4 ms·

> will soon no longer need consent from users to share browsing history with marketers and other third parties This is a lie — "fake news", if you will. This c

> will soon no longer need consent from users to share browsing history with marketers and other third parties This is a lie — "fake news", if you will. This congressional action cancels an upcoming change in policy: it maintains the status quo, and therefore "no longer" is not an accurate characterization of the situation.

untog 10y ago
It is an error. "Lie" implies that the false statement was made deliberately, and we have no evidence to suggest that. Sometimes news stories contain inaccuracies. It happens. Then corrections are issued.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  And "error" implies that the false statement was not made deliberately, and we have no evidence to suggest that either. So you're not being very truthful yourself. EDIT: I chose "lie" because to make such an obviously false statement accidentally would be a huge mistake for such a trusted organization as BBC; therefore I judged it far more likely to be a deliberate deception. Obviously there's room for interpretation. We'll see if it's ever "corrected".
  - untog 10y ago
    > I chose "lie" because to make such an obviously false statement accidentally would be a huge mistake for such a trusted organization as BBC That is a very optimistic view of news gathering. The BBC makes mistakes all the time. So do all other news organisations. This error could be a deliberate lie, but to what end? What does the BBC gain by incorrectly describing American consumer protection as existing when they are actually only proposed? I know we live in era of conspiracy theory but I'm struggling to see this one.
spenvo 10y ago
AT&T and Verizon have already shown willingness to sell use browser data via supercookies http://techmeme.com/search/query?q=supercookies&wm=false http://techmeme.com/search/query?q=supercookies&wm=false, and the reason they backed off is because the FCC showed it had a spine. There is every reason to believe ISPs will begin these practices again (without requiring opt-in) because these rules have been lifted and Ajit Pai-led FCC is very different from Wheeler's... and there is very little reason for ISPs to fear losing consumer trust because of monopolies/few local high speed options
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  Okay. None of that contradicts my claim or makes this article any less untrue.
  - spenvo 10y ago
    it does contradict your claim though > it maintains the status quo No, it reverses the status quo. The "status quo" was that the FCC would regulate ISP's sale of consumers' data. There is now a climate for where we were before these rules were passed, ala: a business can be built upon schemes like supercookies without opt-in and other dark patterns
    - belovedeagle 10y ago
      You are deliberately misrepresenting my statement in order to cover up your own misrepresentations: in context, I was referring to the status quo of the law (or executive rules, I don't know if we're calling those laws this week or not). This is evidenced by my immediate reference to the phrase "no longer [need]"; not "no longer feel pressured" or "no longer take precaution" or "no longer desire", but no longer "need", i.e. be compelled by law.
      - spenvo 10y ago
        No, wrong again. The resolution prohibits the FCC from making rules like this in the future, so the legal climate itself is different. The threat of regulation doesn't hang over this shady-ass business anymore, and things like this don't happen in a vacuum. Your "fake news" claims are the greatest "misrepresentation" in this thread
matthew-wegner 10y ago
You don't know what you're talking about. The rules went into effect January 3rd: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28... They used the Congressional Review Act to strike it down, which requires that it be a new federal regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act The CRA includes this, too, so the FCC can no longer do anything about it without a new law passed by Congress: Once a rule is thus repealed, the CRA also prohibits the reissuing of the rule in substantially the same form or the issuing of a new rule that is substantially the same, "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule"
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  Please read your source more carefully: > Effective January 3, 2017, except for §§ 64.2003, 64.2004, 64.2006, and 64.2011(b) which contain information collection requirements that have not yet been approved by OMB. The section in question in the article is 64.2004. It did not go into effect on January 3.
  - matthew-wegner 10y ago
    Well, it looks like I don't know what I'm talking about. The CRA still ensures it will never come to pass, in any form out of the FCC, and I guess the clauses on data security and breach notifications are considered acceptable collateral damage here.
fatbird 10y ago
It restores a prior status quo that was well through the pipeline to being inoperative--thus, "voted to repeal". The status quo is that this was ending, and changing that literally required an act of Congress and the president's signature. There's nothing fake about this news, it's perfectly accurate.

untog 10y ago

It is an error. "Lie" implies that the false statement was made deliberately, and we have no evidence to suggest that. Sometimes news stories contain inaccuracies. It happens. Then corrections are issued.

belovedeagle 10y ago
And "error" implies that the false statement was not made deliberately, and we have no evidence to suggest that either. So you're not being very truthful yourself. EDIT: I chose "lie" because to make such an obviously false statement accidentally would be a huge mistake for such a trusted organization as BBC; therefore I judged it far more likely to be a deliberate deception. Obviously there's room for interpretation. We'll see if it's ever "corrected".
- untog 10y ago
  > I chose "lie" because to make such an obviously false statement accidentally would be a huge mistake for such a trusted organization as BBC That is a very optimistic view of news gathering. The BBC makes mistakes all the time. So do all other news organisations. This error could be a deliberate lie, but to what end? What does the BBC gain by incorrectly describing American consumer protection as existing when they are actually only proposed? I know we live in era of conspiracy theory but I'm struggling to see this one.

spenvo 10y ago

AT&T and Verizon have already shown willingness to sell use browser data via supercookies http://techmeme.com/search/query?q=supercookies&wm=false http://techmeme.com/search/query?q=supercookies&wm=false, and the reason they backed off is because the FCC showed it had a spine. There is every reason to believe ISPs will begin these practices again (without requiring opt-in) because these rules have been lifted and Ajit Pai-led FCC is very different from Wheeler's... and there is very little reason for ISPs to fear losing consumer trust because of monopolies/few local high speed options

belovedeagle 10y ago
Okay. None of that contradicts my claim or makes this article any less untrue.
- spenvo 10y ago
  it does contradict your claim though > it maintains the status quo No, it reverses the status quo. The "status quo" was that the FCC would regulate ISP's sale of consumers' data. There is now a climate for where we were before these rules were passed, ala: a business can be built upon schemes like supercookies without opt-in and other dark patterns
  - belovedeagle 10y ago
    You are deliberately misrepresenting my statement in order to cover up your own misrepresentations: in context, I was referring to the status quo of the law (or executive rules, I don't know if we're calling those laws this week or not). This is evidenced by my immediate reference to the phrase "no longer [need]"; not "no longer feel pressured" or "no longer take precaution" or "no longer desire", but no longer "need", i.e. be compelled by law.
    - spenvo 10y ago
      No, wrong again. The resolution prohibits the FCC from making rules like this in the future, so the legal climate itself is different. The threat of regulation doesn't hang over this shady-ass business anymore, and things like this don't happen in a vacuum. Your "fake news" claims are the greatest "misrepresentation" in this thread

matthew-wegner 10y ago

You don't know what you're talking about. The rules went into effect January 3rd: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28... They used the Congressional Review Act to strike it down, which requires that it be a new federal regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act The CRA includes this, too, so the FCC can no longer do anything about it without a new law passed by Congress: Once a rule is thus repealed, the CRA also prohibits the reissuing of the rule in substantially the same form or the issuing of a new rule that is substantially the same, "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule"

belovedeagle 10y ago
Please read your source more carefully: > Effective January 3, 2017, except for §§ 64.2003, 64.2004, 64.2006, and 64.2011(b) which contain information collection requirements that have not yet been approved by OMB. The section in question in the article is 64.2004. It did not go into effect on January 3.
- matthew-wegner 10y ago
  Well, it looks like I don't know what I'm talking about. The CRA still ensures it will never come to pass, in any form out of the FCC, and I guess the clauses on data security and breach notifications are considered acceptable collateral damage here.

fatbird 10y ago

It restores a prior status quo that was well through the pipeline to being inoperative--thus, "voted to repeal". The status quo is that this was ending, and changing that literally required an act of Congress and the president's signature. There's nothing fake about this news, it's perfectly accurate.