Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday February 27 2017, @10:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the unencrypted-in-a-list-on-the-interwebs dept.

The Federal Communications Commission plans to halt implementation of a privacy rule that requires ISPs to protect the security of its customers' personal information.

The data security rule is part of a broader privacy rulemaking implemented under former Chairman Tom Wheeler but opposed by the FCC's new Republican majority. The privacy order's data security obligations are scheduled to take effect on March 2, but Chairman Ajit Pai wants to prevent that from happening.

The data security rule requires ISPs and phone companies to take "reasonable" steps to protect customers' information—such as Social Security numbers, financial and health information, and Web browsing data—from theft and data breaches.

"Chairman Pai is seeking to act on a request to stay this rule before it takes effect on March 2," an FCC spokesperson said in a statement to Ars.

The rule would be blocked even if a majority of commissioners supported keeping them in place, because the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau can make the decision on its own.

Source: ArsTechnica


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by moondoctor on Monday February 27 2017, @12:59PM (6 children)

    by moondoctor (2963) on Monday February 27 2017, @12:59PM (#472234)

    Well, that didn't take long! Destabilising things for short term profit is not a good plan, Chairman Pai. The argument that because the FTC can't regulate the big boys, then the FCC must not regulate ISPs is ludicrous. Requiring companies to take reasonable data protections seems obvious to me. Is there any valid argument for *not* having reasonable practices in place to protect peoples sensitive information?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday February 27 2017, @01:00PM (1 child)

    by Nerdfest (80) on Monday February 27 2017, @01:00PM (#472236)

    Yeah, I'm wondering if anyone here is actually partisan enough to defend this.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:14PM (#472325)

      > Yeah, I'm wondering if anyone here is actually partisan enough to defend this.

      Me! Me! Me!

      AJit said he wanted to make the FCC more transparent [breitbart.com]
      That extends to user data too.
      After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Monday February 27 2017, @01:31PM (2 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 27 2017, @01:31PM (#472245)

    Is there any valid argument for *not* having reasonable practices

    Oh man, for a belly laugh read para 248 of the original R+O where they (the FCC) specifically and explicitly declare in writing that the R+O will NOT provide example of reasonable practices or list them or provide any hints at all. Thats CYA on their part of the highest level.

    Basically they're ordering that the industry will be subject to random fines for random reasons. Purely arbitrary punishment based on individual emotions at the time. Its shit law of the highest level and however unprofessional it was to initially write it there is light at the end of the tunnel in that they scrapped it themselves rather than accept the indignity of the court system laughing in their faces the first time they issue a NAL to a victim with resources.

    The fact that a large international megacorporation could afford a defense and small operators can't, you could assume this would only be enforced against small operators to put them out of business in preference to large corporate election campaign donors. Its just a crap corrupt R+O all around.

    I think we'd both like enforcement of reasonable practices, whatever those are... where we disagree is this R+O was garbage. I skimmed all 200 pages and read some of the juicy parts in detail, its possible you studied it more deeply than I did and I'm getting it wrong. I find it unlikely but I'm open minded enough to consider it.

    The R+O was so bad I could see it as an operation to discredit the whole topic. Security regulation doesn't have to be this bad, although this scrapped R+O will probably get used as an example for awhile of why no security regulation of any sort is possible. Sorta like some folks like to bring up the time the state of Indiana kinda tried to set the value of Pi to 3 or 3.2 or whatever as often discussed therefore that somehow proves that a federal controlled math curriculum standard is bad because one historical person having been dumb one time a century ago proves that for all eternity the general idea of politicians having a discussion about math is bad so we can't have Federal congress declaring that the average kid learns the quadratic equation in grade 7 because ... because sophistry or something, and the current system that works "so well" can continue on unimpeded.

    • (Score: 1) by moondoctor on Monday February 27 2017, @03:03PM

      by moondoctor (2963) on Monday February 27 2017, @03:03PM (#472294)

      >I think we'd both like enforcement of reasonable practices, whatever those are... where we disagree is this R+O was garbage

      Nope, I completely agree! On both counts.

      Thanks for that peek inside, it's really interesting. I had just assumed that it's drafted shitty, but hadn't realised just how bad. That's pretty impressive!

      >will NOT provide example of reasonable practices or list them or provide any hints at all

      You're right, I did actually laugh out loud pretty damn hard.

        But...

      Doesn't that mean it should be fixed? Pai's argument is that legislating 'reasonable measures' to protect people is not in the FCCs purvue.

      I disagree with this point of view. I believe that is exactly what the FCC is for. The FCC should pass reasonable legislation to force reasonable measures to protect all of us. Pai says 'fuck that we're going hands off' which strikes me as motivated by something other than duty to the citizens of the United States. In a functioning democracy that would make him unsuitable as the head of the FCC. If there is a reasonable explanation for why the FCC shouldn't protect the public I'm all ears, anyone? For real. Otherwise, it's called corruption.

      >I could see it as an operation to discredit the whole topic

      Yep...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:52PM (#472405)

      yeah but the current political party in charge has repeatedly made use of "made a mistake once" to claim the entire system involved is bogus, such as how trump doesn't trust the security agencies.

      There appears to be not a lot of trust all around.

      But whatever happens, it used to be that ISPs were not even in a position to collect this data. I would prefer that if they could not secure my data, then they do not collect it.

      If they collect it, then I am paid an insurance payout for when they are robbed, just like if a jewelry store was robbed and there was no alarms or security guards or anything. Wait insurance wouldn't pay for that, and I am not getting a payout either despite being robbed.

      Why are the ISPs permitted to collect, study and resell our usage data again? What are the consquences for their failure to protect it? Its not like I can stop generating data. I can pick another ISP, but they all do the same thing!

  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday February 27 2017, @05:50PM

    by Gaaark (41) on Monday February 27 2017, @05:50PM (#472403) Journal

    Yep! If they can't keep secure by being made to follow security and at least make an honest effort to keep data like that secure, they SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR THAT INFORMATION!!!

    You should be allowed to say NO when asked for it, and they should not be allowed to penalize you in any way (such as rescinding the offer).

    You don't want to be bothered securing data, you shouldn't be allowed to have it in any form (digital, paper, saliva DNA, condom remains, whatever!).

    Just say NO to douche-bag company's.

    Next will be they leak ALLLLLL YOUR BASE to hackers and go 'what me worry?' and you'll have no recourse against them? Might as well not deal with those ISP's and just go off the net.

    Humans are soooo stupid! This should be a no brainer, but will probably go through.... because --PROFITS!!--.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---