from the How-much-does-a-politician's-browsing-history-cost? dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Back in 2014 over 3 million Internet users told the U.S. government loudly and clearly: we value our online security, we value our online privacy, and we value net neutrality. Our voices helped convince the FCC to enact smart net neutrality regulations—including long-needed privacy rules.
But it appears some members of Congress didn't get the message, because they're trying to roll back the FCC's privacy rules right now without having anything concrete ready to replace them. We're talking here about basic requirements, like getting your explicit consent before using your private information to do anything other than provide you with Internet access (such as targeted advertising). Given how much private information your ISP has about you, strict limits on what they do with it are essential.
[...] Late last year, the FCC passed rules that would require ISPs to protect your private information. It covered the things you would usually associate with having an account with a major company (your name and address, financial information, etc.) but also things like any records they keep on your browsing history, geolocation information (think cell phones), and the content of your communications. Overall, the rules were pretty darn good.
But now, Senator Flake (R-AZ) and Representative Blackburn (R-TN) want to use a tool known as a Congressional Review Act [CRA] resolution to totally repeal those protections. The CRA allows Congress to veto any regulation written by a federal agency (like the FCC). Worse yet, it forbids the agency from passing any "substantially similar" regulations in the future, so the FCC would be forbidden from ever trying to regulate ISP privacy practices. At the same time, some courts have limited the Federal Trade Commission's ability protect your privacy, too.
With the hands of two federal agencies tied, ISPs themselves would be largely in change of protecting their customer's privacy. In other words, the fox will be guarding the henhouse.
[...] So please, take action and call your senator and representative today, and tell them not to use the CRA to repeal the FCC's privacy rules.
A story on Ars Technica notes:
As expected, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and 23[sic] Republican co-sponsors introduced the resolution yesterday. The measure would use lawmakers' power under the Congressional Review Act [CRA] to ensure that the FCC rulemaking "shall have no force or effect." The resolution would also prevent the FCC from issuing similar regulations in the future.
Flake's announcement said he's trying to "protect consumers from overreaching Internet regulation." Flake also said that the resolution "empowers consumers to make informed choices on if and how their data can be shared," but he did not explain how it will achieve that.
Flake called the FCC's privacy rulemaking "midnight regulation," even though it was approved by the commission in October 2016, before the presidential election, after a months-long rulemaking process.
"The FCC's midnight regulation does nothing to protect consumer privacy," Flake said. "It is unnecessary, confusing, and adds yet another innovation-stifling regulation to the Internet." Flake's announcement also said that the FCC-imposed "restrictions have the potential to negatively impact consumers and the future of Internet innovation."
[...] Flake's co-sponsors are US Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Dan Sullivan (R-Ark.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.)[sic], and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.).
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) offered similar criticism. "Big broadband barons and their Republican allies want to turn the telecommunications marketplace into a Wild West where consumers are held captive with no defense against abusive invasions of their privacy by internet service providers," Markey said. "Consumers will have no ability to stop Internet service providers from invading their privacy and selling sensitive information about their health, finances, and children to advertisers, insurers, data brokers or others who can profit off of this personal information, all without their affirmative consent."
[Update: As pointed out by reader tangomargarine, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) is listed twice in the list taken from Ars Technica. Reviewing the proposed resolution reveals Sen. Flake and 21 (not 23) co-signers. Further, Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) is listed by Ars as being a signer, but his name is not listed on the resolution. --martyb]
-- submitted from IRC
Related Stories
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Back in 2014 over 3 million Internet users told the U.S. government loudly and clearly: we value our online security, we value our online privacy, and we value net neutrality. Our voices helped convince the FCC to enact smart net neutrality regulations—including long-needed privacy rules.
But it appears some members of Congress didn't get the message, because they're trying to roll back the FCC's privacy rules right now without having anything concrete ready to replace them. We're talking here about basic requirements, like getting your explicit consent before using your private information to do anything other than provide you with Internet access (such as targeted advertising). Given how much private information your ISP has about you, strict limits on what they do with it are essential.
[...] Late last year, the FCC passed rules that would require ISPs to protect your private information. It covered the things you would usually associate with having an account with a major company (your name and address, financial information, etc.) but also things like any records they keep on your browsing history, geolocation information (think cell phones), and the content of your communications. Overall, the rules were pretty darn good.
But now, Senator Flake (R-AZ) and Representative Blackburn (R-TN) want to use a tool known as a Congressional Review Act [CRA] resolution to totally repeal those protections. The CRA allows Congress to veto any regulation written by a federal agency (like the FCC). Worse yet, it forbids the agency from passing any "substantially similar" regulations in the future, so the FCC would be forbidden from ever trying to regulate ISP privacy practices. At the same time, some courts have limited the Federal Trade Commission's ability protect your privacy, too.
With the hands of two federal agencies tied, ISPs themselves would be largely in change of protecting their customer's privacy. In other words, the fox will be guarding the henhouse.
[...] So please, take action and call your senator and representative today, and tell them not to use the CRA to repeal the FCC's privacy rules.
A story on Ars Technica notes:
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 massa on Friday March 10 2017, @11:53AM
Repeal & Repeal ;)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @12:10PM (9 children)
After listening to Republicans bitch for years about how they'd do a better job, I have to say that I'm not impressed with their recent changes. Time to vote these flakes out of office...starting with Sen. Flake!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @01:18PM
Thanks Obama!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday March 10 2017, @03:44PM (7 children)
After listening to Republicans bitch for years about how they'd do a better job, I have to say that I'm not impressed with their recent changes.
What are you talking about? The Republicans are doing a MUCH better job already, for their "big broadband baron" buddies and other monied interests.
Time to vote these flakes out of office...starting with Sen. Flake!
You had that chance just a few months ago. The people voted, and they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans, especially for Congressional positions. If people don't like the changes the Republicans are making, the people have only themselves to blame. As an insightful Frenchman once said, "every country gets the government it deserves".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @04:10PM (5 children)
But emails!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday March 11 2017, @01:15AM (4 children)
That was a valid issue IMO. It was a good reason for the Dems to pull Hillary out of the race and push Bernie instead. If they had done that, they would have won.
But as I've mentioned before, the problem isn't the President as much as it is Congress. Voting against (or not voting for) Hillary because of whatever issue is one thing, it's voting for all the other Republicans in Congress that's getting us in this mess (or quite possibly, not bothering to vote at all and then the Reps getting elected because of Dem apathy).
Personally, I think it would have been pretty interesting if we had gotten Trump for President, but with a strong Democrat majority in both houses of Congress. Then his shitty cabinet nominations would have been turned down, and he would have been very limited in what he's able to do. So thanks a lot Dem voters. (Personally I voted for Stein and the one Dem that was running for Congress in my state; both lost, but the state did go to Hillary, but not by as much of a margin as I was assured by the media and Hillary's campaign, who said they didn't need my vote.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @01:45AM (2 children)
> That was a valid issue IMO.
If you had really drilled down on it, you would not have the same opinion.
> If they had done that, they would have won.
Its easy to make bias-confirming predictions about things that can not ever be proven.
> So thanks a lot Dem voters.
> I voted for Stein
Thanks a lot Stein voters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @06:05AM (1 child)
Your candidate lost against the most unpopular candidate of all time. If you have anyone to thank, it should be yourselves for nominating such a terrible candidate. And if your party really cared about "the spoiler effect", then maybe they should get behind some sort of voting system that doesn't degrade to a two-party system (ranked choice, approval voting, etc.)?
But go ahead, keep pretending that the mere 1% of people who voted for Jill Stein had an effect. It certainly had a lot more to do with the democrats' embarrassing loss than the fact that their party conspired against Sanders winning the nomination.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @06:56PM
What an utterly hollow rebuttal.
In substance, no different from the MAGATS who scream "we won, you lost, snowflake!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @06:16AM
That was a valid issue IMO. It was a good reason for the Dems to pull Hillary out of the race and push Bernie instead. If they had done that, they would have won.
Agreed. Hillary Clinton is so corrupt, she shouldn't have even been allowed to run, much less have a whole party behind her. Well, it's good that the Democrats got what they deserved, but they'll be damned if they learn from it. So it's quite entertaining to watch the Democrats lose for anyone who sees the party for what it really is.
As for the rest of the US government, I have no idea why the 50 states bother having a national government anymore. The country is so polarized that they'd probably be best if they just broke up and went off on their own; they'd probably be much happier that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @08:17AM
You had that chance just a few months ago. The people voted, and they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans, especially for Congressional positions.
Yup...you're right, the repubs won bigly. However, that doesn't mean your party is making good decisions. How can you celebrate while your party:
- changes the rules to allow the polluting of rivers with mining/factory waste
- rolls back consumer protection rules (the topic of this very article)
- replaces a health care system that's helped millions with a replacement that guts it and gives huge tax breaks to wealthy executives (btw: Mike Pence, who wants to repeal the ACA, happily used it in his state as governor; google it)
- cuts education funding and pushes tax-supported vouchers for charter schools which consistently score lower than public schools and push religion
- attacks some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our society (hispanics, blacks, muslims, refugees, etc...)
- expands the use of private prisons and increased mandatory minimum sentences that disproportionately target minorities committing non-violent crimes
- refuses to listen to their constituents (google the Tim Cotton town hall, then see suggested vids for many other examples)
- attacks science on multiple fronts just so they can ignore the climate change debate
I could keep going, and it's only been a couple of months. If you're the kind of person who's happy with the actions and temperament of your party and you have no problem cheering for Trump then you are simply a short-sighted, disgraceful person.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday March 10 2017, @01:29PM (5 children)
Maybe we can't trust other people to be responsible for our privacy any more.
Or maybe we never could.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @03:18PM (1 child)
Maybe we can't trust other people not to murder any more.
Or maybe we never could.
Maybe we can't trust other people not to steal any more.
Or maybe we never could.
Maybe we can't trust other people not to pollute any more.
Or maybe we never could.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @08:25PM
We can't trust people not to do those things either.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @04:12PM
> Maybe we can't trust other people to be responsible for our privacy any more.
Uh yeah.
That's why we have laws — So it isn't just a matter of trust, its a matter of consequences.
(Score: 1) by terrab0t on Friday March 10 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)
Those of us in the rest of the world have to guard our own privacy no matter what protections the US government claims to offer its own citizens. When documents are leaked revealing the extent of US agency online spying, one of the official statements is always that they are only spying on foreigners. To the rest of us, that is just as bad.
The rest of us know full well that there is a major world super power wilfully spying on us. People in the US should consider that even if you had decent online privacy laws and your government was not lying about how much it spies on you, there are still other nations and nefarious private entities doing it. You will always have to protect yourself from them.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 10 2017, @05:52PM
It's called having priorities: let's deal with the guys who definitely aren't supposed to be spying on us, before addressing the ones that kind of have a leg to stand on but we still don't like it.
And condolences for being in a country the U.S. is jerking around. Not all of us approve of our government's actions.
"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 tangomargarine on Friday March 10 2017, @04:00PM (1 child)
[...] Flake's co-sponsors are US Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Dan Sullivan (R-Ark.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.).
Apparently my congresscritter liked it so much he co-sponsored it twice. Not that I'm surprised--most of our Republican politicians in Wisconsin these days are big assholes.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @02:33AM
"Not that I'm surprised--most of our Republican politicians these days are big assholes."
There FTFY.
That list is HHHUUUUGGGGGGEEEEEEE
(Score: 3, Funny) by Thexalon on Friday March 10 2017, @04:50PM (2 children)
No guarantees, but it might work.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 10 2017, @06:04PM
This, and absolutely this.
They think they get lots of money in exchange for a little backlash.
Those guys should have learnt for the last three years (and especially this last couple weeks), that everything they do behind their mansions' gates is probably recorded.
We need lots of leaks...
El Naranjissimo wanted leaks and hacks on powerful insiders before the election? He can't have been wrong!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @09:00PM
as well as your complex efforts to arrange "quality time" with 10-year-old boys in Thailand
These days don't you just have to take note of his preference for cheez pizza? Loli haet pizza and all that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lagg on Friday March 10 2017, @05:35PM (2 children)
I wonder how long it'll take for us to fuck off and stop thinking that trying to deal with these people like a normal human is going to work. I've tried time and again to talk to these people and it usually just ends with a spam list subscription. I've been trying for 8 years in Arizona. They don't even try to create a pretense for not listening to you. The reaction of their offices tells you pretty much all you need to know about how you are perceived. Be it a democrat or republican rep. They look at you like trash that doesn't belong in the same america they do. All it does is make you feel less guilty for allowing your country to sink lower - ala twitter. And gives the rep's office more ammo to see you as a parasite of society. Flaming liberal, bigoted hick, whatever the cult-leader approved label may be.
If you want them to actually function in their purpose. Force them to through public humiliation, legal action or if you are the means-justify-ends type. Try contributing to a bribe fund- I mean PAC. Find public contradictions and never let them hear the end of it. Submit ethical breaches to EFF and ACLU. They're either going to help based on self-interest or the consequences of allowing a bill to pass hurting that self-interest. Thinking that any rep cares for their state's input on a personal or objective level is just ever so slightly naive isn't it?
Of course, maybe I just think this way because I tried so long to follow this stupid recommendation of contacting reps. Maybe their ability to callously ignore or speak down to people got to me and I'm playing into their hands. Sufficed to say though. There's a reason we are a contributor to the opioid pandemic but not slowing down usage or distribution. In fact making it harder to seek alternative treatment. If a rep is capable of allowing torture (opioid withdrawal is torture by any definition, trust me) under this utterly retarded pretense of "being tough on drugs" - you really think they'll care about the "basement people" (paraphrasing actual quote) that just want a fucking phat pipe to use without surveillance baggage?
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 10 2017, @06:31PM
That stuff doesn't work because it's ignorable. If you want to effectively get their attention, pierce the bubble they surround themselves with. You don't need a lot of people to do it. Maybe 2-3 friends for a half hour. Physically go into their office and demand a meeting. (They usually have several offices in their district so they can give sweetheart jobs to the friends and children of their top supporters.) Chances are they won't be there, or won't meet with you even if they are, and some lackey will come running up, promising to find a spot on the rep's schedule if you'll just come back later. They might write down a note and promise to get it to the rep ASAP. Promise that if you don't get an answer, you'll be out singing it to people in the district. Then do it--go to a popular local supermarket and hand out flyers for half an hour with the rep's email and phone prominently featured, and 1-2 sentences on why people should call them.
Another tactic is to find out where the rep's house is, and picket there or try to buttonhole them when they come out to go to work in the morning.
For extra effect, see if you have another 2-3 friends/neighbors who can do the same thing again 2 days after you did. And try hard to get local reporters there, to amplify the message.
The townhall stuff used to be another good opportunity, but most reps are avoiding those now.
But the point is to convey the impression that the peasants are angry, that they have their torches and pitchforks ready, and that they better fucking move or their heads will be on pikes by morning.
Under those circumstances, democratically elected representatives can be delightfully responsive to constituents.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @02:38AM
Last time I contacted my senator over something I cared about, I got a form letter back reassuring me whatever their position, will be in the public's best interests. Translates to they will vote right with whoever owns them. These days that will be the most evil mega corporations on earth.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @05:35PM (6 children)
To be fair to trump supporters, not that they have ever been ..
You really didn't think that by placing your life, country, family, and well being solely in the hands of the biggest group of greedy billionaire robber barons on earth, or by putting a raving lunatic that appears now to be retarded or insane or both, in the white house would work out differently that this, .. and what is to follow? You really didn't think these assholes would decimate and tear the country apart so fast? You really didn't think they would instead bring in a totalitarian police state on your stupid asses?
I really want to hear what all you stupid motherfuckers were thinking?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @07:55PM (1 child)
I really want to hear what all you stupid motherfuckers were thinking?
Remember all that bullshit about voting for a guy you'd like to have a beer with?
Lots of people thought that was about voting for somebody who was likeable.
Its actually about voters picking someone they think likes them.
All those authoritarian and racist assholes saw someone in Trump that would approve of them.
When they said things like, "finally a politician who tells it like it is" what they really meant was "finally a politician who tells me I'm right."
And that's all it took.
Everybody wants to be loved. Those dipshits voted for someone they thought would love them.
Like teenage fangirls imagining romance with singers in boy-bands.
They loved trump because they thought he loved them. He say it all the time too. [usatoday.com] Just like a guy who tells a girl he loves her so she will have sex with him and then the next day acts he doesn't even know her...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 11 2017, @02:28AM
Everybody wants to be loved. Those dipshits voted for someone they thought would love them.
The People Are Revolting! [youtube.com]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @09:15PM (1 child)
To be absolutely fair, the "other choice" (because if people would stop acting like elections are sportsball games they'd realize that there were more than two choices!!!!)
Anyway, the "other choice" also were greedy billionaire robber barons.
However, I would say that I am absolutely fucking impressed at how quickly this administration is tearing the country apart. I never thought government was remotely capable of having that kind of agility.
She lost, so I got over it. I told myself that it wasn't the end of the world, told other people I wasn't worried, and truth be told I thought there'd be some good things as well like the potential of better relations with Russia.
Holy fuck am I capable of self-delusion sometimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @03:04AM
I was no fan of hillary either but I've watched Trump for the last 40 years and know for a fact that man is completely bat-shit-crazy. Why the fuck would anyone with an IQ > 10 vote for satan in the flesh? Hell, just google the song "trump the monster ego" for an example. Google "Trump + bankruptcies" for a real treat at what a bastard and a disaster that man really is.
Simple test, if you're uncomfortable leaving your child in a room alone with either hillary or trump, then go for bernie. He wasn't loony scary at all. Of course with a republican congress and senate, bernie as with obama, wouldn't get anything done because of stonewalling and we would still suck, but at least we wouldn't be left with a smoldering ruins once this hoard is done raping and pillaging under the guise of "Community Enhancement".
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @06:20AM (1 child)
Both parties are this bad. The Democrats are just as corrupt, but they just do a better job of hiding it. Then people get sick of getting screwed over by one party for 5-10 years, so some small number (in fact, all it takes is a tiny fraction in a first-past-the-post voting system) decide they'd rather get fucked by the other and put them in power. Until the United States becomes a democracy, it will always be this way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @05:08PM
Started out as a repub. Raygun lied way too much, I went Dem. Now hate both as lepers and the only way to save the country now is complete removal of them all. Top to bottom. Blessed scroll of genocide time.