4 ms·

I don't understand why people like yourself have to try to reframe and deflect attention on everything to fit your political narrative. Why can't you just see

I don't understand why people like yourself have to try to reframe and deflect attention on everything to fit your political narrative. Why can't you just see the problem for what it is and hold the representatives with your political affiliation accountable? Who really cares who our "traditional" privacy regulator is if neither of them end up able/willing to do the regulating? Why are you trying to frame this as a mistake made by the "previous president" when every single vote cast to repeal the only possible legal barrier to the commoditization of the internet activity of US citizens was cast by house/senate republicans? Are you perhaps suggesting that republicans would be the ones behind pushing a law through congress protecting internet privacy? I cannot comprehend how you can rationalize this (UM ACTUALLY... THIS IS OBAMA'S FAULT!) drivel in your head without some serious cognitive dissonance

ComradeTaco 10y ago
He's quoting a woman that accepted more than 650k from ISPs for reelection campaigns.
kobeya 10y ago
Because the truth matters. You're reacting to this based on the politically spun narrative that was fed to you when you first encountered the issue. The truth is actually a fair bit more complex. This is a case of a regulatory agency overstepping its bounds and seizing jurisdiction outside of the domain allowed for it by Congress. That's the language in which the bill is framed, the the way in which it has been discussed in the past weeks and months that is has gotten (minimal) coverage. Then the issue got picked up and spun when somebody called attention to the fact that the FCC's regulations (which they were not authorized to make) were more consumer-friendly than the FTC's. That's true, and it's a real problem. But that does not mean that the answer is to sanction the FCC's power-grab here. The right thing to do is to pursue consumer regulatory protections _within the confines of the law_, which means either petitioning the FTC or new legislation. Don't confuse concern over process with favoring the resulting outcomes.
- breatheoften 10y ago
  The FTC previously proposed essentially this same rule and was shot down by the courts as not having authority.
  - thejohnhenry 10y ago
    Do you have a link or further information on this?
    - pseudalopex 10y ago
      The Ninth Circuit ruled that the FTC had no authority to regulate common carriers: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/15-16585.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/1...
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    That's interesting. But wouldn't it be better to pass a law to do this, rather than relying an executive agency's regulations, which may change at their will and be interpreted as they please each time the government changes hands?
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      It would be lovely for Congress to pass a statute ensuring data-privacy. Pity they just voted the other way around on party lines.
      - kobeya 10y ago
        ... did you read the thread you are replying to?
whatupmd 10y ago
Because this is not an individual but rather shill for ISP trying to push a narrative. ISPs should be classified as modern utilities. They are trying to be the infrastructure provider while being regulated like the business' that consume the infrastructure. But they don't want to be classified as such because of the burden of regulations this would inherit. I've yet to meet someone in life that thinks that their internet provider should be able to sell all information about their activities (while charging for the service).

ComradeTaco 10y ago

He's quoting a woman that accepted more than 650k from ISPs for reelection campaigns.

kobeya 10y ago

Because the truth matters. You're reacting to this based on the politically spun narrative that was fed to you when you first encountered the issue. The truth is actually a fair bit more complex. This is a case of a regulatory agency overstepping its bounds and seizing jurisdiction outside of the domain allowed for it by Congress. That's the language in which the bill is framed, the the way in which it has been discussed in the past weeks and months that is has gotten (minimal) coverage. Then the issue got picked up and spun when somebody called attention to the fact that the FCC's regulations (which they were not authorized to make) were more consumer-friendly than the FTC's. That's true, and it's a real problem. But that does not mean that the answer is to sanction the FCC's power-grab here. The right thing to do is to pursue consumer regulatory protections _within the confines of the law_, which means either petitioning the FTC or new legislation. Don't confuse concern over process with favoring the resulting outcomes.

breatheoften 10y ago
The FTC previously proposed essentially this same rule and was shot down by the courts as not having authority.
- thejohnhenry 10y ago
  Do you have a link or further information on this?
  - pseudalopex 10y ago
    The Ninth Circuit ruled that the FTC had no authority to regulate common carriers: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/15-16585.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/1...
- alphapapa 10y ago
  That's interesting. But wouldn't it be better to pass a law to do this, rather than relying an executive agency's regulations, which may change at their will and be interpreted as they please each time the government changes hands?
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    It would be lovely for Congress to pass a statute ensuring data-privacy. Pity they just voted the other way around on party lines.
    - kobeya 10y ago
      ... did you read the thread you are replying to?

whatupmd 10y ago

Because this is not an individual but rather shill for ISP trying to push a narrative. ISPs should be classified as modern utilities. They are trying to be the infrastructure provider while being regulated like the business' that consume the infrastructure. But they don't want to be classified as such because of the burden of regulations this would inherit. I've yet to meet someone in life that thinks that their internet provider should be able to sell all information about their activities (while charging for the service).