Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:10AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the Captialistic-Voyeurism dept.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/isps-sue-maine-claim-web-privacy-law-violates-their-free-speech-rights/:

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.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Maine Governor Signs Strictest Internet Protections in the U.S. 7 comments

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Maine Governor Signs Strictest Internet Protections in the U.S.

Maine Internet service providers will face the strictest consumer privacy protections in the nation under a bill signed Thursday by Gov. Janet Mills, but the new law will almost certainly be challenged in court.

Several technology and communication trade groups warned in testimony before the Legislature that the measure may be in conflict with federal law and would likely be the subject of legal action.

The new law, which goes into effect on July 1, 2020, would require providers to ask for permission before they sell or share any of their customers’ data to a third party. The law would also apply to telecommunications companies that provide access to the Internet via their cellular networks.

[...]State Sen. Shenna Bellows, D-Manchester, the sponsor of the new law, said Maine was taking a leading role when it came to protecting online consumer privacy.

“Mainers need to be able to trust that the private data they send online won’t be sold or shared without their knowledge,” Bellows said. “This law makes Maine first and best in the nation in protecting consumer privacy online.”

[...]Opponents to the law, including several coalitions of the nation’s leading telecommunication and technology sector companies, have argued it is in conflict with the FCCs rules and could also be a violation of U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause, which prohibits any one state from regulating industries that do business across state lines.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:29AM (25 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:29AM (#959772) Journal

    Just open up the market to real competition, including municipal, and other community service, even federal, and the problem is solved

    --
    Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:41AM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:41AM (#959777) Journal

      Negotiating with one entity, the FCC, to beam your waves from space (Starlink) could be the superior option. No arguing with state legislatures [arstechnica.com] and competitors [arstechnica.com] about utility poles and other junk.

      Locally, people can focus on the mythical meshnets instead.

      As for this law, you would hope that competition alone could fix the problem, but if there is real value in the data collection, the most data-hungry ISPs could offer cheaper service than privacy-respecting ISPs. To the point where the latter can't remain in the market.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 19 2020, @04:06AM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @04:06AM (#959783) Journal

        At least there would be the choice to sell their data for cheaper service. And putting municipal into the market definitely helps, we can use the constitution on them. Public oversight is as effective as the public wants it to be.

        --
        Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by RamiK on Wednesday February 19 2020, @04:46AM (18 children)

      by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @04:46AM (#959792)

      Running infrastructure turns into a natural monopoly sooner or later so there's no free market solution to utilities and telecom.

      --
      compiling...
      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:02AM (15 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:02AM (#959795) Journal

        The pipe has to be federal like the interstate and there has to be rural internet projects like they did for lights and phone service. Of course it has to be regulated like any other public utility, with no meddling or prioritizing of content. The ISP, or anybody else that wants to, can sublet the bandwidth they rent off the pipe. The market will be wide open to anybody with a hookup.

        --
        Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:56AM (14 children)

          by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:56AM (#959800)

          Roads... Bridges... Water... Have you seen the state of federally owned and/or operated infrastructure? Don't misunderstand. You're absolutely right that for just about any other nation this is the correct solution. But the USG is a failed organization that's a few bloody revolutions short of being able to handle its balance sheet much less actual services and infrastructure.

          --
          compiling...
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 19 2020, @07:39AM (12 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @07:39AM (#959815) Journal

            Government merely suffers a lack of oversight. It's a voter thing. Violence is unnecessary

            --
            Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
            • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday February 19 2020, @09:18AM (11 children)

              by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @09:18AM (#959831)

              I'm not advocating a violent revolution. I'm saying it's the only way to get a functioning government right now. Personally I'm fine with letting things hit bottom naturally. It's why I'm a supporter of Trump over Hillary/Biden. Obama proved a weak left-wing president will just end up stalling and promoting corporatist polices anyhow since only those will pass an otherwise split house and congress. So you might as well just let the looniest right-winger sink the ship to justify the tax, campaign and socialist reforms that must follow.

              --
              compiling...
              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @02:36PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @02:36PM (#959860)

                Ah, yes, "'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it" approach. I can't seem to recall any instance where that was nothing more than a justification for covering up misdeeds or for justifying the failure to do the right thing.

                • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday February 19 2020, @08:25PM

                  by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @08:25PM (#959989)

                  I can't seem to recall any instance...

                  That just means it's working.

                  --
                  compiling...
              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:32PM (8 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:32PM (#959917) Journal

                I'm saying it's the only way to get a functioning government right now.

                On the contrary, you only have half the population fighting the other half. This is not a government problem. The government only reflects the people. Violence is nothing but a reset button, it doesn't replace the operating system, even its "undo" function is piss poor.

                --
                Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Wednesday February 19 2020, @08:36PM (7 children)

                  by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @08:36PM (#959994)

                  The government only reflects the people. Violence is nothing but a reset button...

                  Every single revolution and civil war begs to differ. The government reflects the economic and social dynamics. If the means of production are concentrated at the top, the government represent the top. Either by force like in fascism, or by default like contemporary USG. And the majority of the population follow along then as it is now since they can't do much about it.

                  But again, letting it all fall apart until the top start targeting each other is preferable since it tends to have less casualties at the bottom.

                  --
                  compiling...
                  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 19 2020, @09:05PM (4 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @09:05PM (#960007) Journal

                    If the means of production are concentrated at the top, the government represent the top.

                    Well, yes, as they always are. Or more correctly, owning the finances puts you on top. And without finance there will be no war, revolutionary, or any other kind. And no war has ever been financed by anybody who doesn't want their money back. So, to pay off the debt, all the old policies go back in play. It's an ant mill. The majority of people follow along because of common peer pressure.

                    And when the top starts targeting each other, we are the conscripts and the fodder. The casualties at the bottom are enormous, if World War 2 is any indication, a bankers war if there ever was one.

                    --
                    Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday February 20 2020, @11:10AM (3 children)

                      by RamiK (1813) on Thursday February 20 2020, @11:10AM (#960250)

                      And without finance there will be no war, revolutionary, or any other kind.

                      And no oversight. Voters aren't educated through donations and philanthropy. Investigative journalism isn't financed by advertisers. Revolution or reform, when the money is concentrated at the top, it WILL come from the top.

                      And when the top starts targeting each other, we are the conscripts and the fodder.

                      Again, I'm not advocating it. I'm saying it's unavoidable and the sooner things fall apart, the better it will be for the people.

                      All in all, you drag it out too long and you end up like the Soviets with no pensions or bread as a few oligarchs take over what's left for themselves leaving the country shattered for generations. And getting there you'll have everything from gulags to purges anyhow.

                      --
                      compiling...
                      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 20 2020, @08:28PM (2 children)

                        by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 20 2020, @08:28PM (#960429) Journal

                        I'm saying it's unavoidable

                        That's a very deterministic point of view. It doesn't have to be that way.

                        --
                        Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday February 21 2020, @05:43AM (1 child)

                          by RamiK (1813) on Friday February 21 2020, @05:43AM (#960607)

                          Deterministic?! If you want deterministic hire yourself a witch; I'm just your cook.

                          --
                          compiling...
                  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday February 19 2020, @10:39PM (1 child)

                    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @10:39PM (#960047)

                    Every single revolution and civil war begs to differ. The government reflects the economic and social dynamics

                    Unless the system is changed from within by informed, intelligent voters, the outcome of almost any revolution will almost certainly end up with the most violent, bloodthirsty, sociopathic personalities ending up in power.
                    People are not really different from any other animals. If you have ever had a large fish tank with cichlids you usually end up with one dominant fish keeping the rest under constant threat of reprisal if they overstep their place. Remove that top fish and the number two fish takes over. That fish ends up being way more oppressive and brutal, where the first top fish would just display and frighten it away if a lesser fish strayed, the #2 fish becomes violently aggressive, chasing the lesser fish far beyond what is necessary for dominance (if there are no hiding places it may kill or injure the weaker fish). Humans are not really all that different.

                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 20 2020, @12:37AM

                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 20 2020, @12:37AM (#960095) Journal

                      Humans are not really all that different.

                      We are precisely the same. People from middle management are assassins! All those pent up feelings for revenge boils over.

                      --
                      Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:38PM

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:38PM (#959922)

            But the USG is a failed organization that's a few bloody revolutions short of being able to handle its balance sheet much less actual services and infrastructure.

            Yeah, about that: As far as I can tell, for the last 40 or so years one of the US's major political parties has been doing its best to wreck the balance sheet, government services, and infrastructure. And then that same political party turns to the voters and says "OMG, government is broken!! We should have it do less than it used to!" And then those services and infrastructure go from publicly owned organizations controlled by people whose goal is to minimize cost while maximizing services to privately-owned corporations controlled by people whose goal is to maximize cost and minimize services.

            That this policy has extended to target what have been essential government functions for centuries like roads, prisons, postal services, and elections is just plain insanity.

            --
            The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by mobydisk on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:57PM (1 child)

        by mobydisk (5472) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:57PM (#959933)

        Your statement is correct if we assume the ISP == the telephone company. That mistake needs to be rectified: an ISP is not infrastructure. My ISP could be in Cambodia and have no local presence.

        The provider of the internet service ("ISP") and the provider of the wires ("telephone company") needs to be decoupled, like it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, I could select from multiple ISPs without having to change out my modem or get wires. What killed that was when the telecommunications act of ... 1996 I think? It weakened the separation between the two so today the telephone and cable companies bought out the ISPs or used heavy-handed tactics to drive them out of business. Now everyone's ISP is their telephone company or cable company.

        The situation is similar to how, in some states, the provider of your power is the same company that provides the power lines - while in other states there are many power providers, but a single company that runs wires.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2020, @01:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2020, @01:31PM (#960268)

          well i am not sure this is smart.
          the people putting in cables are just that "cable providers".
          to qualify as a isp you should at least own some cables. preferably more then two. so there is a network now.
          owning only "empty" cables or dark fiber doesnt qualify you as a isp.
          ofc the market is vast and all kinds of "cost effectif" structures spring from the minds of humans.
          important should just be if the fiber or cable is lit and is carrying internet traffic. if that is the case you're a isp.
          the rules should be for the wellbeing of the "entity" we refer to as "internet".
          what laws are required to protect this "entity"?
          if you want to "carry" the internet you should have to obey these laws.
          but ofc we have to figure out what exactly the "internet" is. not laws to protect companies but laws to protect the internet ... so it can grow and not be misused for profit only?
          end note: i am a bit sceptical about "infrastructure less" isps. methinks a thing like the "internet" does require some form of physical infrastructure to exist. so for me isp without "gear" are just resellers or same like any customer of a real isp ... why you would chose such a isp is beyond me.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:22PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:22PM (#959872) Journal

      I think competition completely misses the point.

      ISPs want to maximize profit. So they want to sell your personal information. Even in a competitive environment, this probably would happen, because every ISP needs to appear to be price competitive.

      "Web privacy" laws get passed. ISPs don't like this because they want to snoop on you and sell your personal information.

      So the ISPs cry "but free speech!". Since when is enforcing customer privacy a matter of free speech for the ISP?

      In a competitive environment, hypothetically, one well meaning ISP might find a business model to offer to NOT sell your personal information in exchange for higher prices. But I am skeptical. Such an approach would be less evil, and thus unappealing to corporations.

      --
      What can be done to stop bloggers from using the wrong color schemes?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:38PM (#959923)

      Oooh ooh! They can run on a series of contracts that does away with all the pesky bureaucracy of government! Everyone will have fiber to their living room and only pay eight bucks a month. Then we can all retire, comfortable in the knowledge that a series of contracts has accounted for every last bit of our lives.

      HOORAY!

    • (Score: 2) by mobydisk on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:59PM (1 child)

      by mobydisk (5472) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:59PM (#959934)

      Would that work? Imagine 2 ISPs: One for $50/month, but another for $10/month that intercepts your SSL traffic, monitors everything you do, and sells it to anyone they can including the Russian government. How much you wanna bet that the majority of Americans would pick the $10/month route whilst also complaining about privacy on Facebook?

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 19 2020, @06:21PM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @06:21PM (#959948) Journal

        Yes, the ensuing food fight would be very entertaining. It just goes to show why the problem is much closer than it appears.

        --
        Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by black6host on Wednesday February 19 2020, @04:38AM (1 child)

    by black6host (3827) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @04:38AM (#959790) Journal

    Yes, non-municipal broadband industry is owned, controlled and run by corporations for profit maximization. I've no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is why the hell do we consider corporations persons (yes, I know there's an answer for that though I don't agree with it) and why should I, or anyone, care if they have freedom of speech. As am example: Jeff Bezos, he has the right to freedom of speech. Amazon? Nah...

    I have an issue when freedom of speech is used as a pretext for a money grab. How about all those companies pay attention to the rural folks who they're supposed to provide broadband to so they can enjoy their freedom of speech?

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @07:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @07:59AM (#959819)

      There's a very specific reason, and it has to do with most people having no clue how the constitution works.

      The constitution does not grant you freedom of speech. You, as a human, *inherently* have freedom of speech. Governments cannot grant you that which you already have, they can only take it away. So freedom of speech does not give you anything - it only limits the power of our government to take it away. This is not a semantic issue. Let's say you did not consider corporations persons, so you'd like to allow the government to pass laws inhibiting their freedom of speech. Suddenly you'd open the door for the government to pass laws legally stating that e.g. no corporation is allowed to publish material critical of the government. And that would be legal because you're restricting the rights of our non-personed corporation, not the people trying to get material published using said corporation. That deterioration of freedom is already happening in places like Germany where it is literally illegal to criticize the president of the German federation and punishable with up to 5 years in prison.

      And this is not just for freedom of speech. The constitution doesn't grant you anything - it merely limits the powers of the government. So when you speak of bypassing the constitution, you're not talking about constraining a granted right - but rather granting the government a new and arbitrary power. Know what passports and federal income tax have in common? They were both "temporary war measures" granted to the government to briefly resolve an emergency situation. Kind of like the Patriot Act in modern times. You do NOT want to grant new powers to the government, especially the broad and incredibly disruptive powers the constitution expressly prohibits them from having.

      ---

      So yeah, obviously I think this case is absurd. But the solution of doing away with the first amendment (for anybody and anything) is a million times worse than any possible relief it MIGHT bring in the short run to this situation. And MIGHT is the right word there. This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This is an issue of us having such a convoluted and complex legal code that anybody with the right money can find a way to weasel out of most issues. Kill the first amendment defense (at immense cost) and the corporation will just find another angle to go for. If that doesn't work, they'll just lobby the government and buy a new loophole.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday February 19 2020, @07:05AM (6 children)

    by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 19 2020, @07:05AM (#959807)

    Somebody owes me a new keyboard.

    It's beyond stupid to misrecognise a corporation as a person; what next - allowing them to vote?

    On the other hand, if this precedent is set, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were just exercising their right to free speech.

    --
    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Wednesday February 19 2020, @10:24AM (4 children)

      by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @10:24AM (#959834)

      It's beyond stupid to misrecognise a corporation as a person; what next - allowing them to vote?

      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)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:36PM (#959881)

        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.

        Eh, more like a mixture. How exactly do the 3rd, 4th, and 8th relate to jurisdiction?

        No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @11:01PM (#960062)

          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)

          by theluggage (1797) on Thursday February 20 2020, @12:08PM (#960257)

          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

            by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 20 2020, @03:39PM (#960309)

            Well, #3 - apart from only being there for historical reasons - is clearly relevant to maintaining the sovereignty of states

            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?"
    • (Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Wednesday February 19 2020, @01:43PM

      by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @01:43PM (#959850)

      They can campaign/advertise to earn votes for whoever they want if they're big and moneyed enough, which is arguably better than voting yourself.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @07:55AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @07:55AM (#959818)

    Most of this stuff is out of the ISP's control. Your data only routes over stuff controlled by the ISP for a hop or two, and that's it. Medical data??? Are ISPs hospitals in Maine?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @08:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @08:52AM (#959825)

      ISPs know who you are based on your IP address. Random website only knows that you are some dude(te) connecting through that ISP. They don't know your name or your address, unless you gave it to them.

      Intercepting DNS traffic and mining that gives you plenty of information about what you are doing.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:24PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:24PM (#959873) Journal

      ISPs know where you connect to -- if you don't use a VPN. Which most people don't. ISPs probably also know most people's DNS queries, because most people don't even know what salmonella DNS queries are.

      --
      What can be done to stop bloggers from using the wrong color schemes?
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:53PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:53PM (#959885) Journal

    So since the ISPs think it is free speech to sell the secrets of others, I'm sure they also have no problems if their employees sell their company secrets. After all, it's free speech, right?

    Oh, they are not OK with that? Then it's also not OK for the ISPs to sell the secrets of their customers.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2020, @12:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2020, @12:44AM (#960099)

    ISPs do not deliver services over the Internet, they deliver the Internet over their services.

  • (Score: 0) by Coligny on Thursday February 20 2020, @03:09AM (1 child)

    by Coligny (2200) on Thursday February 20 2020, @03:09AM (#960158)

    Rights are for peoples, not companies...

    And if companies are people... why hasn’t Texas executed one yet ?

    • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 20 2020, @06:11AM

      by dry (223) on Thursday February 20 2020, @06:11AM (#960210) Journal

      Does Texas execute the rich?

(1)