14 ms·

This isn't about opposing privacy. There is a reasonable expectation to privacy people have but the privacy laws adapted by the FCC in the past have only been

This isn't about opposing privacy. There is a reasonable expectation to privacy people have but the privacy laws adapted by the FCC in the past have only been applied to ISPs and not other edge providers, such as Google or Skype. So in short, they are just bad laws. The regulations placed on ISPs place an undue burden on them but not on other Internet companies. Firstly, this means that users have to understand a lot about the networks they use to understand how privacy laws affect them. Second, it also means that edge providers(Yahoo, Skype, Google) have an unfair advantage. The justification given for this is that ISPs see much more data than edge providers. But this does not appear true and in fact a great deal of personal information and network-usage data appears to be available to other parties besides ISPs. You can search headlines to see that. So it doesn't make sense to single out ISPs for privacy laws but not other Internet companies that have access to user data. Also, it makes the law more complicated regarding user data privacy. I also want to point out that, in my personal opinion, there is a tendency to view ISPs as malicious actors but not for other edge providers which biases the debate on Internet privacy laws.

HeyImAlex 10y ago
Im interacting with edge providers, so I understand to some degree that I'm exposing information. Take phone calls as an analogy; obviously the person on the other end of the line can hear me, but I don't want a stranger at the telephone company listening in.
toddmorey 10y ago
"..the privacy laws adapted by the FCC in the past have only been applied to ISPs and not other edge providers... So in short, they are just bad laws." I feel that builds the argument that they should be implemented more widely, not abandoned. Also, ISPs are targeted specifically not because people believe they are malicious actors, but because they are literally the gateway to everything, impacting you just about any time you use the internet. Think how much it would say about you as a person in detailed logs from your service provider.
- onetimeusename 10y ago
  Yes, the argument that they should be widely implemented is definitely implied and valid. Regarding your analogy, end to end encrypted content is not readable by the ISP, they can see metadata for encrypted content, but not the content itself. Whereas webmail providers can see the content[1]. Another example is Google who run a public DNS server. Another example is Apple keeping all phone numbers[2]. So the data that edge providers have access to(in theory) is fairly significant. I think definitely to be consistent the law has to be an all or nothing kind of thing. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/04/yahoo-scans-email-for-nsa/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/04/yahoo-scans-email-for-nsa/ [2] http://www.macworld.com/article/3125570/iphone-ipad/apple-keeps-track-of-all-the-phone-numbers-you-contact-using-imessage.html http://www.macworld.com/article/3125570/iphone-ipad/apple-ke...
  - pseudalopex 10y ago
    There's a competitive market in online services. FastMail scans only for spam, and you can opt out.[1] Microsoft claims not to use email for ad targeting.[2] Google DNS is a standalone service with a reasonable, detailed privacy policy.[3] iMessage is optional even if you choose to use Apple platforms. Meanwhile, most US households have only one option for 25+ Mbps Internet service because the FCC dismantled competition among residential ISPs. If ISPs don't want the responsibilities that come with monopoly power, they should stop fighting to preserve it. [1] https://www.fastmail.com/about/privacy.html https://www.fastmail.com/about/privacy.html [2] https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-US/ https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-US/ [3] https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy
st3v3r 10y ago
"This isn't about opposing privacy." I cannot accept that statement at face value. Supporting this is absolutely about opposing privacy. You are supporting a move whose only purpose is to lessen privacy. "There is a reasonable expectation to privacy people have but the privacy laws adapted by the FCC in the past have only been applied to ISPs and not other edge providers, such as Google or Skype. So in short, they are just bad laws." No, they aren't. They are very good laws. They're just not as broad as they could be. The proper response, if you feel this way, is to expand those privacy laws, not to remove the little protection consumers have. " Second, it also means that edge providers(Yahoo, Skype, Google) have an unfair advantage. " No, it absolutely does not. Mainly because ISPs are not competing with them. There is absolutely, positively zero reason why any ISP should need that data. None.

HeyImAlex 10y ago

Im interacting with edge providers, so I understand to some degree that I'm exposing information. Take phone calls as an analogy; obviously the person on the other end of the line can hear me, but I don't want a stranger at the telephone company listening in.

toddmorey 10y ago

"..the privacy laws adapted by the FCC in the past have only been applied to ISPs and not other edge providers... So in short, they are just bad laws." I feel that builds the argument that they should be implemented more widely, not abandoned. Also, ISPs are targeted specifically not because people believe they are malicious actors, but because they are literally the gateway to everything, impacting you just about any time you use the internet. Think how much it would say about you as a person in detailed logs from your service provider.

onetimeusename 10y ago
Yes, the argument that they should be widely implemented is definitely implied and valid. Regarding your analogy, end to end encrypted content is not readable by the ISP, they can see metadata for encrypted content, but not the content itself. Whereas webmail providers can see the content[1]. Another example is Google who run a public DNS server. Another example is Apple keeping all phone numbers[2]. So the data that edge providers have access to(in theory) is fairly significant. I think definitely to be consistent the law has to be an all or nothing kind of thing. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/04/yahoo-scans-email-for-nsa/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/04/yahoo-scans-email-for-nsa/ [2] http://www.macworld.com/article/3125570/iphone-ipad/apple-keeps-track-of-all-the-phone-numbers-you-contact-using-imessage.html http://www.macworld.com/article/3125570/iphone-ipad/apple-ke...
- pseudalopex 10y ago
  There's a competitive market in online services. FastMail scans only for spam, and you can opt out.[1] Microsoft claims not to use email for ad targeting.[2] Google DNS is a standalone service with a reasonable, detailed privacy policy.[3] iMessage is optional even if you choose to use Apple platforms. Meanwhile, most US households have only one option for 25+ Mbps Internet service because the FCC dismantled competition among residential ISPs. If ISPs don't want the responsibilities that come with monopoly power, they should stop fighting to preserve it. [1] https://www.fastmail.com/about/privacy.html https://www.fastmail.com/about/privacy.html [2] https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-US/ https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-US/ [3] https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy

st3v3r 10y ago

"This isn't about opposing privacy." I cannot accept that statement at face value. Supporting this is absolutely about opposing privacy. You are supporting a move whose only purpose is to lessen privacy. "There is a reasonable expectation to privacy people have but the privacy laws adapted by the FCC in the past have only been applied to ISPs and not other edge providers, such as Google or Skype. So in short, they are just bad laws." No, they aren't. They are very good laws. They're just not as broad as they could be. The proper response, if you feel this way, is to expand those privacy laws, not to remove the little protection consumers have. " Second, it also means that edge providers(Yahoo, Skype, Google) have an unfair advantage. " No, it absolutely does not. Mainly because ISPs are not competing with them. There is absolutely, positively zero reason why any ISP should need that data. None.