The FCC has proposed rules that would protect the privacy of broadband subscribers, although they are less ambitious than originally envisioned, following complaints from telecoms:
A privacy proposal unveiled Thursday will require broadband providers such as Verizon and Comcast to get your permission before sharing with advertisers your phone or computer data. [...] The revised proposal, which will be put to an FCC vote on Oct. 27, says broadband providers do not have to get permission from customers to use "non-sensitive" information, such as names and addresses.
Also at The Wall Street Journal .
The Hill reports that the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] chairman authorized staffers to leak information before a vote on the expansion of the Lifeline subsidy program:
But the investigation by the agency's inspector general turned up "no evidence that the information was provided to the press in an attempt to unduly influence the outcome of the vote" and found Chairman Tom Wheeler had acted within his legal authority.
[...] Republican commissioners reached a deal with Democrat Mignon Clyburn before the committee's March open meeting that would have capped the program's budget. But the meeting was delayed multiple times as details of the deal leaked to the press. Clyburn ultimately voted for a version of the item without a cap, as proposed by Chairman Tom Wheeler. Critics have focused on a Politico report that included leaked details on the compromise and the proposed $2 billion budget cap. Later reports echo these details. They allege that the details may have been leaked to increase pressure on Clyburn, since many groups and lawmakers opposed the cap. Critics, on the other hand, say the Lifeline program is an example of a government program run amuck.
"The events surrounding the March 31st Commission vote adopting the Lifeline Order, while not unprecedented in their entirety, were certainly unusual," an investigator said in a memo released by the Republican majority of the Senate Commerce Committee. "Typically, commissioners do not engage in negotiations resulting in significant policy shifts in the final hours prior to a Commission vote." "Thus, while such activity is not improper or illegal, the rarity of the occurrence explains in large measure the interest, speculation and concern the matter has generated."
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday October 08 2016, @12:04PM
"non-sensitive" information, such as names and addresses...
Given the wording "such as, I'd love to know what else is considered "non-sensitive". But my Google-fu is weak today, and I could not find the actual FCC proposal. Anyone have better luck?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 08 2016, @01:10PM
The Washington Post article [washingtonpost.com] gives slightly more detail:
The fact sheet linked in TFS [fcc.gov] provides much more detail.
HTHAL
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08 2016, @01:34PM
And slowly, but gradually, we erode what is 'sensitive data'. It's death by a thousand cuts.
Soon enough, dick/vag picks will no longer be sensitive data.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08 2016, @06:42PM
i wonder how they would feel about the sensitivity of their address if people started going to their house to "talk" to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09 2016, @05:47AM
You won't get past the gates on their communities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09 2016, @06:33AM
"Can't we just drone this guy?"