6 ms·

Congress Is Trying to Roll Back Internet Privacy Protections

356 points by dwaxe 10y ago

routelastresort 10y ago
If you're a company that supports the EFF (even through individual donations, corporate matching, etc.), I'd love to hear about you, and consider supporting you as well!
- dannyobrien 10y ago
  As would I! Mostly, I'm EFF's International Director, but as of yesterday, I've taken a temporary secondment to work for six months with our development (read: fundraising) team. We're facing a number of challenges on many fronts, and like many of our colleagues in the non-profit world right now, we're having to ramp up quickly to face them. We get a huge amount of expert advice and moral support from technologists here on Hacker News, but we only really ever chip in with the occasional technical comment. For the next six months at least I'd be delighted to talk with anyone who is as interested in supporting us financially, or understanding better how that works. You can mail me on danny@eff.org or comment here. This is a bit of an experiment for me (I'm more comfortable talking about global censorship and surveillance than asking people for a few bitcoins), as well as for EFF. To keep with the mod rules here, it's probably worth trying to keep on-topic to this post, but happy to chat offline or arrange or more general conversation.
  - chasb 10y ago
    Hi, I'd be happy to chat. We (Aptible) have donated as a company in the past and will in the future. Chas at aptible.com
    - dannyobrien 10y ago
      Hey chasb, email sent!
  - culturestate 10y ago
    One thing that has always kept me from donating to the EFF is the apparent lack of on-the-ground lobbying operations; I contribute to Public Knowledge instead, because they (seem to be) much more involved in the policy process. Am I reading the situation correctly? If so, do you guys have plans to shift strategy given the direction of Congress today?
    - dannyobrien 10y ago
      PK are great people, and definitely a good port of call. For our strategy shift, I'd read our 100 day plan here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/our-100-day-plan https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/our-100-day-plan , especially point 7, which is about our D.C. ground game. We have a domestic legislative team (led by Ernesto Falcon, PK's former VP of government affairs https://www.eff.org/about/staff/ernesto-omar-falcon https://www.eff.org/about/staff/ernesto-omar-falcon ). It's not something that we talk about a lot, because the work tends to be in the weeds, doing line-by-line critiques of new laws, or talking to dedicated staffers. We try and do deep dives about our legislative work in EFFector when we can, but mostly people here about our big activism or tech pushes. One of the aspects of how Congress is directed at the moment is that direct lobbying for civil liberties within Congress may be a bit of a limited strategy (something we're familiar with from previous times in our existence). In those situations, we think it's equally important to equally emphasize the alternative strategies -- fight executive overreach and unconstitutional law in the courts, create technology to protect users, and work on legal protections at the state and international level. D.C. lobbying is part of that (and we've been thinking more seriously about other ways to build that up which I'd be happy to brainstorm with you), but we think these days it works best if you integrate it with other strategies. The power of being a D.C. insider isn't as great as it has been these days, and the strength of advocacy, court challenges, and tech is showing itself right now. - d.
- forgotmysn 10y ago
  https://www.eff.org/thanks https://www.eff.org/thanks
- chasb 10y ago
  Hi there. We (Aptible) are big fans.
- mrmondo 10y ago
  Likewise and god damn I respect you if you do.
alehul 10y ago
> Worse yet, it forbids the agency from passing any “substantially similar” regulations in the future, so the FCC would be forbidden from ever trying to regulate ISP privacy practices. This part really stood out to me and I don't fully understand how it can occur. Would the government (or rather its citizens) be better off if permanently banning future legislation wasn't allowed? Is there any case in which a permanent ban on future legislation would be, or has been, productive or reasonable? edit: distinguishing between constitutionally-enacted and simply legislator-enacted bans on future legislation.. If this ban is supposed to be based on unconstitutionality, how would it be spun in such a way?
- darawk 10y ago
  The constitution / bill of rights is one fairly successful example of that.
  - alehul 10y ago
    The purpose of that is to ensure that certain fundamental rights of citizens are protected, though, whereas this is the banning of future similar legislation in a way that I only see as being favorable to companies, not citizens.
    - darawk 10y ago
      Ya, but then you're just disagreeing with the content of the decision (which is fine, and I agree with you) and not its structure (regulation that precludes future regulation).
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Congress can't ban future legislation. The bill bans FCC rulemaking. Future legislation could give the power back to the FCC. A couple people mentioned the Constitution. It can be modified. The modifications can be taken out (see Prohibition in the US).
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
ikeboy 10y ago
Here's the other side if anyone is interested. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/30/industry-groups-beg-congress-fcc-to-restore-scrambled-internet-privacy-framework/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrydowne... See also https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/3.7.16-_multi-association_letter_to_senate_commerce_supporting_cra_resolution_disapproving_the_fcc_broadband_privacy_rule.pdf https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/3.7.16-_multi-...
- thebaer 10y ago
  > The FCC provided no evidence to substantiate the proposition that broadband providers respected consumer privacy any less than other members of the internet ecosystem. Without knowing entirely what they're referencing, I would say that we need to make sure broadband providers respect consumer privacy, regardless of what "other members of the internet ecosystem" are doing. > Consumers enjoy the advertising-supported internet and innovation... Uhh... no.
  - hawkice 10y ago
    Also, weren't the ISPs injecting their own ads onto remotely hosted webpages? Is the claim here that people love looking at annoying banner ads?
  - a3n 10y ago
    Actually yes, yes we do. We enjoy the internet that we have, that is partially enabled by ads. Even those of us that block ads (freeloaders, if you will), enjoy the internet that's supported by ads that other people don't block.
    - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
      Actually, no, now I don't. I despise ads for reasons not least of which is that they are a form of insidious psychological conditioning. I'd much rather have the predominant funding model be similar to services like patreon. Netflix has shown that you don't need ads, ads everywhere to produce quality media in this age, just as premium cable did in the past. I'd rather have a few channels or sites of quality than hundreds of pieces of crap
a3n 10y ago
Why do Republicans hate people, or prioritize abstract artificial corporations over real people?
- org3432 10y ago
  It's that they see anyone telling them what to do, regardless of the reasons or outcomes, as taking away their freedom. In a way they're certainly right, the more regulation the less freedom you have, however why they take it to the degree of being callous and fatalistic when it will affect them negatively is a mystery. Of course, other than the military, that there can never be enough of. That tends to be what someone who has a world view of "what's in it for me", vs. "what's best for everyone". The stronger the sense of "me", the stronger the sense of having to protect yourself, whereas the opposite view tends not to bring about that neurosiss.
  - curun1r 10y ago
    > they see anyone telling them what to do, regardless of the reasons or outcomes, as taking away their freedom But they're more than happy to tell gay people not to marry, women not to get abortions, transgender people not to use the bathroom and marijuana users not to smoke. Let's not pretend Republicans or Democrats are some paragon of freedom. Both want to restrict the actions of others, just to different ends.
    - org3432 10y ago
      Right, they apply different reasoning depending on the circumstances, all of these are linked to their religious beliefs and they feel if their society is contributing to them then that includes them and in turn goes against their religion. Which on it's own is valid too, but then that points to their religion leading them down a path and then not being able to help them, so it's kind of a mess of contradictions. But you can't really have a conversation with someone about how their religion is flawed, that doesn't go well. So hum...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
arca_vorago 10y ago
Big picture here is this: The oligarchy has taken over every form of media communication throughout history. The printing press, the telegraph, the radio, the television. The internet by design was resistent to centralization, the main method used on the other mediums, but the oligarchy fought a small fight in the form of the 90's cryptowars and then sorta let up. They recognize now though, that the last bastion of true, anarchistic freedom of thought is the internet, and globally will begin to attack it through many means, not just legislative. Decentralization avoiding targeting in an age of mass surveillance is difficult, and this move towards centralization undermines the entire original purpose of the internet as a form of communication that could survive targeting. If we remember this, and build open source, encrypted, decentralized systems, we still might have a chance to keep the internet us older geeks remember. I also have a theory that it is the technology of the internet that has artificially accelerated the oligarchy's attack time frame, because they are desperate to not let the cat out of the bag. Once the world gets a taste of intellectual freedom, they won't want to go back, and the cat is out of the bag so to speak. This is forcing their hand early and is a weakness.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  The best anyone can hope to do is roll things back to text-based systems... beyond that the cat is way too far out of the bag as you say.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Please say more. What sort of text-based systems? And why? Bandwidth? Riffing from Vinge's True Names, I've off-and-on wondered about mixnets as covert-channel overlays on high-definition video traffic. Given ~1% signal/carrier, you would pretty much be limited to text and small images.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      I wasn't thinking of anything in particular, sorry. I was just thinking in terms of what you're saying, if you break your messages down, hash them, send them in drips and drabs in the background noise, it would be almost impossible to track. Low-bandwidth MESH networks, and just plain people with microwave transmitters and receivers with direct line of sight, daisy-chaining around a neighborhood. The ideas are so prevalent in the public imagination now, that I can't imagine shutting things down would lead to anything other than innovation in the face of it.
hackuser 10y ago
This NY Times article covers the rollback of those rules in a much larger context of a mass reduction in public protections: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-deregulation-guns-wall-st-climate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-deregul...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
coldcode 10y ago
I wonder when ISPs will begin to uniformly inject ads into all website content, in some way (such as hijacking DNS to show ads before the website appears).
dpatac 10y ago
Does it matter with the release of all the CIA Hacking information just released?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Sure. Limiting what records ISPs keep and sell is good for individuals regardless of what the CIA is doing.

356 points by dwaxe 10y ago

If you're a company that supports the EFF (even through individual donations, corporate matching, etc.), I'd love to hear about you, and consider supporting you as well!

dannyobrien 10y ago
As would I! Mostly, I'm EFF's International Director, but as of yesterday, I've taken a temporary secondment to work for six months with our development (read: fundraising) team. We're facing a number of challenges on many fronts, and like many of our colleagues in the non-profit world right now, we're having to ramp up quickly to face them. We get a huge amount of expert advice and moral support from technologists here on Hacker News, but we only really ever chip in with the occasional technical comment. For the next six months at least I'd be delighted to talk with anyone who is as interested in supporting us financially, or understanding better how that works. You can mail me on danny@eff.org or comment here. This is a bit of an experiment for me (I'm more comfortable talking about global censorship and surveillance than asking people for a few bitcoins), as well as for EFF. To keep with the mod rules here, it's probably worth trying to keep on-topic to this post, but happy to chat offline or arrange or more general conversation.
- chasb 10y ago
  Hi, I'd be happy to chat. We (Aptible) have donated as a company in the past and will in the future. Chas at aptible.com
  - dannyobrien 10y ago
    Hey chasb, email sent!
- culturestate 10y ago
  One thing that has always kept me from donating to the EFF is the apparent lack of on-the-ground lobbying operations; I contribute to Public Knowledge instead, because they (seem to be) much more involved in the policy process. Am I reading the situation correctly? If so, do you guys have plans to shift strategy given the direction of Congress today?
  - dannyobrien 10y ago
    PK are great people, and definitely a good port of call. For our strategy shift, I'd read our 100 day plan here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/our-100-day-plan https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/our-100-day-plan , especially point 7, which is about our D.C. ground game. We have a domestic legislative team (led by Ernesto Falcon, PK's former VP of government affairs https://www.eff.org/about/staff/ernesto-omar-falcon https://www.eff.org/about/staff/ernesto-omar-falcon ). It's not something that we talk about a lot, because the work tends to be in the weeds, doing line-by-line critiques of new laws, or talking to dedicated staffers. We try and do deep dives about our legislative work in EFFector when we can, but mostly people here about our big activism or tech pushes. One of the aspects of how Congress is directed at the moment is that direct lobbying for civil liberties within Congress may be a bit of a limited strategy (something we're familiar with from previous times in our existence). In those situations, we think it's equally important to equally emphasize the alternative strategies -- fight executive overreach and unconstitutional law in the courts, create technology to protect users, and work on legal protections at the state and international level. D.C. lobbying is part of that (and we've been thinking more seriously about other ways to build that up which I'd be happy to brainstorm with you), but we think these days it works best if you integrate it with other strategies. The power of being a D.C. insider isn't as great as it has been these days, and the strength of advocacy, court challenges, and tech is showing itself right now. - d.
forgotmysn 10y ago
https://www.eff.org/thanks https://www.eff.org/thanks
chasb 10y ago
Hi there. We (Aptible) are big fans.
mrmondo 10y ago
Likewise and god damn I respect you if you do.

alehul 10y ago

> Worse yet, it forbids the agency from passing any “substantially similar” regulations in the future, so the FCC would be forbidden from ever trying to regulate ISP privacy practices. This part really stood out to me and I don't fully understand how it can occur. Would the government (or rather its citizens) be better off if permanently banning future legislation wasn't allowed? Is there any case in which a permanent ban on future legislation would be, or has been, productive or reasonable? edit: distinguishing between constitutionally-enacted and simply legislator-enacted bans on future legislation.. If this ban is supposed to be based on unconstitutionality, how would it be spun in such a way?

darawk 10y ago
The constitution / bill of rights is one fairly successful example of that.
- alehul 10y ago
  The purpose of that is to ensure that certain fundamental rights of citizens are protected, though, whereas this is the banning of future similar legislation in a way that I only see as being favorable to companies, not citizens.
  - darawk 10y ago
    Ya, but then you're just disagreeing with the content of the decision (which is fine, and I agree with you) and not its structure (regulation that precludes future regulation).
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Congress can't ban future legislation. The bill bans FCC rulemaking. Future legislation could give the power back to the FCC. A couple people mentioned the Constitution. It can be modified. The modifications can be taken out (see Prohibition in the US).
    - dragonwriter 10y ago

ikeboy 10y ago

Here's the other side if anyone is interested. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/30/industry-groups-beg-congress-fcc-to-restore-scrambled-internet-privacy-framework/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrydowne... See also https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/3.7.16-_multi-association_letter_to_senate_commerce_supporting_cra_resolution_disapproving_the_fcc_broadband_privacy_rule.pdf https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/3.7.16-_multi-...

thebaer 10y ago
> The FCC provided no evidence to substantiate the proposition that broadband providers respected consumer privacy any less than other members of the internet ecosystem. Without knowing entirely what they're referencing, I would say that we need to make sure broadband providers respect consumer privacy, regardless of what "other members of the internet ecosystem" are doing. > Consumers enjoy the advertising-supported internet and innovation... Uhh... no.
- hawkice 10y ago
  Also, weren't the ISPs injecting their own ads onto remotely hosted webpages? Is the claim here that people love looking at annoying banner ads?
- a3n 10y ago
  Actually yes, yes we do. We enjoy the internet that we have, that is partially enabled by ads. Even those of us that block ads (freeloaders, if you will), enjoy the internet that's supported by ads that other people don't block.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    Actually, no, now I don't. I despise ads for reasons not least of which is that they are a form of insidious psychological conditioning. I'd much rather have the predominant funding model be similar to services like patreon. Netflix has shown that you don't need ads, ads everywhere to produce quality media in this age, just as premium cable did in the past. I'd rather have a few channels or sites of quality than hundreds of pieces of crap

a3n 10y ago

Why do Republicans hate people, or prioritize abstract artificial corporations over real people?

org3432 10y ago
It's that they see anyone telling them what to do, regardless of the reasons or outcomes, as taking away their freedom. In a way they're certainly right, the more regulation the less freedom you have, however why they take it to the degree of being callous and fatalistic when it will affect them negatively is a mystery. Of course, other than the military, that there can never be enough of. That tends to be what someone who has a world view of "what's in it for me", vs. "what's best for everyone". The stronger the sense of "me", the stronger the sense of having to protect yourself, whereas the opposite view tends not to bring about that neurosiss.
- curun1r 10y ago
  > they see anyone telling them what to do, regardless of the reasons or outcomes, as taking away their freedom But they're more than happy to tell gay people not to marry, women not to get abortions, transgender people not to use the bathroom and marijuana users not to smoke. Let's not pretend Republicans or Democrats are some paragon of freedom. Both want to restrict the actions of others, just to different ends.
  - org3432 10y ago
    Right, they apply different reasoning depending on the circumstances, all of these are linked to their religious beliefs and they feel if their society is contributing to them then that includes them and in turn goes against their religion. Which on it's own is valid too, but then that points to their religion leading them down a path and then not being able to help them, so it's kind of a mess of contradictions. But you can't really have a conversation with someone about how their religion is flawed, that doesn't go well. So hum...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

arca_vorago 10y ago

Big picture here is this: The oligarchy has taken over every form of media communication throughout history. The printing press, the telegraph, the radio, the television. The internet by design was resistent to centralization, the main method used on the other mediums, but the oligarchy fought a small fight in the form of the 90's cryptowars and then sorta let up. They recognize now though, that the last bastion of true, anarchistic freedom of thought is the internet, and globally will begin to attack it through many means, not just legislative. Decentralization avoiding targeting in an age of mass surveillance is difficult, and this move towards centralization undermines the entire original purpose of the internet as a form of communication that could survive targeting. If we remember this, and build open source, encrypted, decentralized systems, we still might have a chance to keep the internet us older geeks remember. I also have a theory that it is the technology of the internet that has artificially accelerated the oligarchy's attack time frame, because they are desperate to not let the cat out of the bag. Once the world gets a taste of intellectual freedom, they won't want to go back, and the cat is out of the bag so to speak. This is forcing their hand early and is a weakness.

M_Grey 10y ago
The best anyone can hope to do is roll things back to text-based systems... beyond that the cat is way too far out of the bag as you say.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Please say more. What sort of text-based systems? And why? Bandwidth? Riffing from Vinge's True Names, I've off-and-on wondered about mixnets as covert-channel overlays on high-definition video traffic. Given ~1% signal/carrier, you would pretty much be limited to text and small images.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I wasn't thinking of anything in particular, sorry. I was just thinking in terms of what you're saying, if you break your messages down, hash them, send them in drips and drabs in the background noise, it would be almost impossible to track. Low-bandwidth MESH networks, and just plain people with microwave transmitters and receivers with direct line of sight, daisy-chaining around a neighborhood. The ideas are so prevalent in the public imagination now, that I can't imagine shutting things down would lead to anything other than innovation in the face of it.

hackuser 10y ago

This NY Times article covers the rollback of those rules in a much larger context of a mass reduction in public protections: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-deregulation-guns-wall-st-climate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-deregul...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

coldcode 10y ago

I wonder when ISPs will begin to uniformly inject ads into all website content, in some way (such as hijacking DNS to show ads before the website appears).

dpatac 10y ago

Does it matter with the release of all the CIA Hacking information just released?

maxerickson 10y ago
Sure. Limiting what records ISPs keep and sell is good for individuals regardless of what the CIA is doing.