from the are-you-getting-what-you-voted-for-yet? dept.
The Inquirer reports
Donald Trump has signed the bill that will allow ISPs to share or sell customers' browsing history for advertising purposes.
Last week, the Republican House of Representatives passed a resolution which overturns a rule laid down by the FCC during the Obama administration that meant that users had to give their permission before such data was used by third-parties and any breach would be reported as a hack.
President Trump signed the bill on Monday [April 4], which means while many ISPs say they will not sell respect[sic] customers privacy and won't flag their browsing history and other personal data, they can now do so under the new rules. Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast will no longer be obligated to obtain consent before selling and sharing data, and they don't have to notify customers about what kind of data they collect.
[...] There's one winner of this privacy-destroying bill, though, and that's VPN providers.
NordVPN said it has already seen an 86 per cent spike in [inquiries].
Common Cause published, via Common Dreams, a comment from Statement of Michael Copps, former FCC Commissioner & Common Cause Special Adviser:
Despite a campaign filled with rhetoric about the plight of forgotten Americans, Trump has once again come down on the side of corporate profiteering at the expense of Americans who don't sit on corporate boards and can't afford a $200,000 membership at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach. Trump has flip-flipped on his own campaign promises and handed over Americans' right to privacy to those with the deepest pockets.
Previous: Senate Votes Against FCC Internet Privacy Rules
Related Stories
The Senate just voted to undo landmark rules covering your Internet privacy
U.S. senators voted 50 to 48 to approve a joint resolution from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules from going into effect. The resolution also would bar the FCC from ever enacting similar consumer protections. It now heads to the House.
takyon: Also at NPR, The Hill, Reuters, Ars Technica, and EFF.
John M. Donnelly, a senior writer at CQ Roll Call, said he was trying to talk with FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly one-on-one after a news conference when two plainclothes guards pinned him against a wall with the backs of their bodies.
“Not only did they get in between me and O’Rielly but they put their shoulders together and simultaneously backed me up into the wall and pinned me to the wall for about 10 seconds just as I started to say, “Commissioner O’Rielly, I have a question,” Donnelly said Friday.
Donnelly said he was stopped long enough to allow O’Rielly to walk away.
Donnelly, who also happens to be chair of the National Press Club Press Freedom team, said he was then forced out of the building after being asked why he had not posed his question during the news conference.
O'Rielly apologized to Donnelly on Twitter, saying he didn't recognize Donnelly in the hallway. "I saw security put themselves between you, me and my staff. I didn't see anyone put a hand on you. I'm sorry this occurred."
According to the publication for which the reporter works (archived copy),
Senators, including Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley, are warning the Federal Communications Commission about its treatment of reporters after a CQ Roll Call reporter was manhandled Thursday.
“The Federal Communications Commission needs to take a hard look at why this happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again. As The Washington Post pointed out, it’s standard operating procedure for reporters to ask questions of public officials after meetings and news conferences,” the Iowa Republican said. “It happens all day, every day. There’s no good reason to put hands on a reporter who’s doing his or her job.”
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:14PM (6 children)
and his big biz friends, the common person be damned.
That said, I'd rather him than HRC. Mostly because I think he'll be forced out of office RSN, where HRC would have probably lasted her first term.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:23PM (3 children)
I know we're in the age of Trump, but that just seems like such an off the wall prediction. Impeachment just isn't likely.
But things are strange. [vice.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:47PM (1 child)
Impeachment would cause a President Pence, who is pretty scary too...
It's actually quite scary in itself, that the least scary of the Republican VP/running-mates since the start of the century ... is Obamacare-botched-replacement-tax-hacking Paul Ryan.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday April 07 2017, @05:15PM
It's actually quite scary in itself, that the least scary of the Republican VP/running-mates since the start of the century ... is Obamacare-botched-replacement-tax-hacking Paul Ryan.
The joke around DC is that presidential running mates are selected for being good "assassination insurance". Didn't seem to work so well for Reagan. [wikipedia.org]
Since his VP [wikipedia.org] went on to get elected later I'm going to assume Reagan just picked poorly.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:47AM
There's another way to get him.
It's called Quo Warranto.
A state attorney general can pursue a case.
Trump can be held accountable for violating the Constitution, even if Congress doesn’t care [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [thinkprogress.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:42PM
> think he'll be forced out of office RSN, where HRC would have probably lasted her first term.
And then what?
Infected by weaponized hate for clinton you haven't really thought about what comes next.
It isn't like Pence is a man of the people either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:54PM
Forced out? Pence is also a corporate shill.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:18PM (8 children)
We deserve the government we get. We get what we deserve.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:34PM (3 children)
Pretty sure you got what about half of you voted for. It'd be an even weirder system your way.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:47PM (2 children)
More like slightly less than half of everyone who voted.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Friday April 07 2017, @01:28AM
Technically slightly less than half of everyone who voted.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday April 07 2017, @04:38PM
It's not more like that than what i said; I didn't think the deficiencies of that particular system were worth dragging out again.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:40AM
That's trite.
What exactly does it mean to "deserve" something?
And who is this "we" you are talking about?
Does the premature baby born to a woman thrown off medicaid 'deserve' to die from lack of medical treatment?
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday April 07 2017, @03:50AM (1 child)
We deserve the government we get. We get what we deserve.
"Deserve" not by being overtly evil, but by not caring enough to actually go out and vote.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:54AM
Voting is the bare minimum to feel good about yourself for your civic participation.
People who merely vote don't even get to choose who is on the ballet. Voting in elections really doesn't man jack.
Good governance requires a shit ton more work from an engaged citizenry than merely voting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @10:02AM
George Minafer, is that you?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:26PM (16 children)
So we get two bogus articles in a row. This one quoting two different proggie outlets pushing the same #FakeNews narrative. This bill does nothing other than correct the Obama FCC's overreach into regulating beyond it's mandate. Privacy regulation is the job of the Federal Trade Commission and this bill is the first step is restoring that. But we get zero mention of that and perspective, again I note, TWO proggie bullcrap alarmist rants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:38PM (14 children)
Yeah, also the bill does not compromise privacy as it's aggregate data. ISP's were already allowed to sell subscriber data (and none did), this bill removes user consent. Any ISP caught selling subscriber data should be boycotted -- take your business elsewhere, exactly as the free market demands!
(Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:45PM (1 child)
Agreed that this is widely mis-characterized; so much so that it is difficult to decide whether the critics are stupid, or just using it as ammunition in their general attacks.
Nonetheless, just look at the optics of it. The establishment has to know what this action makes them look like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:54PM
Its revealing of your own grasp of the situation that you replied to a sarcastic post by taking it at face value.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:47PM (6 children)
take your business elsewhere, exactly as the free market demands!
Bwahhaahaa...Do you actually LIVE in the US? ISPs have monopolies here and the Free Market™ is a con job of the first degree.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:59PM (5 children)
Yup. We should be uniting in an effort to fix that actual problem. Pretty much every single time you encounter a monopoly you can find the dead hand of government somewhere in the background. The last mile is a 'natural monopoly' and we probably have to accept that. But there ARE market based solutions. Break up the telcos and cable companies one final time. One half would be a government regulated utility, i.e. a monopoly, and would own the last mile and most of the physical plant that lights it up but would be forbidden from putting actual service on the wires. These would trade publicly as boring dividend paying utility stocks. The other half of the existing carriers plus as many new entrants as the market could support would pay regulated rates to gain access to those wires and sell whatever services they could make a profit on. Dial tone, video, data, etc. under whatever rates, bandwidth caps, privacy promises, etc. the market could support since it would be all but unregulated.
We could live in that world, or stay in the one where we keep bitching about the monopolies like Comcast, Verizon, ATT,, etc screwing everybody and nothing happens because of regulatory capture.
(Score: 2) by FunkyLich on Friday April 07 2017, @12:33AM
For those who are able to do it, it will become more and more attractive the use of self built vpn-s. Getting a VPS like the ones offered here, https://www.time4vps.eu/pricing/ [time4vps.eu] and then setting up openvpn in it is not really very complicated and they are hosted outside of US territory, in Lithuania in this case. One can share the monthly cost of it with family members or friends or whomever they like who cares enough for issues like this, a cost which after all is comparable to a couple of extra drinks every month.
I am not affiliated at all with the company shown above, but I used them a few years ago for simple personal use. It only as an example that I brought it here and I am sure one can find similar offerings elsewhere and everywhere. I believe that money shout go to who really deserves and for matters like this I think modest companies like that deserve it more than amazon, google or microsoft and their swollen shiny clouds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:43AM (3 children)
Pretty much every single time you encounter a monopoly you can find the dead hand of government somewhere in the background.
...
Break up the telcos and cable companies one final time.
And how, exactly, would we go about breaking up these private companies?
It wouldn't happen to require a certain dead hand, would it?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday April 07 2017, @03:38AM (2 children)
They aren't entirely "private companies" if they are government granted monopolies, right? How else do we justify the extensive regulation and oversight we put them under? What I propose is to reduce the government monopoly grant to the absolute smallest entity in control of only the section of the network where a natural monopoly is unavoidable. The rest of the telcos, once broken up, would then be free of pretty much all regulation outside of normal corporate regulation (reporting, insider trading, privacy laws that apply to any corporation with customer data, etc) and free to compete, merge, etc. as they please.
If it makes you happy it wouldn't even be required to force the breakup. Just announce that owners of wires are now utilities with horribly strict regulation and then add the regs to mandate sale of access on non-discriminatory conditions with those horribly strict regulators setting the conditions. They would get the idea to divest the wires from the service on their own almost instantly as a move to 'increase shareholder value.' Who can complain? That is the game with government granted monopolies, the government calls the tune and you dance to it, unless you can achieve regulatory capture of course, which is why Congress would have to force the rule change; they currently control most State utility boards / commissions and have outsize influence with the FCC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:50AM
> They aren't entirely "private companies" if they are government granted monopolies, right
They are not government granted monopolies.
The 1992 Cable Act [niu.edu]made it illegal for municipalities to grant exclusive franchises or even to enable de-facto exclusive franchises by unreasonably with-holding franchise agreements from any company that meets the established requirements.
The reason they are heavily regulated is because they are natural monopolies and since most people don't have their heads buried in the sand they are able to recognize that even natural monopolies are a danger.
> Just announce that owners of wires are now utilities with horribly strict regulation
And would that announcement be typed by a dead hand?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday April 07 2017, @09:19AM
We even have a legal reason for implementing your plan as the major telecos under Slick Willie took 200 billion from the American People for a national network upgrade [wordpress.com] and promptly stuck it in their pockets, giving us nothing for all that money but a low res Goatse.
So you plan could be implemented tomorrow, simply declare the telecos that took the money without fulfilling the contract in default and if they do not pay back every cent with 5% interest from the time they cashed the check? We confiscate the last mile to pay back their debt. We can even tell them that if they want a monopoly? For every home that is not currently being served by at least 100mbps down they run FTTH to they will get a 10 year monopoly on that address. this way they can have a monopoly, all they have to do is actually upgrade the infrastructure as they were paid to do in 1996.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:57PM
"compromise privacy as it's aggregate data"
Right... it's impossible to deanonymize anybody using aggregate data. Sure thing..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 07 2017, @01:22AM (1 child)
"take your business elsewhere"
It must be nice to live somewhere that you can choose between thirty, forty, maybe fifty ISP's.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @07:58AM
He means pick another government.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Friday April 07 2017, @01:51AM
If none of the ISPs were selling the data then why would they care about getting this overturned?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:16AM
Ask the typical joe on the street what he'd say if his ISP came up to him and asked for his consent to sell his browsing history for their own profit at his expense.
Somehow I think you'd always hear a "hell no" as a response. Thus user consent was actually an important point. ISPs likely never sold their user's data simply because nobody would give them permission to do so. That's now out of the way so get ready to be sold.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 07 2017, @12:27AM
You're repeating thoroughly discredited talking points and mindless insults.
But......you are correct that this is a pretty terrible source article.
The first sentence of the title article starts: "ORANGE MAN AND SOMEHOW PRESIDENT Donald Trump..."
I agree, but damn, let's save the flamebait for the comments!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:33PM (5 children)
Eh, not everything, was pretty disappointed by his attacks on Planned Parenthood (as if we need more illigitimate minority welfare-babies in this country) though he is doing a pretty good job at deporting the Beaners and Muzzies and shaking his stick at H1-B abusers. Hopefully this will have the effect of more and more people moving towards VPNs and ToR and whatnot, or for the invisible hand of the free-market to guide those with a choice toward the benevolent choices who do not share/sell data without a warrant.
Well, let's hope that the movement to exploit ISPs' greed and unmasking and publicising prominent individuals' browser histories will cause them to change their tune. Getting fooled or clickjacked to stormfront or bestiality.com even in error could cause some very interesting situations. Even if you can't get the congressmen, you can get the local cops and judges.
Of course, this would be a great opportunity (hint, hint) for the ISPs to earn some pop culture cred and quit selling data just to stick it Trump, and let everybody else know that they are doing so. Win-win.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 07 2017, @01:29AM (4 children)
"attacks on Planned Parenthood"
Do you mean the Title X funding? A different perspective, maybe? Obama TOOK those Title X funds from our county health clinic, and GAVE them to PP. Then he issued an edict, saying that the state couldn't take those funds back from PP, and give them back to the county health offices.
Here, locally, where I live, there is a county health office within about 25 miles of every non-wealthy person who has female reproductive health concerns. Planned Parenthood? The nearest one is more than 100 miles away. It's almost like maybe the state-run health clinics are better positioned to use those Title X funds than PP is. Better that those services be available to my neighbors, than they go into PP's coffers, along with all their abortion profits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:46AM
You are delusional.
Probably got prions from eating too many dead babies.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday April 07 2017, @09:10AM (2 children)
What amazes me is how everyone on the left still sings the praises of Planned Parenthood when they have never disavowed their founder, even give an award in her name, when she was racist as fuck. Oh yeah and was hardcore into Eugenics, you know, the thing the Nazis were into? Yeah and she thought "mongrels" like Blacks, Latinos, Asians, basically non whites, shouldn't be able to breed. But don't take my word for her racist beliefs, take hers. Here is what she thought about blacks...
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger December 10, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Eugenics Society.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 07 2017, @12:07PM (1 child)
Oh, but AC says that we are delusional. Maybe you and I should drink the Kool-Aid that the progressives are sharing.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday April 07 2017, @07:11PM
Sorry but reality and regressive beliefs are two completely different things which is why we are seeing a hard right shift happening pretty much planet wide. People are being tired of being told "who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" and thanks to Wikileaks we now know that a huge percentage of the MSM is nothing but corporate sponsored agitprop so their bullshit? Yeah its just not gonna fly anymore.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @12:55AM
Start poisoning the well.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Friday April 07 2017, @01:12PM (2 children)
Every time ISP insecurity or lack of privacy is mentioned, there's the suggestion that a VPN is the answer. But I've never understood why.
Isn't that just shifting the problem? Your traffic has to come out onto the public Internet somewhere, and that organisation can see and log all your metadata (and any data sent in the clear). That's true whether it's a traditional ISP or a VPN provider. What reason is there to trust the latter any more than the former?
[sig redacted]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:03PM
Unlike your monopolistic ISP, at least you can choose (and switch) your VPN provider. You could even muddy the waters further by using multiple VPN providers, if you're in the sweet spot of paranoid-but-not-enough-to-use-TOR.
You can also use a VPN from a different country. I'd rather my data is sweeped up by Bulgaria than by the US, and that applies both to government agencies and private companies.
I do agree it's not a good solution, but it's at least something.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FunkyLich on Friday April 07 2017, @07:28PM
It definitely is shifting the problem. But there is the option of choosing which entity has more conflicting interests with you.
While there is no reason at all to trust the vpn provider vs. the isp, the level of potential harm from misuse of your metadata is not the same.
It is similar to the level of your worry if someone saw you naked while showering. It would be different if the watcher was your neighbour next door where you live, vs. some random passer-by while you are in holidays in a hotel at the other side of the planet.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 08 2017, @12:03AM
Great, now everyone that has a privacy inclination will switch to VPN, TOR etc because there's a proven distrust. And any repeal won't get it back.
If a politician aim and fires himself in the foot. The internet will take upon itself to deliver the pain with a good guarantee.