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: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:29PM
The difference is in the cost involved to obtain this information.
In 1972, if the FBI wanted to know about what magazines you read, what kind of house you have, and who you go home from the bar with, they would have to assign a field agent to sift your trash, research at the county records office, and tail you. Not only is this extremely costly, but it also likely tips you and a whole bunch of other people off that they're up to something.
In 2012, when the FBI wanted to know all those things, they could assign a desk jockey in South Dakota a 30 minute research project and he could compile a report, but even that wasn't good enough for them - they've also put together data trawling programs where they can aggregate millions of these types of profiles and then sort them for common associations, characteristics, and red flags, without even bothering a desk jockey on a per-investigated subject basis.
When it cost the government a man-month of effort to even begin to collect information on a suspect, they usually didn't invest the resources without taking the time to get a warrant and having a very good reason for the investment. Now, it costs less than a man-second of effort to include you in the info-trawl, and they can mistakenly associate you with illegal activities - initiate lines of questioning with your employer that can lead to your termination without cause, and generally make your life hell through no fault of your own. That's not even starting to scratch the surface of building Hooverish portfolios of dirty secrets on people, things the Feds have no right to know - but once they know them, they can use them to their advantage..
🌻🌻 [google.com]