9 ms·

Members of congress who voted to reverse FCC web browsing privacy rule

378 points by aaronbrethorst 9y ago

Camillo 9y ago
> Additionally, it’s important to note that the communications industry is one of the largest lobbying groups in US history; internet providers and the telephone companies before them are notorious for spreading wealth across the aisle. Regardless, one party seems more responsive to the industry’s demands. Ok, so ISPs give money to all of Congress, and every single representative in the list is a Republican. Sounds like the vote happened along party lines, then? But does that not invalidate the article's entire thesis? Maybe if they listed the representatives who voted against the bill, and showed that there is a significant difference in contributions, it would support their thesis. But they don't do that.
- smt88 9y ago
  I don't disagree, but voting "no" or abstaining is not the strongest form of resistance. Ethical Democrats could/should do more.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  There are multiple bills in recent years that have benefitted ISPs. They also were in favor of CISA to avoid any possible legal issues from a disregard of your privacy rights, and that passed with large support from the Democrats. Individual bills can follow party lines, but they're all helping the ISPs.
- tzs 9y ago
  > But does that not invalidate the article's entire thesis? Maybe if they listed the representatives who voted against the bill, and showed that there is a significant difference in contributions, it would support their thesis. But they don't do that. A significant difference would not so much support their thesis as fail to support the negation of their thesis. What articles such as this almost never consider is that donors might choose which politicians to donate to and how much to donate based on the publicly stated positions of the politician and the politician's party, that politician's past votes, and the general political philosophy of the politician and party. If we banned all political donations, and put a limit on political spending by the candidates or on behalf of the candidates, switching to funding campaigns entirely out of public money, a bill like this would STILL be largely supported by Republicans and largely opposed by Democrats because of their philosophical differences.
tomrod 9y ago
The title made me think there was another vote. This is a dated article from March, 2017 (though no less relevant today).
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  Midterms are less than a year away.
  - static_noise 9y ago
    This foot of the goverment did their work to stomp freedom. Let the other foot stomp again.
animex 9y ago
Well, there's got to be a way to avoid this by VPNing, and using DNS not owned by ISPs right?
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  The ISP can still see you using a VPN and throttle all VPN traffic. The only way to avoid it is to use an ISP that doesn’t throttle.
  - timmytokyo 9y ago
    The point of using a VPN is that your ISP can't see what web sites and IP addresses you're visiting, so they have very little privacy-violating information they can sell.
    - RandomInteger4 9y ago
      Correct, but they can see that you're using a VPN, which they can throttle if net neutrality rules are taken away by the current FCC.
    - csydas 9y ago
      Yes, but why does that matter when what the ISPs want is control and the ability to tax the content you're trying? If they can't milk your connection for data, then just throttle the connection type and call it a day. $25 a month for VPN access is probably more than they'd get on the small bit of private data they could extract from any non-secure connection to a website/service. So go ahead and use a VPN, but it won't matter when you're throttled to 50 kb/s
      - Jach 9y ago
        They won't throttle. Too many people use a VPN for work from home. If you have to pay extra, fine, but let's be clear that the only changes are monetary ones, not available QOS overall.
ispeakcomputer 9y ago
Even tried to vote this time around. Popular vote didn't count. I tried.
- smt88 9y ago
  A lot of democracy is just showing up. Even if your side loses, you may be building momentum that leads to a victory. Please keep showing up.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    Unlike most previous systems of government, in a democracy, you get to try again. Divine right was inconvertible by definition (after being defined by fiat). Throughout history, being on the losing side of a political conflict resulted in slavery or death. In a democracy, we have the privilege of trying again next year. Change doesn't happen overnight. It happens when people refuse to give on their 99th loss and continue to apply all available pressure until the status quo finally cracks.
  - ta2384428 9y ago
    100% correct. There is a fallacy in Australia that you shouldn't "waste your vote" on the smaller parties, despite preferential voting. It's important to keep the vote competitive, the alternative is people stay at home because they think there is no point voting.
- twblalock 9y ago
  Every informed person knew the way the electoral college worked before the election, including both major candidates and their parties. Anyone who didn't know had no excuse for not knowing, because it is basic civic knowledge and trivially easy to look up if one is curious. Claiming the popular vote "didn't count" is disingenuous and you know it.
w4tson 9y ago
Forgive my ignorance, I’ve not been keeping up with this story. Is this just a USA thing? What way if any will affect non US residents?
- pkaye 9y ago
  Do you use any websites located in the US? What if they close down?
  - briandear 9y ago
    Are we guilty of hyperbole?
- warent 9y ago
  A quick internet search should sort this out for you. It's been articulated ad nauseum
  - twsted 9y ago
    “Ad nauseam” but we should never be bored by these arguments.
- maccam94 9y ago
  It potentially reduces the ability for new web companies to succeed in reaching US consumers. It will also enable ISP's to extort existing web companies and lead to higher prices for consumers.
- discordance 9y ago
  Just like with the NSA wiretapping, if you’re not a US citizen you don’t count for much (not that it protected US citizens very much). Your data has probably been sold a hundred time over already by US companies.
- bo1024 9y ago
  This is from quite a bit earlier in 2017. It is just a USA thing, Congress overturned FCC privacy rules, so now internet service providers in the USA are allowed to sell their subscribers' browsing data to third parties. (Edit: Amazingly the four previous people who responded to you seem to have all gotten it wrong)
jenga22 9y ago
This is interesting. I wonder why only Republicans are targeted consistently for these types of laws that are blatantly bad for consumers and why it works on them. However, I am sure money has been offered to Democrats but what's the reason it never sticks?
- smt88 9y ago
  It sticks. It's just different industries. Democrats are beholden to Wall St, Hollywood/music (see: RIAA), and special-interest groups. Silicon Valley also seems to be getting better at influencing Democrats. It definitely is lopsided, and Republicans are clearly more anti-consumer, but no national politician survives by betraying big donors.
  - jenga22 9y ago
    Doesn't seem true. For example, the Frank Dod Act was passed by Democrats and Wall St. hates that law. Another example, the Consumer Protection Bureau. Another agency that Wall St. hates which was passed by Democrats. If anything, it seems that again Republicans are happy to pass laws that lowers taxes for Wall St. and removes regulation. To your point, Wall St. donates to Democrats but it seems to have very limited effect compared to Republicans.
    - x0x0 9y ago
      I dunno, I think Wall St donations to dems have plenty of affects. See eg Wasserman Schultz and payday lenders.
      - x0x0 9y ago
        effects rather. I shouldn't post when tired.
    - camelite 9y ago
      The fact that an act was passed after the greatest bubble pop since the great depression shouldnt be enough to convince you that dems as a whole arent beholden to wall street. they had zero choice but to do SOMETHING. look instead to what they did before the crash. compare what they did to what they could have done. look at what happened to proposals to do more. look at wall street profits a year after the crisis. look at the doners. less beholden than the reps, probably. not beholden at all? no
alphaalpha101 9y ago
I find this all very strange. Why are Americans so focused on this and not on the far more pressing issues like people only having one ISP available? There are dozens, possibly hundreds of ISPs to choose from where I live. Why is that not true ver there?
danielovichdk 9y ago
Is this being passef through you think? It seems totally crazy for me, but I am also northern europe where this would not happen.
tudorw 9y ago
Good job the Internet is only a beta right :) I think the Meshnet will win in the end.
_pdp_ 9y ago
Maybe this is an opportunity for some of you to setup the next gen of ISPs that do not track. I am not sure what is the feasibility for this in the states but it is certainly possible in UK (I think). This is a nice niche to carve and build from there with services that cater to the customers broadband needs and not to milk more money from personal data. For people like me, this is going to be an easy sale.
- ealexhudson 9y ago
  A&A already market themselves on this basis. The problem is it's not cheap, and they're constrained by the RIP type acts too, so pure "no track" is actually illegal.
  - _pdp_ 9y ago
    Of course - such service will not be mainstream. Gmail is free but we know what we pay with.
rayiner 9y ago
This is a little bit less comic book villain-y than it seems. This is an attempt not to get rid of privacy protections, but to return to the status quo circa 2014, where privacy was handled using more general laws enforced by the FTC. This is typical in other countries, where the telecom regulator usually does not take a leading role in consumer protection, leaving that to the appropriate agency. Many countries, for example, have an agency focused on privacy. Historically, that role in the US has been filled by the FTC.
- derefr 9y ago
  I never really thought about it, but it does make sense as something that falls under the FTC’s purview: you can only have a functional free market if corporations can keep trade secrets from one-another; can negotiate without laying all their own cards on the table; etc. Privacy is a prerequisite to (non-state-owned) capitalism.
  - emn13 9y ago
    Simultaneously, capitalism doesn't work entirely with fully informed agents. Any amount of privacy undermines its efficiency. Frankly, talking in extremes like that isn't likely to be helpful in deciding which regulatory agency should do what.
- tzs 9y ago
  > This is an attempt not to get rid of privacy protections, but to return to the status quo circa 2014, where privacy was handled using more general laws enforced by the FTC. Wasn't there a ruling by the 9th Circuit that said the FTC does not have jurisdiction over common carriers, and so, at least in the 9th Circuit, this does not return to the 2014 status quo until after the FCC completes their killing of the 2015 Open Internet Order?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- rrhd 9y ago
  The FTC who will promptly roll back privacy protections and insist that deregulation is somehow better.
microcolonel 9y ago
Side note: encrypted DNS is looking quite attractive right now.
throw2016 9y ago
A perfect example of democracy not working and corporate capture in full display. You are sold some idealized version of an enlightened progressive society where your one vote in 4 years is of fundamental value when in the real world something altogether regressive is in action, and this is on display across industries. Its appears it's not your vote but money that influences outcomes on a day to day basis, so back to quasi feudalism dressed up. Adam smith spoke about this, anti-regulation propaganda is transparently self serving by entrenched interests. Markets are not magic, there is no invisible hand and there is no perfect information. Markets are created by people and like everything else in civilized life they need rules and regulation and if you want to adhere to democratic principles and build progressive societies they need to reflect the wishes and interests of the people.
cjoh 9y ago
While I generally agree that members of Congress listen more to lobbyists than to constituents, the idea that money flows this transactionally is just absurd. You yourself have probably given to a member of Congress because they did something rather than so that they will do something. I gave to a member of Congress because they spoke out for Gun control, not because I called them and told Them that if they speak out I will write them a check. That’s what makes this kind of uncontextualized data pretty disheartening. You’re showing some correlations, conflating it with causation, and disaffecting the electorate (which, in turn makes the lobbyists more powerful)
thrillgore 9y ago
>Republican establishment screams about small government and yet they're the ones expanding the scope One day, GOP, this will haunt you.
free_everybody 9y ago
I'm never voting for any of these POS public servants. Just unforgivable.
srj 9y ago
Unless pure exposure is your goal it seems counterproductive to associate an issue with a political party. As with climate change, people who might otherwise be open to hearing arguments now turn their brains off and don't engage with the topic beyond pushing what's supported by "their side".
booleanbetrayal 9y ago
Campaign finance reform is the issue that predicates all other issues. Lawrence Lessig was right.
shmerl 9y ago
Such blatant corruption is sickening.
alexanderdmitri 9y ago
This probably doesn't have to do 100% about money. When the govt wants some data, there aren't as many doors to knock on now.

> Additionally, it’s important to note that the communications industry is one of the largest lobbying groups in US history; internet providers and the telephone companies before them are notorious for spreading wealth across the aisle. Regardless, one party seems more responsive to the industry’s demands. Ok, so ISPs give money to all of Congress, and every single representative in the list is a Republican. Sounds like the vote happened along party lines, then? But does that not invalidate the article's entire thesis? Maybe if they listed the representatives who voted against the bill, and showed that there is a significant difference in contributions, it would support their thesis. But they don't do that.

smt88 9y ago
I don't disagree, but voting "no" or abstaining is not the strongest form of resistance. Ethical Democrats could/should do more.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
There are multiple bills in recent years that have benefitted ISPs. They also were in favor of CISA to avoid any possible legal issues from a disregard of your privacy rights, and that passed with large support from the Democrats. Individual bills can follow party lines, but they're all helping the ISPs.
tzs 9y ago
> But does that not invalidate the article's entire thesis? Maybe if they listed the representatives who voted against the bill, and showed that there is a significant difference in contributions, it would support their thesis. But they don't do that. A significant difference would not so much support their thesis as fail to support the negation of their thesis. What articles such as this almost never consider is that donors might choose which politicians to donate to and how much to donate based on the publicly stated positions of the politician and the politician's party, that politician's past votes, and the general political philosophy of the politician and party. If we banned all political donations, and put a limit on political spending by the candidates or on behalf of the candidates, switching to funding campaigns entirely out of public money, a bill like this would STILL be largely supported by Republicans and largely opposed by Democrats because of their philosophical differences.

tomrod 9y ago

The title made me think there was another vote. This is a dated article from March, 2017 (though no less relevant today).

aaronbrethorst 9y ago
Midterms are less than a year away.
- static_noise 9y ago
  This foot of the goverment did their work to stomp freedom. Let the other foot stomp again.

animex 9y ago

Well, there's got to be a way to avoid this by VPNing, and using DNS not owned by ISPs right?

colejohnson66 9y ago
The ISP can still see you using a VPN and throttle all VPN traffic. The only way to avoid it is to use an ISP that doesn’t throttle.
- timmytokyo 9y ago
  The point of using a VPN is that your ISP can't see what web sites and IP addresses you're visiting, so they have very little privacy-violating information they can sell.
  - RandomInteger4 9y ago
    Correct, but they can see that you're using a VPN, which they can throttle if net neutrality rules are taken away by the current FCC.
  - csydas 9y ago
    Yes, but why does that matter when what the ISPs want is control and the ability to tax the content you're trying? If they can't milk your connection for data, then just throttle the connection type and call it a day. $25 a month for VPN access is probably more than they'd get on the small bit of private data they could extract from any non-secure connection to a website/service. So go ahead and use a VPN, but it won't matter when you're throttled to 50 kb/s
    - Jach 9y ago
      They won't throttle. Too many people use a VPN for work from home. If you have to pay extra, fine, but let's be clear that the only changes are monetary ones, not available QOS overall.

ispeakcomputer 9y ago

Even tried to vote this time around. Popular vote didn't count. I tried.

smt88 9y ago
A lot of democracy is just showing up. Even if your side loses, you may be building momentum that leads to a victory. Please keep showing up.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  Unlike most previous systems of government, in a democracy, you get to try again. Divine right was inconvertible by definition (after being defined by fiat). Throughout history, being on the losing side of a political conflict resulted in slavery or death. In a democracy, we have the privilege of trying again next year. Change doesn't happen overnight. It happens when people refuse to give on their 99th loss and continue to apply all available pressure until the status quo finally cracks.
- ta2384428 9y ago
  100% correct. There is a fallacy in Australia that you shouldn't "waste your vote" on the smaller parties, despite preferential voting. It's important to keep the vote competitive, the alternative is people stay at home because they think there is no point voting.
twblalock 9y ago
Every informed person knew the way the electoral college worked before the election, including both major candidates and their parties. Anyone who didn't know had no excuse for not knowing, because it is basic civic knowledge and trivially easy to look up if one is curious. Claiming the popular vote "didn't count" is disingenuous and you know it.

w4tson 9y ago

Forgive my ignorance, I’ve not been keeping up with this story. Is this just a USA thing? What way if any will affect non US residents?

pkaye 9y ago
Do you use any websites located in the US? What if they close down?
- briandear 9y ago
  Are we guilty of hyperbole?
warent 9y ago
A quick internet search should sort this out for you. It's been articulated ad nauseum
- twsted 9y ago
  “Ad nauseam” but we should never be bored by these arguments.
maccam94 9y ago
It potentially reduces the ability for new web companies to succeed in reaching US consumers. It will also enable ISP's to extort existing web companies and lead to higher prices for consumers.
discordance 9y ago
Just like with the NSA wiretapping, if you’re not a US citizen you don’t count for much (not that it protected US citizens very much). Your data has probably been sold a hundred time over already by US companies.
bo1024 9y ago
This is from quite a bit earlier in 2017. It is just a USA thing, Congress overturned FCC privacy rules, so now internet service providers in the USA are allowed to sell their subscribers' browsing data to third parties. (Edit: Amazingly the four previous people who responded to you seem to have all gotten it wrong)

jenga22 9y ago

This is interesting. I wonder why only Republicans are targeted consistently for these types of laws that are blatantly bad for consumers and why it works on them. However, I am sure money has been offered to Democrats but what's the reason it never sticks?

smt88 9y ago
It sticks. It's just different industries. Democrats are beholden to Wall St, Hollywood/music (see: RIAA), and special-interest groups. Silicon Valley also seems to be getting better at influencing Democrats. It definitely is lopsided, and Republicans are clearly more anti-consumer, but no national politician survives by betraying big donors.
- jenga22 9y ago
  Doesn't seem true. For example, the Frank Dod Act was passed by Democrats and Wall St. hates that law. Another example, the Consumer Protection Bureau. Another agency that Wall St. hates which was passed by Democrats. If anything, it seems that again Republicans are happy to pass laws that lowers taxes for Wall St. and removes regulation. To your point, Wall St. donates to Democrats but it seems to have very limited effect compared to Republicans.
  - x0x0 9y ago
    I dunno, I think Wall St donations to dems have plenty of affects. See eg Wasserman Schultz and payday lenders.
    - x0x0 9y ago
      effects rather. I shouldn't post when tired.
  - camelite 9y ago
    The fact that an act was passed after the greatest bubble pop since the great depression shouldnt be enough to convince you that dems as a whole arent beholden to wall street. they had zero choice but to do SOMETHING. look instead to what they did before the crash. compare what they did to what they could have done. look at what happened to proposals to do more. look at wall street profits a year after the crisis. look at the doners. less beholden than the reps, probably. not beholden at all? no

alphaalpha101 9y ago

I find this all very strange. Why are Americans so focused on this and not on the far more pressing issues like people only having one ISP available? There are dozens, possibly hundreds of ISPs to choose from where I live. Why is that not true ver there?

danielovichdk 9y ago

Is this being passef through you think? It seems totally crazy for me, but I am also northern europe where this would not happen.

tudorw 9y ago

Good job the Internet is only a beta right :) I think the Meshnet will win in the end.

_pdp_ 9y ago

Maybe this is an opportunity for some of you to setup the next gen of ISPs that do not track. I am not sure what is the feasibility for this in the states but it is certainly possible in UK (I think). This is a nice niche to carve and build from there with services that cater to the customers broadband needs and not to milk more money from personal data. For people like me, this is going to be an easy sale.

ealexhudson 9y ago
A&A already market themselves on this basis. The problem is it's not cheap, and they're constrained by the RIP type acts too, so pure "no track" is actually illegal.
- _pdp_ 9y ago
  Of course - such service will not be mainstream. Gmail is free but we know what we pay with.

rayiner 9y ago

This is a little bit less comic book villain-y than it seems. This is an attempt not to get rid of privacy protections, but to return to the status quo circa 2014, where privacy was handled using more general laws enforced by the FTC. This is typical in other countries, where the telecom regulator usually does not take a leading role in consumer protection, leaving that to the appropriate agency. Many countries, for example, have an agency focused on privacy. Historically, that role in the US has been filled by the FTC.

derefr 9y ago
I never really thought about it, but it does make sense as something that falls under the FTC’s purview: you can only have a functional free market if corporations can keep trade secrets from one-another; can negotiate without laying all their own cards on the table; etc. Privacy is a prerequisite to (non-state-owned) capitalism.
- emn13 9y ago
  Simultaneously, capitalism doesn't work entirely with fully informed agents. Any amount of privacy undermines its efficiency. Frankly, talking in extremes like that isn't likely to be helpful in deciding which regulatory agency should do what.
tzs 9y ago
> This is an attempt not to get rid of privacy protections, but to return to the status quo circa 2014, where privacy was handled using more general laws enforced by the FTC. Wasn't there a ruling by the 9th Circuit that said the FTC does not have jurisdiction over common carriers, and so, at least in the 9th Circuit, this does not return to the 2014 status quo until after the FCC completes their killing of the 2015 Open Internet Order?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rrhd 9y ago
The FTC who will promptly roll back privacy protections and insist that deregulation is somehow better.

microcolonel 9y ago

Side note: encrypted DNS is looking quite attractive right now.

throw2016 9y ago

A perfect example of democracy not working and corporate capture in full display. You are sold some idealized version of an enlightened progressive society where your one vote in 4 years is of fundamental value when in the real world something altogether regressive is in action, and this is on display across industries. Its appears it's not your vote but money that influences outcomes on a day to day basis, so back to quasi feudalism dressed up. Adam smith spoke about this, anti-regulation propaganda is transparently self serving by entrenched interests. Markets are not magic, there is no invisible hand and there is no perfect information. Markets are created by people and like everything else in civilized life they need rules and regulation and if you want to adhere to democratic principles and build progressive societies they need to reflect the wishes and interests of the people.

cjoh 9y ago

While I generally agree that members of Congress listen more to lobbyists than to constituents, the idea that money flows this transactionally is just absurd. You yourself have probably given to a member of Congress because they did something rather than so that they will do something. I gave to a member of Congress because they spoke out for Gun control, not because I called them and told Them that if they speak out I will write them a check. That’s what makes this kind of uncontextualized data pretty disheartening. You’re showing some correlations, conflating it with causation, and disaffecting the electorate (which, in turn makes the lobbyists more powerful)

thrillgore 9y ago

>Republican establishment screams about small government and yet they're the ones expanding the scope One day, GOP, this will haunt you.

free_everybody 9y ago

I'm never voting for any of these POS public servants. Just unforgivable.

srj 9y ago

Unless pure exposure is your goal it seems counterproductive to associate an issue with a political party. As with climate change, people who might otherwise be open to hearing arguments now turn their brains off and don't engage with the topic beyond pushing what's supported by "their side".

booleanbetrayal 9y ago

Campaign finance reform is the issue that predicates all other issues. Lawrence Lessig was right.

shmerl 9y ago

Such blatant corruption is sickening.

alexanderdmitri 9y ago

This probably doesn't have to do 100% about money. When the govt wants some data, there aren't as many doors to knock on now.