5 ms·

The FCC defined Web browsing history and app usage history as sensitive information, along with other categories such as geo-location data, financial and health

The FCC defined Web browsing history and app usage history as sensitive information, along with other categories such as geo-location data, financial and health information, and the content of communications. If the rules are overturned, ISPs would be able to sell this kind of customer information to advertisers. Don't Facebook, et. al. do this already? Don't most people spend most of their time on Facebook anyway? ISPs just want a cut of the action.

paol 10y ago
Facebook is an endpoint people choose to interact with explicitly and voluntarily. If FB collects information, they are collecting information about communication to which they are a 1st party. This is very different from a service provider collecting and selling information about communications between third parties.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  I'd argue on the contrary, that both Facebook and Google via their ad networks and analytics tools embedded on websites collect an incredible amount of information that was not explicitly or voluntarily permitted by the user.
  - canadian_voter 10y ago
    Yes, this is what I meant. I feel like most people's daily internet use is highly surveilled already. I can see the ISPs thinking "FB and Google can only get 80%, but we can see it all, if only we can get them to change the rules".
  - paol 10y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree, but even then they can only do that if the user is visiting a FB or Google property, or a property that has entered into a relationship with them. A service provider, on the other hand, is in a position that has absolutely no legitimate claim on the contents of communications between third parties. Postal services are not expected to rifle through the contents of their customer's packages. Phone companies are not expected to record people's phone calls (or even reveal who's calling who). There is no reason why data communication providers should be allowed to do these things.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      I don't disagree that ISP data collection is bad. But given that Facebook and Google can profile users who don't even use Facebook or Google through the majority of websites out there, I don't think we can pretend that this is a problem with ISPs but not a problem with web companies. We should strongly push for real legislation that bars these companies from collecting browsing metadata from users, regardless of what service they're providing.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      In principle nor ISP, nor Facebook is different from postal service. Their only function is to be an intermediate between users. I would argue that as postal services can not force you to give up you a privacy with the contract terms (you are entering into a contract by sending a mail), so should not Facebok or ISP.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  I would argue that Facebook is not an endpoint. It is an intermediate - nobody interacts with the Facebook but through the Facebook. Of course, it is an first level intermediate, and ISP are second level, but still an intermediate.
gumby 10y ago
> Don't Facebook, et. al. do this already? At least you have some idea of what you're doing with FB; someone may switch from FB to private browsing mode in a browser to look something up. (And FB should be subject to additional privacy rules as well, that just happens not to be within scope of this particular FTC action).
yohui 10y ago
That's similar to what EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) said in a filing mentioned in the article: > "Privacy rules for ISPs are important and necessary, but it is obvious that the more substantial privacy threats for consumers are not the ISPs," the advocacy group said. The bigger threat is posed by "the largest email, search, and social media companies." By which they're obviously referring to Google and Facebook without naming them. CTIA, the mobile broadband lobbying group, cited this statement in their argument: "even a prominent privacy advocacy organization asserted that it is 'obvious that the more substantial threats for consumers are not ISPs,' but rather other large edge providers." I think that, while "large edge providers" may presently collect user information, there is greater potential for ISPs if left unchecked and harder for users to avoid.
- brodie78382 10y ago
  I'm not sure I understand their use of "large edge providers" in this context - are they insinuating that backbone providers such as Level 3 are already collecting my web traffic when they peer with my ISP? Or is that just a odd reference to "the largest email, search, and social media companies" mentioned further on? The article goes on to talk about common carrier status, so it feels like they mean the former but that just doesn't make sense. Either way, I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement: "there is greater potential for ISPs if left unchecked and harder for users to avoid." The CTIA's logic here can be reduced to "they do it so we want to do it too", seemingly framed within their long-time disposition of not considering themselves the "dumb pipes" that they are. Giving residential ISP's access to use this information, combined with what they already have on file for accounting purposes, is a situation just ripe for abuse. The article then goes on to say "What's less clear is whether the FCC will have any authority over ISPs' privacy practices after the rules are eliminated" - so there there may very well be no recourse whatsoever through either the FCC or FTC if or when widespread abuse were to occur. And of course, that's not even to start the age-old discussion about how & where the data is stored (plaintext on an insecure FTP server), who has access to it (all employees & contractors), etc. I am confident that this change from the FCC will only serve to screw over individual people at the gain of large corporations.
shmerl 10y ago
You have a choice not to use privacy abusing services like Facebook, and use privacy respectful ones like diaspora* instead. With ISP most users have no choice, and that's exactly the problem. They abuse their monopolistic position to snoop on people.
- Qwertious 10y ago
  > You have a choice not to use privacy abusing services like Facebook, and use privacy respectful ones like diaspora* instead. Asterisk what?
  - shmerl 10y ago
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)

paol 10y ago

Facebook is an endpoint people choose to interact with explicitly and voluntarily. If FB collects information, they are collecting information about communication to which they are a 1st party. This is very different from a service provider collecting and selling information about communications between third parties.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
I'd argue on the contrary, that both Facebook and Google via their ad networks and analytics tools embedded on websites collect an incredible amount of information that was not explicitly or voluntarily permitted by the user.
- canadian_voter 10y ago
  Yes, this is what I meant. I feel like most people's daily internet use is highly surveilled already. I can see the ISPs thinking "FB and Google can only get 80%, but we can see it all, if only we can get them to change the rules".
- paol 10y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree, but even then they can only do that if the user is visiting a FB or Google property, or a property that has entered into a relationship with them. A service provider, on the other hand, is in a position that has absolutely no legitimate claim on the contents of communications between third parties. Postal services are not expected to rifle through the contents of their customer's packages. Phone companies are not expected to record people's phone calls (or even reveal who's calling who). There is no reason why data communication providers should be allowed to do these things.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    I don't disagree that ISP data collection is bad. But given that Facebook and Google can profile users who don't even use Facebook or Google through the majority of websites out there, I don't think we can pretend that this is a problem with ISPs but not a problem with web companies. We should strongly push for real legislation that bars these companies from collecting browsing metadata from users, regardless of what service they're providing.
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    In principle nor ISP, nor Facebook is different from postal service. Their only function is to be an intermediate between users. I would argue that as postal services can not force you to give up you a privacy with the contract terms (you are entering into a contract by sending a mail), so should not Facebok or ISP.
eveningcoffee 10y ago
I would argue that Facebook is not an endpoint. It is an intermediate - nobody interacts with the Facebook but through the Facebook. Of course, it is an first level intermediate, and ISP are second level, but still an intermediate.

gumby 10y ago

> Don't Facebook, et. al. do this already? At least you have some idea of what you're doing with FB; someone may switch from FB to private browsing mode in a browser to look something up. (And FB should be subject to additional privacy rules as well, that just happens not to be within scope of this particular FTC action).

yohui 10y ago

That's similar to what EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) said in a filing mentioned in the article: > "Privacy rules for ISPs are important and necessary, but it is obvious that the more substantial privacy threats for consumers are not the ISPs," the advocacy group said. The bigger threat is posed by "the largest email, search, and social media companies." By which they're obviously referring to Google and Facebook without naming them. CTIA, the mobile broadband lobbying group, cited this statement in their argument: "even a prominent privacy advocacy organization asserted that it is 'obvious that the more substantial threats for consumers are not ISPs,' but rather other large edge providers." I think that, while "large edge providers" may presently collect user information, there is greater potential for ISPs if left unchecked and harder for users to avoid.

brodie78382 10y ago
I'm not sure I understand their use of "large edge providers" in this context - are they insinuating that backbone providers such as Level 3 are already collecting my web traffic when they peer with my ISP? Or is that just a odd reference to "the largest email, search, and social media companies" mentioned further on? The article goes on to talk about common carrier status, so it feels like they mean the former but that just doesn't make sense. Either way, I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement: "there is greater potential for ISPs if left unchecked and harder for users to avoid." The CTIA's logic here can be reduced to "they do it so we want to do it too", seemingly framed within their long-time disposition of not considering themselves the "dumb pipes" that they are. Giving residential ISP's access to use this information, combined with what they already have on file for accounting purposes, is a situation just ripe for abuse. The article then goes on to say "What's less clear is whether the FCC will have any authority over ISPs' privacy practices after the rules are eliminated" - so there there may very well be no recourse whatsoever through either the FCC or FTC if or when widespread abuse were to occur. And of course, that's not even to start the age-old discussion about how & where the data is stored (plaintext on an insecure FTP server), who has access to it (all employees & contractors), etc. I am confident that this change from the FCC will only serve to screw over individual people at the gain of large corporations.

shmerl 10y ago

You have a choice not to use privacy abusing services like Facebook, and use privacy respectful ones like diaspora* instead. With ISP most users have no choice, and that's exactly the problem. They abuse their monopolistic position to snoop on people.

Qwertious 10y ago
> You have a choice not to use privacy abusing services like Facebook, and use privacy respectful ones like diaspora* instead. Asterisk what?
- shmerl 10y ago
  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)