27 ms·

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

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.
pseudalopex 10y ago
You're doing exactly what you accuse Pelosi of. * The Communications Act of 1934 was substantially updated in 1996. Even if it hadn't been, age alone doesn't make a law outdated. * The FCC classified ISPs as "telecommunications services", same as now, until the mid-2000s. * The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the FCC had the authority to classify ISPs as either "telecommunications services" or "information services".[1] * By 2010, ISPs had begun to violate the consumer protection guidelines the FCC laid out in 2005. The FCC responded with regulations, but ISPs challenged even the most basic provision: no outright blocking of lawful content. * The DC Circuit ruled the FCC couldn't regulate "information services" that way but suggested the FCC could undo the reclassification.[2] So it did. * ISPs sued over that too, but the DC Circuit upheld it.[3] Is that the FCC reinterpreting a 1934 law or a court applying a 2005 precedent? After that was settled, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the FTC had no authority to regulate common carriers.[4] The FCC published the regulations Congress just overturned two months after that. I'll believe Republicans want the FTC to enforce these exact same privacy protections when they pass a bill giving it that authority. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Ass'n_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommuni... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Telecom_Ass'n_v._FCC_(2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Telecom_Ass'n_v.... [4] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/15-16585.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/1...

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.

pseudalopex 10y ago

You're doing exactly what you accuse Pelosi of. * The Communications Act of 1934 was substantially updated in 1996. Even if it hadn't been, age alone doesn't make a law outdated. * The FCC classified ISPs as "telecommunications services", same as now, until the mid-2000s. * The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the FCC had the authority to classify ISPs as either "telecommunications services" or "information services".[1] * By 2010, ISPs had begun to violate the consumer protection guidelines the FCC laid out in 2005. The FCC responded with regulations, but ISPs challenged even the most basic provision: no outright blocking of lawful content. * The DC Circuit ruled the FCC couldn't regulate "information services" that way but suggested the FCC could undo the reclassification.[2] So it did. * ISPs sued over that too, but the DC Circuit upheld it.[3] Is that the FCC reinterpreting a 1934 law or a court applying a 2005 precedent? After that was settled, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the FTC had no authority to regulate common carriers.[4] The FCC published the regulations Congress just overturned two months after that. I'll believe Republicans want the FTC to enforce these exact same privacy protections when they pass a bill giving it that authority. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Ass'n_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommuni... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Telecom_Ass'n_v._FCC_(2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Telecom_Ass'n_v.... [4] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/15-16585.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/1...