Submitted via IRC for SoyCow4463
Maine lawmakers pass bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent – TechCrunch
Maine lawmakers have passed a bill that will prevent internet providers from selling consumers’ private internet data to advertisers.
The state’s senate unanimously passed the bill 35-0 on Thursday following an earlier vote by state representatives 96-45 in favor of the bill.
The bill, if signed into law by state governor Janet Mills, will force the national and smaller regional internet providers operating in the state to first obtain permission from residents before their data can be sold or passed on to advertisers or other third parties.
[...] the ACLU — which along with the Open Technology Institute and New America helped to draft the legislation — praised lawmakers for passing the bill, calling it the “strongest” internet privacy bill of any state.
“Today, the Maine legislature did what the U.S. Congress has thus far failed to do and voted to put consumer privacy before corporate profits,” said Oamshri Amarasingham, advocacy director at the ACLU of Maine, in a statement. “Nobody should have to choose between using the internet and protecting their own data,” she said.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @10:12AM (7 children)
When signing up for internet services or renewing an existing deal uses will be required to consent for the rights to their ISP to pass on their data to third parties.
The bill should be: If any ISP passes on private data on their operations relating to their users then their safe harbor and neutral carrier status is immediately revoked exposing the ISP to lawsuits from both sides for data breach, breach of privacy, and they must remit any monies or credit or value derived from the data and any future earnings on it without limit and for this to be applied for all previous transactions for the affected accounts.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 01 2019, @11:11AM (5 children)
Maybe it should say that, but unfortunately it doesn't. However, it is a welcome first step.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Saturday June 01 2019, @02:24PM (4 children)
The problem with too much of society is that this will be considered a closed topic and legislatures will move on. I've experienced situations where I tried to get help with a problem situation, even talking to state representatives, and they basically thought it had all been taken care of. It had not. They naively and idealistically pass a law and move on to other things. Looks good in print, right? The masses are appeased. Meanwhile, just like rust, and rust never sleeps, the unethical seek and devise paths around the laws. So in many ways this is a step backward.
Legislatures are caught up in the same problem that plagues most products these days: rush it out the door, deal with problems later (or never).
What govt. needs: 1) people (and I know some) who can brainstorm the myriad ways these laws will be circumvented, and write the laws so they can't be circumvented (unless they're doing it intentionally, and that's a very different problem...), 2) "quality circle", "agile", etc., system where they revisit laws frequently, find out how their good intentions are being bypassed, and revise the legislation.
(Score: 1, Troll) by NotSanguine on Saturday June 01 2019, @08:13PM (3 children)
By your logic, passing the 13th and 14th Amendments were a step backwards as well, right?
You're making the perfect the enemy of the good, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday June 02 2019, @01:48AM (2 children)
Why do you keep attacking me?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:08AM
I'm not attacking you. And I certainly don't have it out for you. I don't even recognize your username.
I disagree and am trying to engage you in conversation to have a conversation. I don't understand your point of view here and used an analogy that I hoped would be clear.
The 13th and 14th Amendments ended slavery in the US and required equality under the law. It did end explicit slavery, but didn't end discrimination and didn't provide for equality under the law. As such, it really didn't go far enough and we had over 100 years of Jim Crow. Things are much better now, but we *still* have issues.
That Maine is requiring ISPs to get opt-ins isn't enough. But it's certainly not a step backward, IMHO.
Perhaps I should have said all of that, but I assumed that you'd understand where I was coming from. My mistake.
Have I responded to comments of yours before? Actually, I don't usually look at usernames anyway.
I'm sorry if I've made you feel attacked. I come here for conversation and discussion. Those sometimes get a bit heated, but I don't wish most people ill, and especially not random strangers on the Internet.
Shall we have a conversation, or are you forcing me to pay attention to whom I respond and ignore your posts?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday June 03 2019, @04:52AM
Are you going to mod bomb me every time I disagree with you?
Or will you have a discussion. I know. That's just crazy talk. It's not like this is a discussion site or anything.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday June 01 2019, @02:29PM
Can we add criminal penalties please?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @09:07PM
No more, can ISPs snoop on and sell our data. They have to get consent first, in the contract, right next to the fine print about content filtering and QoS fuckery.
It's not like the contracts won't get updated in a couple weeks, right guys?