Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the I'll-determine-what's-sensitive dept.

ISPs that want the federal government to eliminate broadband privacy rules say that your Web browsing and app usage data should not be classified as "sensitive" information.

"Web browsing and app usage history are not 'sensitive information,'" CTIA said in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission yesterday. CTIA is the main lobbyist group representing mobile broadband providers such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA, and Sprint.

The FCC rules passed during the Obama administration require ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers before sharing sensitive customer information with advertisers and other third parties. The FCC defined Web browsing history and app usage history as sensitive information, along with other categories such as geo-location data, financial and health information, and the content of communications. If the rules are overturned, ISPs would be able to sell this kind of customer information to advertisers.

The opt-in rules are scheduled to take effect on or after December 4, 2017, but ISPs have petitioned the FCC to eliminate the rules before that happens. The latest CTIA filing was a reply to groups that opposed the petition to overturn the rules.

In making its argument that Web browsing and app usage history are not sensitive information, CTIA said that the Federal Trade Commission has taken a different stance than the FCC.

"To justify diverging from the FTC's framework and defining Web browsing history as 'sensitive,' the commission and the [privacy rule supporters] both cherry-picked evidence in an attempt to show that ISPs have unique and comprehensive access to consumers' online information," CTIA wrote. "As the full record shows, however, this is simply not true. Indeed, even a prominent privacy advocacy organization asserted that it is 'obvious that the more substantial threats for consumers are not ISPs,' but rather other large edge providers."

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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:00PM (15 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:00PM (#482123) Journal
    'That kinda changes the argument from "The evil ISPs want to wikileaks your privates" to a somewhat more realistic "The ISPs are frozen out of a wide open data market for no real obvious reason other than grandstanding politics and fake news"'

    I don't think that's completely accurate. It's one thing for a credit agency to use freely available information to compile a credit report and sell it - it's quite another for an ISP to spy on their customers in order to generate saleable information. Not that I'm against stronger privacy laws that affect all these companies and not just ISPs.

    'Or they'll just ban traffic they can't monetize, perhaps.'

    All my traffic has already been monetized, that's called I paid the bill.

    An honest politician is said to be one that stays bought. Why should we not demand honest ISPs?

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:08PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:08PM (#482170)

    Today we find out who the shills are!! Hooray! DannyB and VLM!!! Go fuck yourselves for trying to nomaluze this shitstorm. Privacy violations are wrong, and just because quite a few companies deal in user data doesn't make it alright for anyone anywhere to do. We need more laws to protect privacy, then there will be incentive to protect user's connections.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:36PM (4 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:36PM (#482191) Journal

      You got it! The privacy problem is much bigger than ISPs collecting, let alone "sharing" your data. ("Sharing" is so wrong of a word to use for that.)

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 21 2017, @07:23PM (3 children)

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @07:23PM (#482329) Journal

        Well, definitions are a key facet of this story. They're trying to define the meaning of "sensitive data" in a way they find more convenient for themselves.

        When they spread your info around, that's called "sharing". When you spread art around, that's called "piracy".

        We call neighbors who try to pry into others' private business "nosy Parkers", and the ones who spread rumors around (often the same people) are "neighborhood gossips". At least they don't do it for the money.

        Seems most of capitalism is driven by marketing tactics of which redefinition is one of their chief weapons. Redefine something that isn't a problem to make it sound like it is, then sell expensive solutions. Bonus points if you can get lawmakers to outlaw the "problem". I figure that's the major issue with getting copyright and patent law repealed and replaced. If redefinition isn't enough, they can always fall back on the old double standard, you know, laws are only for little people.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 21 2017, @08:30PM (2 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 21 2017, @08:30PM (#482375) Journal

          Getting lawmakers to outlaw a problem costs money, and removes the market for the expensive solution to the problem. Seems more profitable to get lawmakers to mandate problems rather than outlaw them.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 21 2017, @08:39PM (1 child)

            by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @08:39PM (#482382) Journal

            I was thinking of the law being used to force people to buy "solutions", not get rid of the problem. Not buying a solution is not only unAmerican and a drag on the economy, it's illegal.

            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 21 2017, @09:05PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 21 2017, @09:05PM (#482393) Journal

              It really sounds like we're thinking the same way. The problem must exist. An expensive solution must exist. The problem must not be outlawed. Rather the problem must be mandated. Even the solution must be mandated -- for a price.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:47PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:47PM (#482201)

      I wouldn't call VLM a shill. That makes us actual shills look bad. ;)

      He's just had his head increasingly up the alt-right's ass since last summer. I'll at least give him a nod for popularizing alt-right viewpoints here before "alt-right" was a lamestream buzzword (before it was detached from any actual positions within the movement and just simply another insult to hurl). So I guess he would be an alt-hipster, then.

      You can pinpoint when the alt-right started really gaining traction as an insult instead of a semi-cohesive movement when alt-righters began replying to comments mentioning the alt-right with, "There is no such thing as the alt-right!"

      Maybe there is no such thing, and it's just the Republican Party gone full retard. I could accept that. 20 years ago I liked the Republican Party. :(

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:38PM (#482231)

        Normalizing the normalizers by normalizing against the normalizer. My head is spinning!

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:06PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:06PM (#482243)

      trying to nomaluze this shitstorm. Privacy violations are wrong

      I think the best analogy to trying to discuss privacy issues on SN is its like reading "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" literature.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy [wikipedia.org]

      Realist: "So in light of Atlanta having been burned, I suggest we upgrade the buried infrastructure and realign the new street grid with "

      Drunken Col Saunders interjects: "Damn those Yankees damn them all to hell the South will Rise Again!"

      Realist: "OK nice I agree, but as I was saying WRT the rebuilding plan, realign the street grid with the main east-west travel corridor and"

      Drunken Col Saunders drunkenly bellows: "The yankees was wrong to tell us how to live our lives on our land!"

      Realist: "Goddamnit Col Saunders go home and sleep it off, like it or not the fights over and we lost and Atlanta was burned and the ashes are cold and its time to talk about what is, and what we should do, the time for saying burning Atlanta would be immoral is over and frankly my dear I don't give a damn"

      Drunken Col Saunders: "grumble heard what you said grumble damn yankees grumble"

      Drunken Col Saunders gets his footing again and blasts out one last roar: "Damn those yankees to hell the South will Rise Again!"

      Realist throws his hands up in the air: "I give up, what do we do with these dinosaurs other than wait for extinction? Free mint juleps until they pass out?"

      There's just no point in discussing how to move forward in 2017 if the only discussion we'll get is "gosh I hope when 2001 arrives we don't do anything dumb" especially when we know we did in fact do something dumb 16 years ago and the whole point is it would be nice to move on. So from a position of 2017 the logical next step is ...

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 21 2017, @06:04PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @06:04PM (#482280) Journal

      It's the magic R.

      If this was happening under Obama you'd actually be able to hear the shrieking through the screen.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by shipofgold on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:41PM (2 children)

    by shipofgold (4696) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:41PM (#482195)

    It's one thing for a credit agency to use freely available information to compile a credit report and sell it

    What kind of information in my credit report is freely available????

    The only thing that might be public is the amount of my mortgage, but even my payment history should be private.

    If anything my banks are selling all my private information to the credit agencies in the same fashion that the ISPs want to sell information to others.

    Are my banks spying on me by monitoring my credit card usage?

    • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday March 21 2017, @07:46PM

      by Kromagv0 (1825) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @07:46PM (#482348) Homepage

      If I as an individual compiled as much information on you as a credit reporting agency had I would likely be behind bars for stalking. Those reporting agencies glean as much info as they can from as many public data sets as they can get their hands on. Property tax records, DMV records, court records, shit they buy from other database operators, shit that banks, businesses and other give them, etc. Personally I have wondered if it is possible to get a restraining order against them like one could for a regular stalker and force them to remove any and all records they have on me. I believe we have cyber stalking laws.

      --
      T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
    • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday March 21 2017, @08:14PM

      by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @08:14PM (#482365) Journal

      I think that you are confusing "free as in beer" with something else.

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday March 21 2017, @07:39PM (1 child)

    by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @07:39PM (#482343) Journal

    I want to read what you have to say, but "I GETS HEADACHE!!!"

    I'll have the font, font, eggs and font, and there's not too much font in it.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @07:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @07:49PM (#482350)

      Sounds like an issue with your browser settings.