Wednesday, March 29th 2017
US House of Representatives Confirms Senate's Privacy Stance on ISPs
Only yesterday, the United States' House of Representatives carried the US Senate's joint resolution to eliminate broadband privacy rules. These rules, which are now seemingly on their way to political oblivion, would have required ISPs to get consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other companies. Much like last week's Senate joint resolution, the House's voting fell mainly along partisan lines (215 for, 205 against, with 15 Republican and 190 Democratic representatives voting against the repeal) to scrap the proposed FCC rules.
President Trump's desk (and the President himself) are now all that stand before the ISP's ability to collect geo-location data, financial and health information, children's information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications - information that gives the most unthinkable leeway in understanding your daily habits. However, President Trump's administration have issued a statement whereas they "strongly support House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission's final rule titled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services".
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has already issued a statement to today's vote with a statement that "If the bill is signed into law, companies like Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon will have free rein to hijack your searches, sell your data, and hammer you with unwanted advertisements. Worst yet, consumers will now have to pay a privacy tax by relying on VPNs to safeguard their information."
Ajit Pai, the current FCC Chairman, is a staunch supporter of rolling back the rules, claiming that "the FCC will work with the FTC to ensure that consumers' online privacy is protected through a consistent and comprehensive framework."
Those against the FCC ruling argue that it would have placed an unfair burden on ISPs while leaving sites like Google and Facebook free to collect and sell user data. What these supporters don't seem to consider, however, is how different the nature of Facebook or Google is compared to an ISP: you post what you want, when you want, if you want, and you even only use the service and inform it of your usage habits if you choose to do so. You can also choose to make your searches on Bing, or any other search engine. However, you can never pull the plug on your ISP's data collection of your habits and doings on the Internet. And with some customers only having access to one or two ISPs at any given time will also stand in the way of competition through reinforced privacy protection. If Comcast is the only ISP in your area, well, you can always not sign for the service if you don't want your information to be collected. Though you will end up sans internet access.
Unless, of course, you invest on a paid VPN - that is, if you don't already.
Sources:
Engadget, Whitehouse.gov.pt, TechCrunch, Forbes, The Verge
President Trump's desk (and the President himself) are now all that stand before the ISP's ability to collect geo-location data, financial and health information, children's information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications - information that gives the most unthinkable leeway in understanding your daily habits. However, President Trump's administration have issued a statement whereas they "strongly support House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission's final rule titled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services".
Ajit Pai, the current FCC Chairman, is a staunch supporter of rolling back the rules, claiming that "the FCC will work with the FTC to ensure that consumers' online privacy is protected through a consistent and comprehensive framework."
Those against the FCC ruling argue that it would have placed an unfair burden on ISPs while leaving sites like Google and Facebook free to collect and sell user data. What these supporters don't seem to consider, however, is how different the nature of Facebook or Google is compared to an ISP: you post what you want, when you want, if you want, and you even only use the service and inform it of your usage habits if you choose to do so. You can also choose to make your searches on Bing, or any other search engine. However, you can never pull the plug on your ISP's data collection of your habits and doings on the Internet. And with some customers only having access to one or two ISPs at any given time will also stand in the way of competition through reinforced privacy protection. If Comcast is the only ISP in your area, well, you can always not sign for the service if you don't want your information to be collected. Though you will end up sans internet access.
Unless, of course, you invest on a paid VPN - that is, if you don't already.
93 Comments on US House of Representatives Confirms Senate's Privacy Stance on ISPs
2. ISP have ALWAYS gathered your info. The only difference now is they can sell it. No they cannot sell medical records or your financials. They can sell your Asian chicks with D!{Ks fetish browsing history to Redtube.
Seems like they are the last true Republicans
Edited: I can imagine organizations like lifelock and many more to emerge are looking forwards to this. So they can sell you a bundle plan when you sign up for service with ISP.
And I'm pretty sure any money made off of this will not lead to a lower bill for the consumer.
Good news for VPN providers.....
Understand it was less than 5 years ago China got ahold of MILLIONS of federal workers social security numbers. Did that make front page news anywhere? Not really. ISP selling browsing habits isn't a big deal in the scheme of things.
The sad fact of the matter is we've been selling ourselves like this for so long, that when folks are up in arms about Windows 10 privacy and this matter, these really aren't new or suprising once you open your eyes and see how long we've been letting this happen as a cost of convenience.
Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean folks should stop being pissed about it...but it does mean that the word privacy has been long misunderstood by many and this bill is one more shameful reason that society has let this happen. But hey, as I quoted above and MailMan put perfectly, there are certain things that cannot be sold, but your RedTube history is not one of them! :D
Also those that think VPN providers are a point blank solution need to be careful, they can be pressed to release their encryption keys for investigations and also some do keep logs. This will likely be the next target to open up access to as it has been in the past. Even Tor isn't completely safe...but is after than nothing at all. Depending on what you're viewing that is.
It is a shitty situation, and clearly we did not put up enough of a fight as a society to keep our elected officials from thinking this is a bad idea...or rather...this is too profitable to them to NOT pass this bill. It's on Trump's desk now...and I don't have faith that it'll get veto'd sadly...
Everyone upset should have been so during the years prior to last October. But it wasn't noticed then because it wasn't a big deal to most people. So why now? Why act as if all of a sudden privacy is out the door?
And again, @Raevenlord needs to stop dragging TPU into the gutter by bringing in stories about U.S politics. Where is the China politics? EU political stories? Etc, etc.
Mrs. May has just signed the Article 50 half a day ago. Why aren't we covering this? Brexit is a moment of history.
I mentioned this in another thread. THE FBI let a child sex trafficking ring go because they didn't want to produce how they cracked TOR. Think about it. They let people who rape and murder children go because they didn't want to show their 1337 haxor tools to the court. Please by all means. Use VPN and TOR. Make yourself a target. If you were smart you would do one of two things. 1. Don't do anything you wouldn't show a cop. 2. Unplug the computer.This is my point. Its beyond F@#$KING STUPID to cover this crap on the front page.
I realized some of you want to subdue this information but a good journalist always try to educate his/her readers and that is what Raevenlord has done. I failed to understand why some of you are even arguing/squabbling about this being posted.
Publicity was too bad, they stopped it.
Frankly with the millions of folks using and not using these services, I'd rather use VPN (I don't use Tor often) in some cases than not. I don't do anything horrid though...usually when I use a VPN it is A. to connect to my LAN from a remote location (road warrior VPN which I am the service provider to) or B. to access something I don't have access to in the area I'm in, such as when traveling for work and I'm region locked but pay for services in the region I'm locked out of. What other folks do, encrypted, adding proxy hops, or none of the above...is on them.
I absolutely agree that once you're online, your privacy is all but non-existent. But I don't agree you're painting a big target on your back using VPN or Tor services either...what you do with your connection is what paints the target rather IMHO. To each their own on that front.
Brexit isn't necessarily tech related, where as ISPs selling consumer private internet browsing data is 100% tech related.
2. Just get over it?
Differing opinions will always appear, but I myself believe in the importance of such articles.
Don't bring politics. If must, you ought to remove political substances and report results only. Quite frankly, you are failing at it.
Edit: People get along far better when their political allegiance hidden and unknown.
You risk losing friends.
What's on point here is that there was a chance - and there still is, albeit a slim one, in which I have no faith whatsoever - that these rules would have been implemented. That there would be a light in the tunnel in respect to your rights, that your privacy wouldn't be available for sale to the highest bidder whether you want it to or not. If you don't care, and are OK with that, ok. That's your prorrogative. But this being enforced on anyone who just so happens to be using the ol' Internet, I think isn't fair nor the world some want to live in.I considered covering that, for a second. Then gave up on the idea exactly because of what @horsemama1956 said (quoted below). Brexit is monumental (even more so for me, as an european). But its impact on tech isn't as straightforward as this one. Brexit vs this is like comparing the Coriolis' effect with a brick wall's on a flying bullet. At least this is how I see it. Hence, I cover Brexit someplace else - not here.Thank you. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I happen to agree with you, and that's why I feel the need to cover this.
I firmly believe that politics do not belong here. This could have been presented in an apolitical and non-opinionated manner. You didn't choose that route.
Also, a story about a vote to repeal a measure only in place for 5 months is not the end of the world. It wasn't the end of the world before last year. Let's not make it so now. I ask that you please either show restraint in your editorializing, or bring in ALL the world's tech-related political news....WITH your opinions on their situations as well.