SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:58PM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:47PM (3 children)
So you would be cool with
You're confusing the question. I'm talking about whats already been done and now we (well, big brother) decides who profits off the decision already made. You're talking about if the original action was right or wrong which is too little too late. I don't even disagree with you, I just find it pointless or distracting to be stuck in the past.
selling your browsing history to a company that compiles it and makes it available to employers HR departments
Already done called LinkedIN and Facebook and twitter. Normies call those three sites "the internet" comically. Nobody cares about SN traffic.
Or your spouse's divorce lawyer?
You almost seem to be implying that discovery of electronic records in a divorce is not possible or unheard of? It comes up in corporate e-discovery too, not just divorce. Also criminal not just civil law.
The police?
Dude, seriously... they already have all that. Look up this guy named "Snowden" and "National Security Letters" and things like that. Are you trying to argue they don't LOL or they shouldn't which I kinda agree with but doesn't matter because they do have it today. You can split some hairs about definition of Police such that the parking ticket officer doesn't know which posts I read on 4chan /DIY/ last night, as if they would under the new ISP regs anyway, but some FBI/NSA guy certainly can if he wants.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)
So, when I go to interview a potential new hire, I do a quick search on Google and LinkedIn to see what they intend to share with the world. I've found stuff like a guy who submitted a resume with certain skills on it, basically bragging on his LinkedIn feed that "he's got a guy who does that stuff for him." We weren't looking to hire for sub-contracting. So, no hire.
What I don't do is ask candidates to unlock their cellphones and share their browsing history, social streams marked "private," or other things that are not readily findable by anyone with access to a search engine. Some people do "overshare," but many do not, and that's O.K. - having an extensive public internet profile isn't a requirement for employment with me - but, if you do have one, it will be reviewed.
Oh, funnier story still, candidate included link to his personal website on his resume, I pull it up and right on the front page is a link to his MkUltra experiences blog - where he tells how the secret government program has been tormenting him and anyone he has been associated with for the last 20 years. Nothing in the quite extensive blog in any way indicates that the information is fictional, satire, or anything but his personal account of events. So, we are left with 2 paths forward from this point: A) candidate is a delusional kook, not a good fit for rational daily interactions, or B) he's perfectly lucid and accurate in his accounts, in which case you would be an idiot to get anywhere close to him. Why do you put a link like this on a resume attached to a job application?
The proposal by the ISPs is to expose information that people consider private, stuff that you don't find through ordinary channels (e.g. I don't think I've ever used the "Wayback Machine" for candidate research) - I consider this over the line. The ISPs are in a somewhat sensitive spot, like the phone company who we would wish is requiring warrants before allowing law enforcement to tap our lines, I don't recall ever proposing that AT&T could run Eschelon style voice recognition on our private phone calls so they might share our interests with advertisers? Why would we start now?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 21 2017, @06:02PM
Nothing in the quite extensive blog in any way indicates that the information is fictional, satire, or anything but his personal account of events.
LOL note to self, make sure my DnD/Pathfinder logs and "my great plot ideas for a hard sci fi or alt-hist novel" are very carefully marked as such.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday March 21 2017, @11:07PM