The FCC has proposed rules that would protect the privacy of broadband subscribers, although they are less ambitious than originally envisioned, following complaints from telecoms:
A privacy proposal unveiled Thursday will require broadband providers such as Verizon and Comcast to get your permission before sharing with advertisers your phone or computer data. [...] The revised proposal, which will be put to an FCC vote on Oct. 27, says broadband providers do not have to get permission from customers to use "non-sensitive" information, such as names and addresses.
Also at The Wall Street Journal .
The Hill reports that the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] chairman authorized staffers to leak information before a vote on the expansion of the Lifeline subsidy program:
But the investigation by the agency's inspector general turned up "no evidence that the information was provided to the press in an attempt to unduly influence the outcome of the vote" and found Chairman Tom Wheeler had acted within his legal authority.
[...] Republican commissioners reached a deal with Democrat Mignon Clyburn before the committee's March open meeting that would have capped the program's budget. But the meeting was delayed multiple times as details of the deal leaked to the press. Clyburn ultimately voted for a version of the item without a cap, as proposed by Chairman Tom Wheeler. Critics have focused on a Politico report that included leaked details on the compromise and the proposed $2 billion budget cap. Later reports echo these details. They allege that the details may have been leaked to increase pressure on Clyburn, since many groups and lawmakers opposed the cap. Critics, on the other hand, say the Lifeline program is an example of a government program run amuck.
"The events surrounding the March 31st Commission vote adopting the Lifeline Order, while not unprecedented in their entirety, were certainly unusual," an investigator said in a memo released by the Republican majority of the Senate Commerce Committee. "Typically, commissioners do not engage in negotiations resulting in significant policy shifts in the final hours prior to a Commission vote." "Thus, while such activity is not improper or illegal, the rarity of the occurrence explains in large measure the interest, speculation and concern the matter has generated."
Related Stories
Techraptor is reporting on the adoption of these rules:
The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) has adopted new rules which broadband providers must adhere to regarding the privacy of customer data. The FCC has published a press release as well as a fact sheet which explain some of the details of the new rules. The FCC claims authority in this area based on the Communications Act, which requires telecommunications companies to protect the privacy of their customers. The FCC has already implemented rules governing privacy for telephone companies and is now applying the same standard to broadband providers.
The FCC has implemented rules requiring notifications of how ISPs handle customer data. ISPs must tell customers what types of data are collected, the purpose of any data sharing that takes place, and what types of entities the data is shared with. Customers must be informed of the data sharing policy when they sign up for the service, and receive notifications any time the policy is updated. Additionally, the rules require that the policy is “persistently” available either on a website or a mobile app.
The rules distinguish between sensitive data and non-sensitive data. Some of the examples given for sensitive data include precise geolocation data, financial information, social security numbers, browsing history, and the content of communications. Such information can only be shared with third-parties on an opt-in basis and customers must explicitly consent to the sharing. Data like email addresses are considered non-sensitive and can be shared by default, with the opportunity for customers to opt-out. The FCC allows exemptions to the consent requirements for some purposes. For example if sharing data is necessary to provide the broadband service, to bill the customer, or to protect an ISP from fraudulent use of its network.
More information can be gleaned from TFA, and unsurprisingly, the vote and approval of these rules has been widely reported, with coverage from USA Today, Consumer Reports and The Washington Post, among others.
Do these privacy rules go too far, not far enough or are they just about right?
Is this a boon for the privacy minded or just another blatant example of government overreach? Is it both at the same time?
Related coverage:
After Setback, FCC Chairman Keeps Pushing Set-Top Box and Privacy Rules
FCC Waters Down Internet Privacy Proposal
Comcast Wants to Charge for Privacy
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday October 08 2016, @11:46AM
Niggers.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday October 08 2016, @12:01PM
Dude, I know you can do better than that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday October 08 2016, @12:04PM
"non-sensitive" information, such as names and addresses...
Given the wording "such as, I'd love to know what else is considered "non-sensitive". But my Google-fu is weak today, and I could not find the actual FCC proposal. Anyone have better luck?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 08 2016, @01:10PM
The Washington Post article [washingtonpost.com] gives slightly more detail:
The fact sheet linked in TFS [fcc.gov] provides much more detail.
HTHAL
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08 2016, @01:34PM
And slowly, but gradually, we erode what is 'sensitive data'. It's death by a thousand cuts.
Soon enough, dick/vag picks will no longer be sensitive data.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08 2016, @06:42PM
i wonder how they would feel about the sensitivity of their address if people started going to their house to "talk" to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09 2016, @05:47AM
You won't get past the gates on their communities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09 2016, @06:33AM
"Can't we just drone this guy?"
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday October 08 2016, @01:58PM
Careful, or this "privacy" bill will give the Copyright Alert System a longer arm. Wouldn't take much more info for them to link an IP address to a name and phone number. If I had a choice I'd use an ISP that is not part of (C)AS.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08 2016, @06:46PM
i don't want the feds to tell ISPs what to do but we have to smash the monopolies and then make it so they can't borg again. If i had 10 ISPs to choose from none of this shit would matter.