Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:10AM   Printer-friendly
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

 
This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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...)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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?"