increased the deficit by $1.06T dollars in massive corporate tax cut under the guise of "it would spur the economy"... Corporations took their new found windfall and used it on record setting stock buy backs... a $1T dollars worth (seen that number before?)
We have the GOP who continually scream about the deficit when there's a Democrat in charge, instantly toll armloads of payola on corporate oligarchy as soon as they get the chance.

Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!!

[CohibaVancouver]

Note, though, that budget bills originate in the House, and Pelosi has not allowed a vote on a FY2019 budget. This is Pelosi's shutdown, not Trumps. He blusters, he threatens, whatever. Pelosi has the first move and she's stonewalling.

Incorrect, Anonymous Coward.

The House has passed numerous budgets. The Speaker of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, refuses to take any of them to the floor of the senate.

McConnell has the next move and he's stonewalling.

Re:you mean "illegally make his staff work unpaid"

[jittles]

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.