5 ms·

So the only thing I don't understand as far as the fuss about this is concerned -- everything I've read indicates that this is undoing a protection put in place

by xienze 10y ago

So the only thing I don't understand as far as the fuss about this is concerned -- everything I've read indicates that this is undoing a protection put in place late last year. So essentially we've gone back in time six months ago or so. If ISPs weren't selling our info then when they could have, why does it logically follow that we're now in some uncharted territory of ISPs selling personal info? Or is this simply blowing the situation out of proportion because Republicans did it?

Operyl 10y ago
Because why the push to undo something if they weren't planning to do it, or weren't already? I know Verizon has an opt in program for it where they gave you deals and free data.
- xienze 10y ago
  Can't argue with that, but again, the status quo for many, many years was that your ISP could have done this, but didn't. And the next time there's a changing of the guard the protections will be put back in place, so I can't see how ISPs are going to bet on selling this information as a viable long-term business strategy.
  - Latty 10y ago
    "We shouldn't blame the Republican's for repealing this protection pointlessly, because the Democrats will put it back when they get in power." Seriously? Free pass to do bad stuff because "it won't last". Come on.
    - xienze 10y ago
      I'm not giving them a free pass, I'd prefer the protections to be in place. But I'm just putting the situation in perspective. My observation is just that I'm perplexed about the amount of "sky is falling" reactions here when you couldn't find a peep about "which VPN do I use to keep my ISP from selling my data" on HN say, a year ago.
      - soundwave106 10y ago
        I would argue that the full impact of what is possible wasn't very visible until certain companies got caught doing MITM advertising injections and other questionable tactics (eg Verizon; Googling suggests HN started noticing them and others circa 2014 or so). As far as "simply blowing the situation out of proportion because Republicans did it", it has been pretty obvious that Republicans have been aligned with the telco / big cable companies (as opposed to content companies) for a while. Maybe some are surprised and shocked, but personally I have no problem with this action highlighting that there are differences between current political parties beyond the usual social politics and political memes.
  - croon 10y ago
    > And the next time there's a changing of the guard the protections will be put back in place, so I can't see how ISPs are going to bet on selling this information as a viable long-term business strategy. Nope: > The bill not only gives cable companies and wireless providers free rein to do what they like with your browsing history, shopping habits, your location and other information gleaned from your online activity, but it would also prevent the Federal Communications Commission from ever again establishing similar consumer privacy protections. Also, a lot of things are broken. Voices are raised when something bad is actively done, not when something good isn't actively being done. Do you get the difference? I am dismayed that the healthcare system is currently bad and has been bad for generations. Is it smarter to kick up a fuzz randomly out of nowhere, or to do it when there's legislation being made on it, in either direction?
  - Delmania 10y ago
    > And the next time there's a changing of the guard the protections will be put back in place, so I can't see how ISPs are going to bet on selling this information as a viable long-term business strategy. I wouldn't bet on it. All the discussion about politics and policy leave out the fact that the GOP now controls 33 state assemblies. 1 more power grab, they will be able it invoke it. They won't have the 38 needed to ram through changes without opposition, but there's a good chance they will attempt to put in legal guards against the Democrats from undoing their policies.
  - matthew-wegner 10y ago
    Things have changed, though. Many ISPs are also cable TV providers. Netflix is now at 98m paid subscribers (worldwide), with cable footprint at 94 million (US). Somewhat apples to oranges numbers there, but also: "The thirteen largest pay-TV providers in the US, representing about 95% of the market, lost about 385,000 net video subscribers in 2015." http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/03/11/us-pay-tv-continues-to-lose-subscribers/ http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/03/11/us-pay-tv-continue... The ISPs have been complaining about being reduced to a dumb pipe for a while now. They are very motivated to increase data revenue...
    - spacemanmatt 10y ago
      All I ever wanted to buy from my ISP was a dumb pipe. It frustrates me that I can't buy that, without the surveillance.
falcolas 10y ago
There were some ISPs which were selling people's data prior to this order (Verizon was one, IIRC, and a few others were actively injecting ads and JS into non-TLS traffic), and many more were considering it. Yes, we've "essentially" just gone back in time, but it's not a positive regression.
- xienze 10y ago
  > Yes, we've "essentially" just gone back in time, but it's not a positive regression. I agree, but with the way this thing has been reported you'd think we've gone back to the dark ages rather than where we were just prior to the election. I don't recall a lot of discussion on HN about which proxy to use because "OMG my ISP is going to sell my browsing history!!!" back then. That's all I'm getting at. Wondering why the reaction to going back to the status quo of not long ago at all is seen as some assault on civil liberties.
  - bullsandabears 10y ago
    Your wondering why was just answered succinctly in the comment you posted your reply to: > There were some ISPs which were selling people's data prior to this order (Verizon was one, IIRC, and a few others were actively injecting ads and JS into non-TLS traffic), and many more were considering it. edit: spelling
  - Navarr 10y ago
    Because it is an assault on civil liberties? The status quo was wrong, which is why we passed the law in the first place. The difference, of course, is: * [thing isn't thought about, so isn't made illegal - making it implicitly legal] * Hey, this thing they're doing is bad - now that we know about it, we should make it illegal. * Repeal: Hey, let them do this thing.
    - vancan1ty 10y ago
      No law was passed in the first place.
  - 10y ago
Latty 10y ago
I don't get your point, even if no one does do it, why repeal the protection? It's effort and time wasted just to create a potential for something bad to happen. Even if you think this will never be abused, I don't see how it's being blown out of proportion, this is still bad.
- xienze 10y ago
  > I don't see how it's being blown out of proportion Really? Where was all the hyperventilating about the status quo on HN prior to when the protection was put in place? That's all I'm getting at, the reaction to being back in the dark ages of late 2016 seems a bit overblown in my opinion.
  - unlikelymordant 10y ago
    The ftc was the protection prior to the fcc. Now there is no protection. This is a regression.
    - triangleman 10y ago
      FTC can still regulate ISP's after this bill passes, if I understand it correctly. Edit: Nope, apparently this just nullifies the FCC rule, it's not an actual bill to change authority away from FCC. D'oh.
ericd 10y ago
The FTC was preventing them, until it was decided that it was outside their purview. The FCC took over, but that's just been reversed. Now no one is preventing it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tzs 10y ago
> So the only thing I don't understand as far as the fuss about this is concerned -- everything I've read indicates that this is undoing a protection put in place late last year. So essentially we've gone back in time six months ago or so. Sort of, but you've missed a key aspect. Yes, six months ago (or whenever) there was (possibly) no protection. However, that was a fairly recent development. Earlier, ISPs had been regulated by the FTC when it came to privacy. As part of the implementation of its net neutrality order, the FCC changed its classification of ISPs from information services to common carriers. Last year a court ruled that the FTC did not have the authority to regulate common carriers. The FCC's privacy rule was meant to step into the void left by the FTC losing jurisdiction.
programmarchy 10y ago
Here is a less editorialized summary of the bill: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 It repealed 73 pages [1] of regulation on ISPs. Personally, I'd like to see more competition in the ISP space. This bill may help by reducing barrier to entry, but the central problem remains that national carriers have lobbied the state to prevent competition at the municipal level. Furthermore, this bill seems like a minor nuisance compared to the data collected by Facebook, Google, and the NSA. So yes, I'd say this is being blown out of proportion. The Republicans aren't being evil, but they have much more to do before I'd consider them being good. [1] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.pdf#page=1 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.p...
- Latty 10y ago
  You think that regulation is the relevant barrier to entry to being an ISP? Not the cost of running lines or anti-competitive practices by rivals? Please, this just means no protection for an environment where, right now, we have no competition to move to when our ISP decides to do something shitty.
  - mdpopescu 10y ago
    I've had an ISP willing to put 2km of copper wire to get my 15$ / month fee. (Not in the US.) I don't think the cost of wires is significant anywhere in the US either.
    - scriptkiddy 10y ago
      You may live in a country where the government subsidizes the laying of communications infrastructure. Laying fiber or even just coaxial cable is extremely expensive.
      - mdpopescu 10y ago
        No, the whole reason we have great internet is that it took the government a long time to find out about it. The company had two 20-somethings spread the wire on existing poles :)

by xienze 10y ago

Operyl 10y ago

Because why the push to undo something if they weren't planning to do it, or weren't already? I know Verizon has an opt in program for it where they gave you deals and free data.

xienze 10y ago
Can't argue with that, but again, the status quo for many, many years was that your ISP could have done this, but didn't. And the next time there's a changing of the guard the protections will be put back in place, so I can't see how ISPs are going to bet on selling this information as a viable long-term business strategy.
- Latty 10y ago
  "We shouldn't blame the Republican's for repealing this protection pointlessly, because the Democrats will put it back when they get in power." Seriously? Free pass to do bad stuff because "it won't last". Come on.
  - xienze 10y ago
    I'm not giving them a free pass, I'd prefer the protections to be in place. But I'm just putting the situation in perspective. My observation is just that I'm perplexed about the amount of "sky is falling" reactions here when you couldn't find a peep about "which VPN do I use to keep my ISP from selling my data" on HN say, a year ago.
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      I would argue that the full impact of what is possible wasn't very visible until certain companies got caught doing MITM advertising injections and other questionable tactics (eg Verizon; Googling suggests HN started noticing them and others circa 2014 or so). As far as "simply blowing the situation out of proportion because Republicans did it", it has been pretty obvious that Republicans have been aligned with the telco / big cable companies (as opposed to content companies) for a while. Maybe some are surprised and shocked, but personally I have no problem with this action highlighting that there are differences between current political parties beyond the usual social politics and political memes.
- croon 10y ago
  > And the next time there's a changing of the guard the protections will be put back in place, so I can't see how ISPs are going to bet on selling this information as a viable long-term business strategy. Nope: > The bill not only gives cable companies and wireless providers free rein to do what they like with your browsing history, shopping habits, your location and other information gleaned from your online activity, but it would also prevent the Federal Communications Commission from ever again establishing similar consumer privacy protections. Also, a lot of things are broken. Voices are raised when something bad is actively done, not when something good isn't actively being done. Do you get the difference? I am dismayed that the healthcare system is currently bad and has been bad for generations. Is it smarter to kick up a fuzz randomly out of nowhere, or to do it when there's legislation being made on it, in either direction?
- Delmania 10y ago
  > And the next time there's a changing of the guard the protections will be put back in place, so I can't see how ISPs are going to bet on selling this information as a viable long-term business strategy. I wouldn't bet on it. All the discussion about politics and policy leave out the fact that the GOP now controls 33 state assemblies. 1 more power grab, they will be able it invoke it. They won't have the 38 needed to ram through changes without opposition, but there's a good chance they will attempt to put in legal guards against the Democrats from undoing their policies.
- matthew-wegner 10y ago
  Things have changed, though. Many ISPs are also cable TV providers. Netflix is now at 98m paid subscribers (worldwide), with cable footprint at 94 million (US). Somewhat apples to oranges numbers there, but also: "The thirteen largest pay-TV providers in the US, representing about 95% of the market, lost about 385,000 net video subscribers in 2015." http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/03/11/us-pay-tv-continues-to-lose-subscribers/ http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/03/11/us-pay-tv-continue... The ISPs have been complaining about being reduced to a dumb pipe for a while now. They are very motivated to increase data revenue...
  - spacemanmatt 10y ago
    All I ever wanted to buy from my ISP was a dumb pipe. It frustrates me that I can't buy that, without the surveillance.

falcolas 10y ago

There were some ISPs which were selling people's data prior to this order (Verizon was one, IIRC, and a few others were actively injecting ads and JS into non-TLS traffic), and many more were considering it. Yes, we've "essentially" just gone back in time, but it's not a positive regression.

xienze 10y ago
> Yes, we've "essentially" just gone back in time, but it's not a positive regression. I agree, but with the way this thing has been reported you'd think we've gone back to the dark ages rather than where we were just prior to the election. I don't recall a lot of discussion on HN about which proxy to use because "OMG my ISP is going to sell my browsing history!!!" back then. That's all I'm getting at. Wondering why the reaction to going back to the status quo of not long ago at all is seen as some assault on civil liberties.
- bullsandabears 10y ago
  Your wondering why was just answered succinctly in the comment you posted your reply to: > There were some ISPs which were selling people's data prior to this order (Verizon was one, IIRC, and a few others were actively injecting ads and JS into non-TLS traffic), and many more were considering it. edit: spelling
- Navarr 10y ago
  Because it is an assault on civil liberties? The status quo was wrong, which is why we passed the law in the first place. The difference, of course, is: * [thing isn't thought about, so isn't made illegal - making it implicitly legal] * Hey, this thing they're doing is bad - now that we know about it, we should make it illegal. * Repeal: Hey, let them do this thing.
  - vancan1ty 10y ago
    No law was passed in the first place.
- 10y ago

Latty 10y ago

I don't get your point, even if no one does do it, why repeal the protection? It's effort and time wasted just to create a potential for something bad to happen. Even if you think this will never be abused, I don't see how it's being blown out of proportion, this is still bad.

xienze 10y ago
> I don't see how it's being blown out of proportion Really? Where was all the hyperventilating about the status quo on HN prior to when the protection was put in place? That's all I'm getting at, the reaction to being back in the dark ages of late 2016 seems a bit overblown in my opinion.
- unlikelymordant 10y ago
  The ftc was the protection prior to the fcc. Now there is no protection. This is a regression.
  - triangleman 10y ago
    FTC can still regulate ISP's after this bill passes, if I understand it correctly. Edit: Nope, apparently this just nullifies the FCC rule, it's not an actual bill to change authority away from FCC. D'oh.

ericd 10y ago

The FTC was preventing them, until it was decided that it was outside their purview. The FCC took over, but that's just been reversed. Now no one is preventing it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tzs 10y ago

> So the only thing I don't understand as far as the fuss about this is concerned -- everything I've read indicates that this is undoing a protection put in place late last year. So essentially we've gone back in time six months ago or so. Sort of, but you've missed a key aspect. Yes, six months ago (or whenever) there was (possibly) no protection. However, that was a fairly recent development. Earlier, ISPs had been regulated by the FTC when it came to privacy. As part of the implementation of its net neutrality order, the FCC changed its classification of ISPs from information services to common carriers. Last year a court ruled that the FTC did not have the authority to regulate common carriers. The FCC's privacy rule was meant to step into the void left by the FTC losing jurisdiction.

programmarchy 10y ago

Here is a less editorialized summary of the bill: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 It repealed 73 pages [1] of regulation on ISPs. Personally, I'd like to see more competition in the ISP space. This bill may help by reducing barrier to entry, but the central problem remains that national carriers have lobbied the state to prevent competition at the municipal level. Furthermore, this bill seems like a minor nuisance compared to the data collected by Facebook, Google, and the NSA. So yes, I'd say this is being blown out of proportion. The Republicans aren't being evil, but they have much more to do before I'd consider them being good. [1] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.pdf#page=1 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.p...

Latty 10y ago
You think that regulation is the relevant barrier to entry to being an ISP? Not the cost of running lines or anti-competitive practices by rivals? Please, this just means no protection for an environment where, right now, we have no competition to move to when our ISP decides to do something shitty.
- mdpopescu 10y ago
  I've had an ISP willing to put 2km of copper wire to get my 15$ / month fee. (Not in the US.) I don't think the cost of wires is significant anywhere in the US either.
  - scriptkiddy 10y ago
    You may live in a country where the government subsidizes the laying of communications infrastructure. Laying fiber or even just coaxial cable is extremely expensive.
    - mdpopescu 10y ago
      No, the whole reason we have great internet is that it took the government a long time to find out about it. The company had two 20-somethings spread the wire on existing poles :)