FCC Proposal: Internet Providers Must Ask To Share Your Data (foxnews.com) 83
The FCC has unveiled a new privacy proposal Thursday that is sure to appeal to millions of internet users. Internet service providers? Not so much. The proposal would require ISPs like Verizon and Comcast to get your permission before sharing your precious info with advertisers. Fox News reports: The Federal Communication Commission has changed its broadband-privacy plan since it was initially proposed in March. The wireless and cable industries had complained that under the initial plan, they would be more heavily regulated than digital-ad behemoths like Google and Facebook, who are monitored by a different agency, the Federal Trade Commission. The FCC explained its new approach Thursday and plans to vote on it Oct. 27. The revised proposal says broadband providers don't have to get permission from customers ahead of time to use some information deemed "non-sensitive," like names and addresses. The previous plan called for customers to expressly approve the use of more of their information. This time around, customers still need to OK broadband providers' using and sharing a slew of their data, like a phone's physical location, websites browses and apps used, and what's in emails. And customers must be told what types of information is kept and how it will be used, and agency officials said they can still say no to internet service providers using other data, like names and addresses.
But.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it allow them to refuse to sell internet to people if they don't agree to this?
if so it doesnt matter, jut another line in the EULA that no one reads
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy Fees (Score:1, Insightful)
Well if the ISP were smart they would come up with a fee, the amount they get from selling the data, and then change that fee to customer that don't want to share their data.
Simple win win for everyone. We know their business model is not so great, but it is currently part of the income they make, to prevent ISP resistance to this proposal they just enable a fee, I know I would be happy to pay a little more for my privacy. Similar to how I will pay for a phone app that doesn't collect/have ads/etc instead
Re:Privacy Fees (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when was having a government-granted monopoly not a great business model?
Besides, that's like saying you're okay with extortion, because that's effectively what such a fee would be. "Give me fifty bucks, or I'll give your personal data to SolarCity and they'll harass you."
That data is MINE. If nothing else, it's incredibly disrespectful for any company to sell it on without my consent. It's just sad that this is the norm these days.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when was having a government-granted monopoly not a great business model?
Which ISP has a government-granted monopoly? I know of none.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Comcast, in plenty of places.
No place in the US. Exclusive franchises are against federal law and have been for a long time.
Re: (Score:3)
I see there are Comcast employees actively participating on Slashdot...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I see there are Comcast employees actively participating on Slashdot...
That may be true, but I am not one of them. I am simply someone who has been involved in cable franchising for a long time and have kept up with the changing legal landscape on that topic. And I choose to correct those who claim that exclusive franchises still exist. If you want to bash Comcast or TW, do so for any number of valid reasons; spreading falsehoods about their legal status is neither necessary nor appropriate.
There are federal laws prohibiting exclusive cable franchises, which are how governme
Re: (Score:3)
And each of these clawed-in data providers will go kicking and screaming through court fight after court fight until all is won or lost, because they need the data as an extra layer of revenue.
So, you can weasel-word what you'd like, but most people have no choice in their provider, so it is a de facto monopoly, and in some cases where legislatures were bribed to inhibit/prohibit communities from doing their own networks de jure monopolies.
And once this is through the courts, then what of the DNS data they
Re: (Score:2)
So, you can weasel-word what you'd like, but most people have no choice in their provider, so it is a de facto monopoly,
I did not say there were no de-facto monopolies, only that the claim that it is a government-granted monopoly is quite false. You call being accurate "weasle-word[ing]", but I call it being truthful.
and in some cases where legislatures were bribed to inhibit/prohibit communities from doing their own networks de jure monopolies.
The fact that municipalities were prohibited from competing unfairly with a company they have entered into a contract with doesn't make the resulting de facto monopoly into a de jure. It simply supports the existing non-exclusive franchise agreement. When a company makes promises that become part of the franchi
Re: (Score:2)
Let me disambiguate your response.
Somehow, you have the pomposity to believe your own PR. That's not unusual.
Whether de facto, de jure, de legis, amazingly, you agree that there is a monopoly, so there's hope for you. When the TCA wrested control of communications infrastructure away from the states, who in turn made sure that they could give it up by strangling what was left of Tariff 12 and any other theories of local communications companies, this legislation was bought and paid for. Fie on you for asser
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me disambiguate your response.
My response needs no disambiguation. You don't need to add words to what I said for me.
Somehow, you have the pomposity to believe your own PR. That's not unusual.
It is pompous for me to believe what I say? Is it pompous when you believe what you say? Calling it "PR" would be like me calling what you say propaganda. I'm not writing "PR", and it would be unproductive to call what you write propaganda.
Whether de facto, de jure, de legis, amazingly, you agree that there is a monopoly,
Stop the bullshit attempt at putting words in my mouth. I have never denied there is a de facto monopoly for cable television, only the de jure. There's nothing amazing about it. I have
Re: (Score:2)
Yes douche bag that's what you claimed.
It is often helpful to the discussion to quote a bit of what you are replying to so the antecedents to pronouns can be properly identified. It appears you think I claimed there are no de facto monopolies, and you are obviously mistaken.
The OP said government granted monopoly and you went on some tired about Federal this and Federal that. Somehow you missed the municipal level. Funny how that works.
Sigh. Just sigh. The FEDERAL level is a LAW that prohibits MUNICIPAL levels from granting exclusive franchises. The municipalities cannot grant exclusive franchises any more, and have not been allowed to do so for such a long period of time that any existing ones will have e
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not very knowledgeable about all the details but I believe you're right.
I see the non-exclusive franchise agreements as a double-edged sword though.
From my city's website (which I imagine is fairly typical):
The City has a non-exclusive cable franchise agreement in effect with the local subsidiary of Comcast Corporation. It became effective on August 1, 2015 and expires on July 31, 2025
And it goes on to say they're required to provide service to all residents and that they're granted access to right of way easements.
That actually doesn't sound too bad. It would suck if certain residents were left out of the cable (and broadband) market because they lived somewhere that just wasn't
Re: (Score:2)
So you might want to do some actual research and speak to some municipalities.
Re: (Score:2)
Many if not all municipalities have franchise agreements which prevents other competitors from entering the market.
Please provide a link to one such exclusive franchise agreement. I didn't say municipalities didn't have franchise agreements, I said they were all non-exclusive. Municipalities CANNOT prevent anyone who wants to seek a franchise agreement from doing so.
So you might want to do some actual research and speak to some municipalities.
I have. Have you? Do you read the franchises or just complain because they exist?
Re: (Score:1)
Comcast, in plenty of places.
No place in the US. Exclusive franchises are against federal law and have been for a long time.
Comcast is not a US Government Granted Monopoly, but a local one when the city that wants to offer Broadband sign a contract with Comcast, that they are the only ones who can do business in that city for cable. This is also the case in many apartments in Baltimore, where the Landlord signs a contract with ISP Of Choice for such and such terms and that locks their tenants into using Comcast and no others. The US Government doesnt have any say in these deals.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast is not a US Government Granted Monopoly, but a local one when the city that wants to offer Broadband sign a contract with Comcast, that they are the only ones who can do business in that city for cable.
I never referred to a US government granted monopoly. It is not a local government granted monopoly because there is nothing stopping anyone else who wants to be an ISP or offer broadband from doing the same thing. Exclusive franchises are a thing of the past, outlawed at the federal level.
This is also the case in many apartments in Baltimore, where the Landlord signs a contract with ISP Of Choice
Now you're confusing a contract between a private citizen (the landlord) and Comcast with a government-granted monopoly.
The US Government doesnt have any say in these deals.
You are right, the US Government doesn't have any say in the contract between a landlord and Comcast
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want immunity from responsibility for their customer's content, but also want to monitor it.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T is ending the program you are referring to.
http://arstechnica.com/informa... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ass.
How Will You Know (Score:3)
if they sold it or not? Pinky swear??!! You will opt out and they will sell it anyway. How fucking stupid do they think we are? Liars. The system is already automated to collect and sell. They gonna re-patch it? No way.
Fixed In The Terms Of Service (Score:1)
You want service? You authorize data collection and dissemination as ISP desires. It'll be right there in the TOS if it's not (like MS for Windows) there already. The Privacy Policy *might* place some limits on that but usually minor if any - it's limited generally to what's required in the law of the jurisdiction they do business in and occasionally where service is provided. Normally, there's not even an opt-out for any part of it, let alone opt-in. Theoretically, FCC will require that it be opt-in for so
While they're at it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:While they're at it... (Score:5, Informative)
Why not update your privacy laws? We already have all of this in Canada. It's covered in either a blanket law or individual country laws in most of the EU too.
Re: (Score:3)
How cute! You think your laws have more than a cursory impact on multinational data brokers...
Considering that privacy laws start at $100k/day and cap at $30k/customer(these fines are cumulative) and the laws here in Canada(and under writ by parliament they can go as high as $10m/day) are tough enough that they made Facebook and Google back down and get in compliance? Yeah, seems to be working just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are connecting to a server outside of Canada or the company has no business in Canada then the fines mean nothing. Sure they won't get as much data as a company like your ISP but it could be important data.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. 25 or so years ago I was young and naive and had never heard of this and I remember being somewhat shocked when it came up during a meeting with one of the execs where I worked.
They were getting 26 cents for each customer (IIRC). They were a regional chain of formal wear stores. Imagine how hungry marketers are to have access to people planning weddings. Or just teenagers needing to rent a limo for prom or whatever.
That's fairly targeted marketing I guess and most of the customers probably di
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that not the default in your laws already? Most of the world requires permission to store personal data, let along share it.
This is a proposal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And if I refuse? They cancel service? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do not give permission for my emails to be scanned.
Neither do I, which is why I run my own e-mail server. Sure, I have no control over the other end, but at least my side is reasonably safe from interference.
Not that I don't see a boatload of intrusion attempts from China and Virginia (not a lot of difference, these days) against both the e-mail server and DNS... But so far, so good.
AT&T U-verse (Score:2)
Used to charge $30 USD for this. but recently dropped it.
To use (Score:2)
Easy (Score:1)
someone listened.... (Score:1)
... with advertisers (Score:1)
I was kinda hoping it would include the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.
Golly, I was so disappointed to have my hopes dashed.