3 ms·

The idealistic conservative's perspective is that the government should regulate the minimum amount of conduct necessary to have a successful and functioning ma

The idealistic conservative's perspective is that the government should regulate the minimum amount of conduct necessary to have a successful and functioning market. In accordance with free market principles, this regulation is being repealed on the belief that it does not serve a necessary function. Before you scoff, please realize that legal restrictions are immensely heavy-handed, and very frequently abused or misappropriated. Regulations frequently accidentally overshoot their target, and they stay on the books for years. Discarding unnecessary regulations is not only good hygiene, but it may be critical to the development of some improvement or technology that the lawmakers had not conceived when the law was made. It'd be nice if Congress was fast enough on its feet to recognize this as it was occurring and make the necessary adjustments, but it simply does not work that way; once something is law, it's very likely going to stay that way, untouched for decades or even centuries. Remember all the articles about the FBI attempting to invoke a statute from 1798 (yes, seventeen-ninety-eight, numbers not transposed) to compel the decryption of an iPhone? For example, the CFAA passed long before the World Wide Web was a thing, but it's had an immense effect on the internet's development and continues to be misappropriated by large companies to harass small players and break their products before they get large enough to pose a threat. Another example is the Copyright Act, which, under current interpretation, considers RAM copies of copyrighted works as distinct copies eligible for protection. This means that you're potentially violating someone's copyright just by downloading their web site! Combine these two statutes written for bygone times but very much in full effect today, and if you make the wrong person mad, you're looking at not only going bankrupt trying to figure out how to pay your legal bills, but also becoming a felon. Such was the case with Aaron Swartz, who was facing prosecution under these outdated regulations for downloading publicly-funded research papers from a paywalled database. It should also be clarified that this repeal only removes one set of regulations, a set imposed by the FCC and that has only existed for the last couple of years. I'm not a lawyer, but somehow I doubt the issue is so simplistic that Comcast is going to open up "BuyYourNeighborsBrowsingHistory.com" any time soon. There are a variety of other laws that may apply to the legality of reselling such data, and surely these would require evaluation before the concept was greenlit. Furthermore, if Congress can be convinced that this is a bad idea, they need only to pass a new bill. The core issue is that telecommunications services, including ISPs, are not what most people would consider a functioning free market, because 90%+ of the U.S. can not obtain comparable service from anyone besides the main telecommunication provider in their area. If they could, moving to an ISP that respected privacy without being compelled to do so by legal force would be a perfectly reasonable position to take. The focus must be on getting our reps to solve the constrained telco market. Interestingly enough, that may also involve liberations to and/or removals of the FCC regulations around radio broadcasting, licensing, etc. One humorous note: if we believe the most dramatic prophecies about the meaning of this repeal, the last season of South Park may be closer to real life than we think. A foreign company develops technology to uncover the complete internet history of every human and the real-world identity behind every anonymous or pseudonymous post and threatens to publicize these. Complete social breakdown ensues.

republican17 10y ago
Actually, the Republican position is that the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), not the FCC, has the statutory mandate to regulate "online privacy." In order to justify their legal authority to issue this rule, the FCC used a reinterpretation of legal terms defined in a 1934 law. Often times in DC, the fight is not really about the end goal, it's about the path that is taken to achieve that goal. Usually, when you see literally unbelievable claims and hyped-up rhetoric, it's a sign that the situation is probably a bit more complicated than those who are making those claims are letting on. (e.g., "Republicans want to sell your, and their own, incognito browsing history because all they care about is making more money for big corporations!"). As everyone knows by now (see: TRUMP, Donald. 2016.), it's much easier to sell scary straw men than nuanced policy details. It's also a convenient way to hide what is really going on behind the scenes: Nearly every Republican Member and Senator believes that consumers should have these exact same privacy protections! That's right: they agree with the goals of this regulation! Broadly, these lawmakers disagree with this federal agency taking liberty with the law, especially in the Eleventh Hour of an administration. (Can you really blame them? The FCC is justifying their authority to regulate online privacy by using a law written 55 years before the World Wide Web was even invented!) For decades, the U.S. government agency responsible for protecting consumers (ISP users) through the regulation and enforcement of online privacy rules has been the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). (see Privacy Policies, Safe Harbor, etc.). This is within both their historical role and their statutory mandate. They are the "nation's consumer protection agency." Nancy Pelosi had two options: she could call it the "GOP Measure to Eliminate Internet Privacy" and score some (admittedly really, really, really easy) political points – or, she could try to get into a nuanced inside-baseball debate over the roles and mandates of specific regulatory regimes, and no one would bat an eye. Easy pick for her. But that doesn't make it the truth.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  There's tons of back and forth on this, but what I've heard is the reason these rules were set up by the FCC was that the new classification status of ISPs as common carriers took them out from under FTC regulatory authority. I don't know the motives for the votes on this and afaik most members haven't commented to explain themselves. There are some particularly libertarian-leaning Congresspeople, like Rand Paul, who would clearly support it out of principle. We assume that others also support it out of ideological sympathy, and that everyone else is trying to play nice with the party leaders by going along with it. You are 100% correct that a great deal of these legal modifications are technicalities that are touted as disasters for political convenience. Let's not forget that the Republicans did the same thing when they pretended that the sky was falling over net neutrality going into effect, claiming that Obama was trying to "take over" the internet. Whether one agrees or disagrees with net neutrality as a policy matter, those claims are absurd. Political parties, and especially the parties not presently in power, are always going to be trudging this type of muck up. It's very tiring, from both sides.

republican17 10y ago

Actually, the Republican position is that the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), not the FCC, has the statutory mandate to regulate "online privacy." In order to justify their legal authority to issue this rule, the FCC used a reinterpretation of legal terms defined in a 1934 law. Often times in DC, the fight is not really about the end goal, it's about the path that is taken to achieve that goal. Usually, when you see literally unbelievable claims and hyped-up rhetoric, it's a sign that the situation is probably a bit more complicated than those who are making those claims are letting on. (e.g., "Republicans want to sell your, and their own, incognito browsing history because all they care about is making more money for big corporations!"). As everyone knows by now (see: TRUMP, Donald. 2016.), it's much easier to sell scary straw men than nuanced policy details. It's also a convenient way to hide what is really going on behind the scenes: Nearly every Republican Member and Senator believes that consumers should have these exact same privacy protections! That's right: they agree with the goals of this regulation! Broadly, these lawmakers disagree with this federal agency taking liberty with the law, especially in the Eleventh Hour of an administration. (Can you really blame them? The FCC is justifying their authority to regulate online privacy by using a law written 55 years before the World Wide Web was even invented!) For decades, the U.S. government agency responsible for protecting consumers (ISP users) through the regulation and enforcement of online privacy rules has been the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). (see Privacy Policies, Safe Harbor, etc.). This is within both their historical role and their statutory mandate. They are the "nation's consumer protection agency." Nancy Pelosi had two options: she could call it the "GOP Measure to Eliminate Internet Privacy" and score some (admittedly really, really, really easy) political points – or, she could try to get into a nuanced inside-baseball debate over the roles and mandates of specific regulatory regimes, and no one would bat an eye. Easy pick for her. But that doesn't make it the truth.

cookiecaper 10y ago
There's tons of back and forth on this, but what I've heard is the reason these rules were set up by the FCC was that the new classification status of ISPs as common carriers took them out from under FTC regulatory authority. I don't know the motives for the votes on this and afaik most members haven't commented to explain themselves. There are some particularly libertarian-leaning Congresspeople, like Rand Paul, who would clearly support it out of principle. We assume that others also support it out of ideological sympathy, and that everyone else is trying to play nice with the party leaders by going along with it. You are 100% correct that a great deal of these legal modifications are technicalities that are touted as disasters for political convenience. Let's not forget that the Republicans did the same thing when they pretended that the sky was falling over net neutrality going into effect, claiming that Obama was trying to "take over" the internet. Whether one agrees or disagrees with net neutrality as a policy matter, those claims are absurd. Political parties, and especially the parties not presently in power, are always going to be trudging this type of muck up. It's very tiring, from both sides.