Wrestling Forum banner

UPDATE: House & Senate vote to allow ISPs to sell your browsing history

2K views 32 replies 14 participants last post by  yeahbaby! 
#1 ·
UPDATE:

The House pased it today. On it's way to the president's desk.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/28/trump-bill-roll-back-internet-privacy-protections/?utm_source=RSS_Feedutm_medium=RSS

Trump to sign bill rolling back internet privacy protections

The White House signaled Tuesday that President Trump will sign a controversial bill rolling back Obama-era internet privacy rules, drawing the ire of online advocates who said he is failing his first major drain-the-swamp test by allowing broadband companies to sell users’ personal browsing histories.

The Senate passed the bill last week, and it cleared the House Tuesday on a 215-205 vote, meaning it now goes straight to Mr. Trump.

The bill would revoke an October ruling issued by the Federal Communications Commission that imposed tight restrictions on how broadband companies — also known as internet service providers, or ISPs — are able to handle their users’ information. Under the FCC’s rule, companies had to get their customers to opt in before their data could be sold.

If Mr. Trump follows through on signing the bill, consumers would still be allowed to opt out, but they would have to do so explicitly, and advocates said companies could impose a surcharge on people who wanted their data kept secret.

“This is staggering. This is almost a surrender,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “If the Republicans are allowed to do this, we have surrendered all thoughts of privacy for the American people.”

All 215 “yes” votes Tuesday came from Republicans, while all Democrats present voted against the bill in the House, as did 15 Republicans.

Beneath the very public fight over privacy is a battle for supremacy between broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T on the one hand, and the big popular websites such as Google and Facebook, known in the industry as “edge providers.”

All of them want access to Americans’ data, which is highly valued by advertisers.

Under the FCC’s rules, the websites would still be able to collect and sell the information users sent them. But the broadband providers would have faced restrictions.

Republicans said repealing the FCC rule was a matter of fairness, saying the government shouldn’t be picking economic winners and losers in the technology market, and consumers can negotiate with their ISPs.

“With all due respect, the internet was not broken and did not need the federal government to come in and try to protect it,” said Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican.

Democrats, however, said repealing the FCC rules means a race to the bottom, freeing all technology companies to collect and sell whatever information they can glean.

They predicted payback from angry internet users.

“My phones are ringing off the hook,” said Rep. Jerry McNerney, California Democrat. “Why are you pushing this? Americans don’t want it, and your voters are just beginning to pay attention.”

Reddit, one of the largest active internet communities, rallied against the GOP’s moves, and users pleaded with Mr. Trump to step in and veto the bill.

“Alright President Trump, you can go ahead and ‘drain the swamp’ now,” said one user who went by the name undergroundsounds.

Some Reddit users said if the privacy protections are revoked, they would pool their money to try to buy the browsing histories of key Republican lawmakers.

Internet privacy advocates said Republicans’ push even violated their own policies. The Electronic Frontier Foundation said Sen. Jeff Flake, the chief sponsor of the bill, has privacy protections on his own congressional website.

“If you’re a U.S. lawmaker, protecting privacy doesn’t just mean avoiding collecting their data when they visit your website. It means standing up for users’ rights every day on Capitol Hill — the exact opposite of which is to roll back the strong privacy protections already on the books,” the EFF said in a blog post this week.

The issue of ISP privacy arose in the latter years of the Obama administration, when the FCC claimed the power to control broadband companies as a common carrier. Republicans said the FCC was stealing power from the FTC, which the GOP said was the correct place to patrol online privacy.

After claiming powers under the common carrier statute, the FCC then issued the privacy rules in October 2016.

Because that rule came late in the tenure of a lame-duck president, it gave Republicans the chance to use the Congressional Review Act.
ORIGINAL:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/senate-votes-to-let-isps-sell-your-web-browsing-history-to-advertisers/

Senate votes to let ISPs sell your Web browsing history to advertisers

The US Senate today voted to eliminate broadband privacy rules that would have required ISPs to get consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other companies.

The rules were approved in October 2016 by the Federal Communications Commission's then-Democratic leadership, but are opposed by the FCC's new Republican majority and Republicans in Congress. The Senate today used its power under the Congressional Review Act to ensure that the FCC rulemaking "shall have no force or effect" and to prevent the FCC from issuing similar regulations in the future.

The House, also controlled by Republicans, would need to vote on the measure before the privacy rules are officially eliminated. President Trump could also preserve the privacy rules by issuing a veto. If the House and Trump agree with the Senate's action, ISPs won't have to seek customer approval before sharing their browsing histories and other private information with advertisers.

The Senate vote was 50-48, with lawmakers voting entirely along party lines.

“President Trump may be outraged by fake violations of his own privacy, but every American should be alarmed by the very real violation of privacy that will result [from] the Republican roll-back of broadband privacy protections," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said after the vote.

The Senate measure was introduced two weeks ago by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and 23 Republican co-sponsors. Flake said at the time that he is trying to "protect consumers from overreaching Internet regulation." FCC Chairman Ajit Pai argues that consumers would be confused if there are different privacy rules for ISPs than for online companies like Google and Facebook. "American consumers should not have to be lawyers or engineers to figure out if their information is protected," Pai recently told Democratic lawmakers.


Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) argued today that the privacy rules "hurt job creators and stifle economic growth." Cornyn also said the FCC's privacy rulemaking involves the "government picking winners and losers," and was among the "harmful rules and regulations put forward by the Obama administration at the last moment."

ISPs: “Information sold for profit”

Democrats and consumer advocates are furious. The acronym "ISP" now stands for "information sold for profit," and "invading subscriber privacy," rather than "Internet service providers," Markey said during floor debate today.

The Senate action "would allow Comcast, Verizon, Charter, AT&T, and other broadband providers to take control away from consumers and relentlessly collect and sell their sensitive information without the consent of that family," Markey said. That sensitive information includes health and financial information, and information about children, he said. ISPs want to "draw a map" of where families shop and go to school, and sell it to data brokers "or anyone else who wants to make a profit off you," Markey said.

"Your home broadband provider can know when you wake up each day—either by knowing the time each morning that you log on to the Internet to check the weather/news of the morning, or through a connected device in your home," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said during Senate floor debate yesterday. "And that provider may know immediately if you are not feeling well—assuming you decide to peruse the Internet like most of us to get a quick check on your symptoms. In fact, your broadband provider may know more about your health—and your reaction to illness—than you are willing to share with your doctor."

Home Internet providers can also "build a profile about your listening and viewing habits," while mobile broadband providers "know how you move about your day through information about your geolocation and Internet activity through your mobile device," he said.

"This is a gold mine of data—the holy grail so to speak," Nelson said. "It is no wonder that broadband providers want to be able to sell this information to the highest bidder without consumers’ knowledge or consent. And they want to collect and use this information without providing transparency or being held accountable."

Few consumers have any choice of Internet provider, said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Thus, their only choice may be between "giving up their browsing history for an Internet provider to sell to the highest bidder or having no Internet at all," he said.

Wyden also said that the FCC rules don't prevent ISPs from monetizing customer data—the rules simply require ISPs to inform consumers about how their data is used and get customer consent before selling the most sensitive data, he said.

Advocacy groups including Free Press, Demand Progress, and the ACLU went to Congress to deliver nearly 90,000 petitions to "save broadband privacy" yesterday.

ISPs and advertising lobby groups had urged senators to kill the privacy rules. Cable lobby group NCTA—The Internet & Television Association said, "we appreciate today’s Senate action to repeal unwarranted FCC rules that deny consumers consistent privacy protection online and violate competitive neutrality." The group said that the cable industry "remains committed to offering services that protect the privacy and security of the personal information of our customers."

What the privacy rules require

The FCC's privacy rules would require ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers before selling or sharing personal information including geo-location data, financial and health information, children’s information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications. Opt-out requirements would have applied to less sensitive data such as e-mail addresses and service tier information.

The opt-in and opt-out provisions would have taken effect as early as December 4, 2017. The rules would also force ISPs to clearly notify customers about the types of information they collect, specify how they use and share the information, and identify the types of entities they share the information with.

The FCC's privacy rules also had a data security component that would have required ISPs to take "reasonable" steps to protect customers' information from theft and data breaches. This was supposed to take effect on March 2, but the FCC's Republican majority halted the rule's implementation. Another set of requirements related to data breach notifications is scheduled to take effect on June 2.

The Senate vote would prevent all of these rules from taking effect, unless the House or President Trump decide otherwise.

Republicans say that the Federal Trade Commission should have authority over ISPs' privacy practices, instead of the FCC. That would require further action by the FCC or Congress because ISPs and phone companies are common carriers that cannot be regulated by the FTC.
Glad to see Flake and Pai protecting consumers and helping them avoid confusion by making sure their private data is now monetized by ISPs.

Since I'm generating the content they're selling shouldn't I get a cut of the sales or free internet access instead of paying to generate data for them to sell?
 
#15 ·
Re: Senate votes to allow ISPs to sell your browsing history

I don't get the argument that it helps ISPs to compete on a level playing field with the likes of facebook and google.
Because facebook and google can already do this. And instead of fixing the wrong the dim wits in Washington decide to pass a bill allowing a wrong to make it a level playing field. It is if like your neighbor to your left broke in and stole some items from your house and instead of trying to stop them Congress passes a bill allowing your neighbor to your right to break in and steal some items.

#PoliticianLogic
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic Capri and Tater
#6 ·
Re: Senate votes to allow ISPs to sell your browsing history

JFC republicans don't value anything except money, soon they're going to find a way to monetize the human soul and of course the soul selling market will be completely without "stifling" regulations.
I'm surprised they haven't yet found a way for charging people to breathe air but give them time.
 
#5 · (Edited)
Re: Senate votes to allow ISPs to sell your browsing history

100% of this info is already being collected by Facebook and Google (and other websites) already so there isn't any reason to be outraged by this. This is a net positive with regards to neutrality actually as all this bill does is allow ISP's to do the same and attempt to give them a level playing field with regards to marketing opportunities. If you have a phone, you've given up your privacy. Period.

I don't know how the ISP's can use this information for marketing however until and unless they get the ability to hijack browsers and get preference for their ads which is kind of stupid because when you're on someone's IP, then that means you're already using their services. This is a nothing bill imo.
 
#9 ·
Re: Senate votes to allow ISPs to sell your browsing history

The House pased it today. On it's way to the president's desk.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/28/trump-bill-roll-back-internet-privacy-protections/?utm_source=RSS_Feedutm_medium=RSS

Trump to sign bill rolling back internet privacy protections

The White House signaled Tuesday that President Trump will sign a controversial bill rolling back Obama-era internet privacy rules, drawing the ire of online advocates who said he is failing his first major drain-the-swamp test by allowing broadband companies to sell users’ personal browsing histories.

The Senate passed the bill last week, and it cleared the House Tuesday on a 215-205 vote, meaning it now goes straight to Mr. Trump.

The bill would revoke an October ruling issued by the Federal Communications Commission that imposed tight restrictions on how broadband companies — also known as internet service providers, or ISPs — are able to handle their users’ information. Under the FCC’s rule, companies had to get their customers to opt in before their data could be sold.

If Mr. Trump follows through on signing the bill, consumers would still be allowed to opt out, but they would have to do so explicitly, and advocates said companies could impose a surcharge on people who wanted their data kept secret.

“This is staggering. This is almost a surrender,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “If the Republicans are allowed to do this, we have surrendered all thoughts of privacy for the American people.”

All 215 “yes” votes Tuesday came from Republicans, while all Democrats present voted against the bill in the House, as did 15 Republicans.

Beneath the very public fight over privacy is a battle for supremacy between broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T on the one hand, and the big popular websites such as Google and Facebook, known in the industry as “edge providers.”

All of them want access to Americans’ data, which is highly valued by advertisers.

Under the FCC’s rules, the websites would still be able to collect and sell the information users sent them. But the broadband providers would have faced restrictions.

Republicans said repealing the FCC rule was a matter of fairness, saying the government shouldn’t be picking economic winners and losers in the technology market, and consumers can negotiate with their ISPs.

“With all due respect, the internet was not broken and did not need the federal government to come in and try to protect it,” said Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican.

Democrats, however, said repealing the FCC rules means a race to the bottom, freeing all technology companies to collect and sell whatever information they can glean.

They predicted payback from angry internet users.

“My phones are ringing off the hook,” said Rep. Jerry McNerney, California Democrat. “Why are you pushing this? Americans don’t want it, and your voters are just beginning to pay attention.”

Reddit, one of the largest active internet communities, rallied against the GOP’s moves, and users pleaded with Mr. Trump to step in and veto the bill.

“Alright President Trump, you can go ahead and ‘drain the swamp’ now,” said one user who went by the name undergroundsounds.

Some Reddit users said if the privacy protections are revoked, they would pool their money to try to buy the browsing histories of key Republican lawmakers.

Internet privacy advocates said Republicans’ push even violated their own policies. The Electronic Frontier Foundation said Sen. Jeff Flake, the chief sponsor of the bill, has privacy protections on his own congressional website.

“If you’re a U.S. lawmaker, protecting privacy doesn’t just mean avoiding collecting their data when they visit your website. It means standing up for users’ rights every day on Capitol Hill — the exact opposite of which is to roll back the strong privacy protections already on the books,” the EFF said in a blog post this week.

The issue of ISP privacy arose in the latter years of the Obama administration, when the FCC claimed the power to control broadband companies as a common carrier. Republicans said the FCC was stealing power from the FTC, which the GOP said was the correct place to patrol online privacy.

After claiming powers under the common carrier statute, the FCC then issued the privacy rules in October 2016.

Because that rule came late in the tenure of a lame-duck president, it gave Republicans the chance to use the Congressional Review Act.
100% of this info is already being collected by Facebook and Google (and other websites) already so there isn't any reason to be outraged by this. This is a net positive with regards to neutrality actually as all this bill does is allow ISP's to do the same and attempt to give them a level playing field with regards to marketing opportunities. If you have a phone, you've given up your privacy. Period.

I don't know how the ISP's can use this information for marketing however until and unless they get the ability to hijack browsers and get preference for their ads which is kind of stupid because when you're on someone's IP, then that means you're already using their services. This is a nothing bill imo.
I meant to respond to your post earlier, but slipped my mind until I saw that the House passed it.

Don't you think there is a difference between people having the choice whether to use facebook or google and some having no choice but to use an ISP's service if they want home internet? Take me for example. My ISP has a a monopoly in my area. I either get internet for my home from them or I go without.

EDIT: Ignore last sentence. Forgot facebook and google can track all your activity.
 
#16 ·
Hmm, so benevolent bribery or at least bribery that has a side effect of benevolence. I'm sure that there has been legislation passed that I agreed with that was only passed because of money changing hands.

It goes back to the ancient question, do the ends justify the means? I don't know what to say really. In general I hate how money influences politics, but like I said I'm sure there's been results that I agreed with, if not the methods. Feels hypocritical of me now that I think about about it. When legislation passes that I agree with do I go looking to see who donated to the yay voters? No, I don't.
 
#22 · (Edited)
You can't use a VPN to mask activities on your own IP. You can mask it from the ISP, but not the VPN.

That would be like locking yourself in with a burglar but in his hideout instead of your house and telling him everything about yourself. :lol

I would rather place my trust in my own ISP than some random "Hotspot Shield" run by someone I don't even know.
 
#26 · (Edited)
It sucks but at the end of the day I think ISPs have the right to share your history

You are using their connection and privacy was never "guaranteed" on the internet, if you don't like how one provider uses your data you are free to find another

Its like renting space, at the end of the day its still the owners and they can kick you out if they want to

If you are paranoid about there are tons of blockers and encrypters you can buy or get for free
 
#28 ·
I'm starting to hate this country...
America is such a fucked up place. Democracy died with a whimper so low we didn't even realize it was dead until we started smelling the decaying corpse. Shit like this legislation, that's the smell of decomposition. Is it unpatriotic to say "fuck the framers of the Constitution"? Dead ass bitches. I don't blame them for their inability to predict the expansion of the nation or the technological advances we've made that have changed politics, I do blame them for not being able to predict the stranglehold of money and corruption that have taken Washington hostage.

They didn't trust the people to be smart enough to vote on issues directly which is why we're a representative democracy, they didn't trust us enough to not elect a madman as president, hence the Electoral College (you had one job!), so why would they assume we'd be smart enough to select honest congressmen? Why didn't they institute term limits? Why didn't they give the body politic some form of mass congressional review? Why did the framers not give us a reset button aside from armed insurrection? It's easy to say if your congressman is crooked vote him out, but you only get to vote for the representative of your district plus your 2 senators; what if your guy is honest and it's congressman in other districts or states that are crooked? Your guy becomes completely ineffectual to combat the sea of corruption.

It took 229 years but the anti-federalists probably had the right idea all along, some red state bumpkin who only cares about guns and never losing his shitty coal job get to elect politicians that affect people's lives all over the country. Gallup polls show 58% of Americans are in favor of universal health care, but we can't have it because conservatives chose to spread out amongst the shittier parts of our country so they have disproportionate political power. Why can't we let the middle of the country have guns, coal, Trumpcare and legislative power over uteruses and let the coasts have education, healthcare, clean water and air and less wage inequality.

You might be thinking if we let the red state fools coal and frack and pollute to their heart's desire won't that ruin the air and water for the blue states? Maybe for a while but soon they'll all die off from drinking coal runoff and they won't be able to afford to go to the doctor in their economic survival of the fittest society and the 1% who lives won't have any workers left to run plants, mines and refineries. Then we can begin the cleanup and reunification of a kinder, smarter, healthier America.
 
#32 ·
I recommend web browsers like TorK and Firefox which permit private browsing. I have a feeling I will use them more often.

I get that I give up some privacy when I get online, and I acknowledge this fact. However, I have two massive issues with this bill. Number one, I really don't believe they have the right to sell my information without my permission. It's like opting out of your credit card, etc...when they change the terms and conditions. Or being allowed to not accept phone calls from telemarketers and put yourself on the "Do Not Call" list (although they make exceptions in regards to companies you already do business with). Granted, I'm sure people would be disappointed to know that most of my online stuff involves this site or helping my kids with homework.

Second...it's mission creep to the nth. Today, it's selling our browsing history for a buck. Tomorrow, it could be looking for a reason to keep an eye on you for whatever reason. Maybe they didn't like something you said, etc. For those who think I'm paranoid...when they started the "No Fly" list they said that it was foolproof. Instead, you had people who accidentally ended up on the list and had very little recourse to get off (even Congresspeople ended up on this list and probably only got off the list because of their connections). And remember, Trump was all for the NSA once again collecting our records as well as re-instating the Patriot Act. So now he gets a chance to potentially violate our rights as a consumer to not have our information released and allow these companies to make a buck.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top