26 ms·
FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data
- mankash666 10y agoAbout time
- Spartan-S63 10y agoI agree. I'm also glad they specified "opt-in" consent and not "opt-out." They can't start collecting your data without your prior knowledge and authorization. This is a good thing. Next step would be to disallow hijacking and data insertion into your stream of data. It would be a step towards cementing ISPs role as a dumb carrier of data.
- tedajax 10y agoDoes this also preclude ISPs from not allowing you access to higher tiers of service without consenting to data collection? That is that in addition to requiring an opt-in they can't incentivize it at all by giving users who don't opt-in a degraded experience.
- alphonsegaston 10y agoYeah, I wonder how this applies to something like the high speed connections on Uverse, where your defaulted into data collection/traffic injection. Opt out requires paying more for the service.
- christianmunoz 10y agoI was able to find an answer to at least part of this question in the FCC fact sheet[0] on the decision. > The Order prohibits “take-it-or-leave-it” offers, meaning that an ISP can’t refuse to serve customers who don’t consent to the use and sharing of their information for commercial purposes. So at least they can't cut you off entirely if you don't consent/opt-in. [0] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1027/DOC-341938A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016... Edit: source
- r00fus 10y agoInteresting - so looks like UVerse's policies may still be permitted (ie, you pay more for privacy).
- anigbrowl 10y agoI'm sure this will lead to radical alterations on paragraph 117 of the typical EULA, where everyone will notice it immediately and have a serious think about the economic value of their personal identifiable information. I have not looked at the actual motion yet but I suspect that companies will only have to answer consumer inquiries in general terms rather than giving them detailed statement. Oh well I've given up trying to safeguard my privacy anyway.
- wmf 10y agoI am kind of surprised that this wasn't already regulated, considering that telephone privacy has been an issue for decades. Perhaps this is a case of an unwritten common-sense policy that is only being codified when ISPs start to break it (e.g. AT&T's now-canceled "Internet Preferences").
- MayMuncher 10y agoI wonder if this applies to airport or arena wifi. Would they be considered an ISP if they are providing internet to mobile devices?
- chipperyman573 10y agoNo, an ISP does more than provide the routers that broadcast internet.
- ars 10y agoThis is completely pointless. They'll just add some form you have to sign before giving you service and that's about it. After all, do you read and act on the privacy notifications other providers give you? Does this at least require them to provider service irregardless of your consent to share data? If not, this is a pointless law that just makes it look like they did something.
- jmcdiesel 10y agoWell, thanks to sites like HN and Reddit, as soon as they drop some dumb stuff in the contract, it will be brought to the surface and informed people will at least KNOW... tahts a big thing
- TallGuyShort 10y agoNot sure I'm as optimistic. Many long agreements include vague language that gives the author A LOT of leeway. I'm more concerned about getting this fixed in healthcare. Recently had to get lawyers involved over a debt dispute for a bill that was never sent to insurance and that the hospital couldn't even verify because it came from a "partner" no one could contact. The chief argument against us: an agreement signed by my wife while in labor that placed all the responsibility for any bills, correct or not, on us with no recourse. I remember disputing it at the time but they insisted it was just a CYA form and they couldn't admit us without it.
- nickff 10y agoI think you are describing general problems with disclosure and consent regulations and common-law. The regulators and legislators pursue and get credit for incremental actions, but there is no agent or body with accountability for overall impact. When regulators impose a new disclosure requirement, they often show that if a consumer reads the document, the individual will learn something; the problem is that when this document is page 53 of a 200 page disclosure, almost nobody reads it. This issue was pointed out by Chief Justice Roberts when he said that he never read any of the prescription drug warnings that drug-producers have been required to provide (by courts and regulators).
- 10y ago
- revelation 10y agoMaybe they can now regulate that ISPs can not modify IP payload? What world are we living in where the post service is allowed to rip open mail and deface it.
- wmf 10y agoThe FCC has spent years fighting for net neutrality.
- revelation 10y agoI'm not sure yours and their definition of net neutrality overlaps much. I personally don't think "not modifying user data" above IP is much of a net neutrality issue either; it should be a felony issue, as is tampering with mail.
- GrinningFool 10y agoThat would require a legal definition of tcp traffic as federal mail. AFAIK there's no such definition. (I agree with you, for what it's worth... I just don't see a path by which it's possible under current law)
- 1812Overture 10y agoWe have a monopoly. Sign this or you don't get internet.
- Spivak 10y agoWhich is the absolute first thing they thought of. ISPs are not allowed to refuse you service for opting out and they're also not allowed to make you "pay for privacy". We'll see how strictly this is applied but it implies that they're also not allowed to weasel out of it by giving a 'discount' to people who opt-in.
- thomasthomas 10y agolots of power for an entity of unelected officials....
- hackuser 10y agoThey are legally empowered by elected officials, just like the police, the courts, the entire Justice Department, military, State Department, NIH, NSF, IEEE (for some things), and many, many more. What alternative is there? Our elected officials can't possibly have the time or the expertise to perform all those tasks themselves.
- thomasthomas 10y agothe difference is the communication act of 1934 essentially lets the FCC create laws whereby the police etc don't have that power. the power to create laws should be held by elected officials imo. the 5 leaders of the FCC get to unilaterally make regulations (laws) that affect every single citizen in america. everything from tv broadcasts to net neutrality
- Frogolocalypse 10y agoNo, it allows them to create regulations within the framework of the act of their constitution. They can't create laws that stop someone fishing for tuna, now can they? This is the same as road/highway authorities being able to set traffic speed zones, food authorities for setting health quality regulations, health bodies regulating medicines, or any other regulatory body. You don't like it? Get you politician to change/repeal the act. That's how democracy works.
- thomasthomas 10y agoexcept speed limits are enforced by police. huge administrative authorities have executive, law making, and judicial power. The [Federal Trade] Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous Commission administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hlr107&div=63&id=&page= http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/h...
- supergeek133 10y agoIn theory they were supposed to have my permission before sharing with the government too... right? Not sure what this stops. Think of it like when you authorize facebook or someone else to share data via OAuth, how many people read that list?
- whatupmd 10y agoB2B and B2G are a whole different ball-game. In B2B scenario they are exposed to class-action lawsuit for bad-behavior or government fine. In B2G scenario really only thing individual citizen can do is take it to the supreme court.
- afarrell 10y agoI wish the UK had this. Mobile phone/data providers send a header with HTTP requests to provide the site with your phone number which they can then use to charge you without permission.
- SEJeff 10y agoWow seriously? That is semi-terrifying.
- cunotaco 10y agoAs far as I know that only happens with trusted partners of your mobile provider.
- initram 10y agoFor some reason that makes it way worse in my book. It isn't some scumbags running a sketchy website you were tricked into clicking on - it's the very people you've entrusted to give you service.
- hackuser 10y agoDoesn't the EU have extensive privacy laws?
- anigbrowl 10y agoKinda academic after Brexit
- cloudjacker 10y agoPermission like an android app
- devindotcom 10y agoInterestingly there seems to be a loophole in that they can collect the data regardless of consent, but can't use or share it without consent. So chances are this sensitive data will be recorded and put in a database anyway, even if they're not lawfully allowed to look at it without anonymizing first - but a future law could also add an exception, keeping things for law enforcement for instance. I'm triple checking with the FCC on this though.
- wmf 10y agoIIRC that's what AT&T did; I guess it was too complex to feed an opt-out blacklist to their DPI boxes. ISPs are still in denial that this data is toxic waste. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_tox... If the FCC allows ISPs to collect data as long as they swear it will never be used, the ISPs can then sell it to law enforcement with a contract that says they will also "never use it". https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/25/att-secretly-sells-customer-data-law-enforcement-hemisphere https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/25/att-secretl...
- joering2 10y agoI don't think that would fly if they are being sued? How would LE defend money being spent on something that they cannot use? I mean any judge will see it, no?
- JadeNB 10y ago> How would LE defend money being spent on something that they cannot use? I mean any judge will see it, no? The common-sense interpretation is not always (and, much as I hate to say it, probably sometimes should not be) the interpretation arrived at by a judge.
- csydas 10y agoI appreciate healthy skepticism, but evidence has been thrown out on far flimsier premises by even the lowest of courts. It would be very surprising if evidence of this manner continually survived through the court system on appeal after appeal. This isn't saying it can never happen, but it would be in contrast to the multitude of times that evidence was discarded for less. I haven't had a chance to read the fcc's reasoning on why the ISPs are allowed to collect the data in the first place, and I do agree it seems like a ruling that's just can't wait to show off all its loopholes; but I think this would be pretty difficult to bring as evidence in trial. Though I do agree and think it'll be used as a cudgel for other purposes outside of the courts, for threats or for discriminatory justice.
- swissoak 10y agoIt's just a breath of fresh air to see a part of our government working to protect consumer interests to the detriment of giant corporate interests. What is it about the FCC that makes it less susceptible to the conflicts of interest from lobbying found elsewhere in politics?
- elhenrico 10y agoIt's there any way to obfuscate my browsing data? As in a program that visits random sites. I've searched but never found something like this.
- jgord 10y ago..because the fact that your _paying_ them, along with the general morality, is in itself not enough of an inducement.
- Frogolocalypse 10y agoRemember the hoo-haa when Wheeler was appointed chairman of the FCC? He seems to have proven his detractors wrong.
- makecheck 10y agoIf the data is collected at all, it can be collected incorrectly (e.g. stored in such a way that it is stolen eventually, “permissions” be damned). Still solving the wrong fundamental issue. We desperately need to work on reducing the importance of data itself. We must assume by default that all information will be improperly handled pretty much anywhere (or, that the task of keeping it secure indefinitely is just too hard). That means: data whose usefulness expires extremely quickly (with corresponding protocols), and the complete retirement of stupid bits of information we now carry like social security numbers and credit card numbers that can instantly screw you in the wrong hands. In fact, we ought to have proxies for EVERYTHING; I don’t know why I even have to hand out my home address, for instance, when in theory I could give a company some temporary proxy address that routes to my house only as long as I ALLOW that forwarding; after that, it becomes meaningless and cannot be used for junk mail.
- mirimir 10y agoNo matter what anyone says, it's prudent to assume that everything is logged.
- dsr_ 10y ago"Commissioner Ajit Pai, who voted no, cautioned that the "cold reality" is that nothing in the new rules will stop those companies from "harvesting and monetizing your data," including the websites visited, YouTube videos watched or search terms entered on any device." Any reasonable person reading that would infer that Pai thinks that these rules are not sufficient and is in favor of stricter rules. That turns out not to be the case at all.
- 6DM 10y agoAfter this comes an "update" to your privacy statement where you have to agree or you loose service...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- debraaa 10y agoI really don’t know much about this scam thing and at the same time , no one wants to be on the losing side . But i just came across a good hacker who helped me hack my boyfriends text messages, whatsap, Facebook , Instagram messages remotely..You don’t have to touch his phone while you have access to his conversations through the software he bought and install remotely on my phone , i dont know how he did this but i think he's perfect at it.....contact him at hotcyberclown@gmail.com..Tell him Debra referred you, then you can thank me later. God Bless.
- debraaa 10y agoI really don’t know much about this scam thing and at the same time , no one wants to be on the losing side . But i just came across a good hacker who helped me hack my boyfriends text messages, whatsap, Facebook , Instagram messages remotely..You don’t have to touch his phone while you have access to his conversations through the software he bought and install remotely on my phone , i dont know how he did this but i think he's perfect at it.....contact him at hotcyberclown@gmail.com..Tell him Debra referred you, then you can thank me later. God Bless.
- macawfish 10y ago"the vote was 3-2 along party lines" for real?
- dkraft 10y agoNearly Meaningless in the face of Wells Fargo scandal, Wallstreet behavior in general. The penalty will invariably be less than the gain, _if_caught_ They need to stop blocking and penalizing VPN traffic is what they need ruled. Where is that law?