SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The broadband industry is suing Maine to stop a Web-browsing privacy law similar to the one killed by Congress and President Donald Trump in 2017. Industry groups claim the state law violates First Amendment protections on free speech and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
[...] Customer data protected by this law includes Web-browsing history, application-usage history, precise geolocation data, the content of customers' communications, IP addresses, device identifiers, financial and health information, and personal details used for billing.
[...] The state law "imposes unprecedented and unduly burdensome restrictions on ISPs', and only ISPs', protected speech," while imposing no requirements on other companies that deliver services over the Internet, the groups wrote in their lawsuit. The plaintiffs are America's Communications Association, CTIA, NCTA, and USTelecom.
[...] The lawsuit is part of a larger battle between ISPs and states that are trying to impose regulations stronger than those enforced by the federal government. One factor potentially working against the ISPs is that the Federal Communications Commission's attempt to preempt all current and future state net neutrality laws was blocked by a federal appeals court ruling in October 2019.
[...] But while the FCC was allowed to eliminate its own net neutrality rules, judges said the commission "lacked the legal authority to categorically abolish all 50 States' statutorily conferred authority to regulate intrastate communications."
Previous Story:
Maine Governor Signs Strictest Internet Protections in the U.S.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Wednesday February 19 2020, @10:24AM (4 children)
Not being a US person, it took me a while to realise that the US "Bill of Rights" is basically about protecting pre-Union institutions such as local governments, businesses and religions from the Federal government, and that any protection of individual rights is a happy side-effect.
I think it was visiting the US and seeing TV adverts reminding me of my right to see TV adverts (and, presumably, my right to pay for them indirectly every time I purchased food or something - although they skipped that bit) that did it...
Elsewhere, "human rights" legislation - does at least seem to be well-intentioned (YMMV on whether it is a good thing).
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:36PM (3 children)
Eh, more like a mixture. How exactly do the 3rd, 4th, and 8th relate to jurisdiction?
The Bill of Rights was specifically added to give people more rights (declare that they already had more rights? you know what I mean), when some of the representatives thought the original Constitution didn't do that enough.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @11:01PM
Provide additional limitations on the federal government that some people felt were known to be always true while others wanted them be to specifically listed because "I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further" eventually nearly always happens everywhere there's a long term power imbalance. The 1st group also thought specifically listing a few things would imply everything not listed wasn't important.
Sadly both groups eventually had their worst fears come true. At least it took awhile and they all died first.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday February 20 2020, @12:08PM (1 child)
Well, #3 - apart from only being there for historical reasons - is clearly relevant to maintaining the sovereignty of states, #4 takes on a new meaning as soon as you start treating institutions and corporations as "people" and #8 is frankly moot in the country that gave the world bail bonds and a method of execution designed to demonise direct current electricity*.
(* I'm sure those are not strictly true but, hey, rhetorical license...)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 20 2020, @03:39PM
How is this "clear"? It says nothing about federal, state, or local powers putting the troops there. "Consent of the owner" makes this one of the most narrowly-targeted things in the entire list.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"