14 ms·
Maine Governor Signs Strictest Internet Protections in the U.S.
- matttproud 7y agoConsistency and compliance costs be damned; I am pleased that localities are taking this matter seriously. The status quo lack for user data protection is appalling.
- snarf21 7y agoWhile I applaud this kind of effort, it seems like it will have little effect in the end. Companies will just violate it anyway and get a small fine. Or they will just get the law replaced when the makeup of the government changes. It seems like we have two issues: politicians who don't really understand the technical ramifications around the laws and issues; and politicians who don't really care and just want their funding. It feels like the only way to make them both really get it is to use some form of hacktivism. Would we like a law to prevent robocalling? Then use our technological expertise to robocall all numbers related to these officials non-stop and have the message be "Pass a law to stop robo-calling". Worried about ISPs selling your data? Then use our technological expertise to buy this data from the ISPs and correlate the data and make public all the details of the data about these politicians and those related. Maybe this is nonsense but it seems like the only way to make it real for them.
- testvox 7y agoTheir response won't be to pass a robocalling law, it will be to send the police to your house to arrest you for harassment which is already illegal.
- snarf21 7y agoHow is that harassment if people calling me about student loans I don't have isn't harassment?
- tzs 7y agoIntent.
- glaurung_ 7y agoSo intent to be annoying is a worse offense than intent to rob someone?
- tru3_power 7y agoIf this is true you could just robo call them with the intent to sell them something, or looking for someone. The annoyance part is merely a side effect vs. the whole purpose (at-least it could be argued that’s the case)
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoRobocall to ask them to donate to your gofundme which you will donate to the election campaign whoever proposes an anti-robocalling law that meets X, Y, Z, criteria and is actually signed into law. Convince some industry group to seed it with $20k or so, target a small state where campaign donation amounts are low and bam, you've got your first anti-robocalling law (with teeth) on the books.
- ChrisMarshallNY 7y ago"Hi, I'm calling to ask for donations to our 'Stop Robocalls' lobbying effort." If you set up a nonprofit org., and did that, then you would probably get past a lot of roadblocks, and might actually make some money.
- souterrain 7y agoTo which one’s defense should be, “I did not do this, my corporation did. Arrest it.”
- ceejayoz 7y ago> Companies will just violate it anyway and get a small fine. Which is precisely why the GDPR's enormous maximum fines are a good thing, in my book. Minor and unintentional violations can be treated with leniency, but a large organization that's repeatedly and deliberately compromising the privacy of millions can wind up paying for it in an actually noticeable manner.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jdreyfuss 7y agoThis specific law may not have a large effect in and of itself, but having something like this out there can set the stage for future change as well. Momentum is very much a thing in politics, so anything that takes steps in the right direction could ultimately contribute to getting that ball rolling
- belenos46 7y agoYes! Yes, we're finally in the news for something good, not something our social cancer of a former governor did!
- kibwen 7y agoHey now, you managed to be the first state to pass ranked-choice voting for state and federal elections back in 2016; here in Massachusetts we're jealous that we only might manage to bring it up for a vote or ballot initiative this year. :)
- belenos46 7y agoUgh, I wish we had. Until we stuff through a (state) constitutional amendment, >"The bill does not allow ranked-choice voting to be used for general and special elections for the offices of Governor, State Senator, or State Representative unless there is an amendment to the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part First, Section 5, Article IV, Part Second, Sections 4 and 5 and Article V, Part First, Section 3 that authorizes the Legislature, by proper enactment, to determine the method by which the Governor and members of the State Senate and House of Representatives are elected is ratified."[0] It's like we've got a bunch of TODOs spread all over our legislation. [0] http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlibrary/ranked-choice-voting-in-maine/9509 http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlibrary/ranked-choice-voting...
- kibwen 7y agoOh heh, I knew about the constitution thing but I thought it only applied to the Maine gubernatorial elections, not for state-level legislative office as well. At least it still applies for the congressional delegation, I suppose. :P
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoThe social cancer of your former governor and your reputation among the uneducated for being the Alabama of New England is a good thing in the long term. One of the nice things about Maine is that it's a fairly progressive state with very tolerant people but without the cultural tendency for busybody and authoritarian tendencies that make the southern half of New England pretty crappy and expensive for the middle class. If you lose that reputation you will be inundated (more so than you currently are) with upper-middle class Massholes fleeing the cost of living they voted into existence and they will repeat their pattern of behavior in your state. I say this as a Masshole who's lived in all but two of the New England states. You are far better off having people from elsewhere think you are all backwards hicks and being wrong than not thinking that and being right. Let them come, spend their money vacationing, admire the scenery, express disdain for the "backwards" locals and leave. Do not be a place people want to move to, it will not be good for you. Just ask Colorado if you don't believe me. That said you people need to learn to drive with some urgency, especially on the state highways. Edit: Why is this flagged? Are my observations of the social/political situation in New England that inconvenient?
- throwayEngineer 7y agoHas any internet provider sold data previously? They sell ip address, websites visited, and home address?
- ToFab123 7y agoYes. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/congress_approves_sale_of_internet_histories/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/congress_approves_s...
- module0000 7y agoIf someone could give some more information, I'm very interested in this. I always assumed this was taking place, but I'd love to hear from someone involved or with knowledge of that industry. Who do ISPs sell it to? What type of money is involved?
- sseveran 7y agoA team I worked on tried to buy browsing histories for specific sites about 10 years ago. NetZero was selling them from their free dialup customers, but the data was not that useful as the demographics of users was super skewed. All the ISPs that people tend to think are evil absolutely refused to even entertain the idea. One of them even lectured our PM on privacy and ethics for a few minutes before ending the call. You can buy advertising profiles (or access to them) but this not really useful for things that are not directly advertising as it is super aggregated. In general the ISP data is less valuable since so much of the web has moved to using SSL. I don't know much about how this has changed over the last couple of years but maybe someone else can chime in.
- aj7 7y agoWhen my internet connection slows down, I just run Speedtest once or twice. My providers detect that and restore the bandwidth they’d been stealing.
- edraferi 7y agoUgh
- willio58 7y agoThis is terrible.
- mtgx 7y agoLand of the fr...pay through your nose and still get screwed.
- icxa 7y agoI've noticed this as well, except with fast.com I will fire up the laptop, be getting 3.2-12 mbps, all of a sudden a fast.com speed test starts of sluggish and ramps up to 120-200 mbps. Go figure. It happens every time, on multiple occasions, devices, browsers, all using the same internet connection and frequency.
- ilikehurdles 7y agoI'm happy and yet disappointed to see I'm not the only one this works for. Video bufferring frequently? Start a speedtest, problem (temporarily) solved!
- dooglius 7y agoI'm surprised, I thought it was run by Netflix so that they'd also have to boost all Netflix traffic. Maybe they are doing DPI? Netflix also has a "test video" somewhere that is probably a more representative test.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- guptat59 7y agoSounds somewhat similar to GDPR, does it ?
- TheAdamist 7y agoonly when maine users start being blocked from websites.
- akshayB 7y agoISP are becoming annoying middle man who want to make money from any data they can get their hands on. What eventually needs to be done is we classify ISPs as utility. Example - your water supplier doesn't make a big deal if you use more water because you have a swimming pool but you ISP does and I find that very weird.
- CondensedBrain 7y agoWater companies do charge different rates depending on type of usage. Look up your local company's page to see the commercial rate. It could be higher or lower. They all seem to have different priorities based on a quick search of different cities.
- akshayB 7y agomaybe I didn't choose the best example but they don't throttle your water supplies.
- ceejayoz 7y agoWell, until they run out entirely. https://time.com/4017476/a-town-without-water/ https://time.com/4017476/a-town-without-water/
- Spivak 7y agoBut water usage is absolutely throttled based on usage when there's a drought. I mean the police rather than the pipes is the enforcement mechanism but you will definitely be fined for using more water than necessary to water your lawn. I think we can all imagine examples where this would get scummy but using network management to in good-faith give a better experience to everyone isn't really what people should be worried about. I feel like the ISP throttling debate needs to be taken out of the realm of hackers where the mentality is "being allowed to do X is logically equivalent to being allowed to do X unrestricted for any purpose whatsoever" and into human territory where intent matters.
- 7y ago
- shmageggy 7y agoHow valid is the argument that states can't regulate interstate business? Any business that operates over state lines is immune to all local law? Also claiming that this infringes on ISP free speech? Like Citizens United, applying ideas of personhood to cooperations is just gross. I'm with the Chamber of Commerce in that the bill doesn't go far enough. Why should giving away our privacy be a prerequisite for doing anything online?
- frankharv 7y agoI agree. How could a Federal rule supersedes a state law. If FCC they want the rule that bad the feds need to make it a law. A rule that can be changed by politics is not a law.
- paulie_a 7y agoIt would be interesting if deleware followed suit.
- user5184 7y agoISPs will just offer slower plans as default and promotions with faster connections for people that consent with data harvesting and monetization. As it's a promotion, regulators can't forbidden promotions. And as ISPs are an oligopoly at best, it will be easy to force most people to consent. Regulators must forbidden data harvesting and selling. But it will not happen because data is the new gold.
- awakeasleep 7y agoThe bill forbids data sharing consent as precondition to service
- tomd3v 7y ago> Maine’s new law does not allow an ISP to offer a discounted rate to customers who agree to share or sell their data.
- cliff_badger 7y agoJust like the stupid cookie laws you'll just get a little popup that says: "In order for you to use our internet, you are agreeing to have your data tracked and sold..." This law prevents absolutely nothing...
- mrguyorama 7y agoThe law EXPLICITLY prevents that.
- cliff_badger 7y agoI am sorry, I stand corrected. Now that I read the actual bill I see my error.
- algaeontoast 7y agoYou'd be better off shaking your fist at a blank monitor. Laws like this are more dangerous than draconian internet legislation or companies doing un-ethical internet things. These laws make people feel good and feel they've made progress when in reality they've done nothing - the illusion of progress to make one feel good is more damning than doing what these laws were explicitly intended to "prevent".
- thwythwy 7y ago>"These laws" OK grandpa, demonstrate you know what the law does and maybe you'll earn a response on the merits. This is just empty nonsense. Who are you quoting?
- JuliusPullo 7y agoAnd we're all happy our government is finally finding ways to regulate the internet, right? Come on, people, you need remember how to be free, they won't teach you that in College anymore. The internet was born wild and grew up wild, and its great and becoming better. Is your ISP pissing you off? Deal with it. Letting the government take over the internet 'for protection' is like making a pact with the Devil. It will NOT end well for you.
- sieabahlpark 7y agoPeople vote with pathos more often it seems.
- w8vY7ER 7y ago"Deal with it" seems like an awfully shallow and short-sighted suggestion for those concerned with their privacy. Could you elaborate?
- Funes- 7y ago>Is your ISP pissing you off? Deal with it. How could you possibly "deal" with having only one ISP available in your area, for instance? There's literally no margin for the user. >The internet was born wild and grew up wild, and its great and becoming better It grew up to become effectively chained and governed by a handful of giant corporations; let's be real here. While I'm not exactly the biggest proponent of state meddling in general terms, I'm all for protecting individuals from harmful practices.
- jaredklewis 7y ago> The internet was born wild Actually born inside a government funded research project, to be more specific. > Is your ISP pissing you off? Deal with it. Any thoughts on how? I have two options in my area, both of which are miserably slow and overpriced. > Letting the government take over the internet 'for protection' is like making a pact with the Devil. It will NOT end well for you. How is this bill letting the government “take over the Internet?” That’s like saying a government bill that bans dumping toxic materials into rivers is “letting the government take over” rivers. ISPs are “free” to run their businesses as they like; they just can’t sell my personal data without asking me first.
- telaelit 7y agoYes. This is what should be done on a federal level, but I'm glad states are starting to take up the issue of protecting their citizens.
- pard68 7y agoSeems cool. Let me know when I can get speeds faster than 5mbps, and that is because I pay extra for to have two dsl lines.
- dang 7y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20061764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20061764