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: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:08PM (9 children)
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)
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.)
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 21 2017, @07:23PM (3 children)
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)
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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 21 2017, @08:39PM (1 child)
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
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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:47PM (1 child)
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
Normalizing the normalizers by normalizing against the normalizer. My head is spinning!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:06PM
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
It's the magic R.
If this was happening under Obama you'd actually be able to hear the shrieking through the screen.