FCC To Halt Rule That Protects Your Private Data From Security Breaches (arstechnica.com) 119
According to Ars Technica, "The Federal Communications Commission plans to halt implementation of a privacy rule that requires ISPs to protect the security of its customers' personal information." From the report: The data security rule is part of a broader privacy rulemaking implemented under former Chairman Tom Wheeler but opposed by the FCC's new Republican majority. The privacy order's data security obligations are scheduled to take effect on March 2, but Chairman Ajit Pai wants to prevent that from happening. The data security rule requires ISPs and phone companies to take "reasonable" steps to protect customers' information -- such as Social Security numbers, financial and health information, and Web browsing data -- from theft and data breaches. The rule would be blocked even if a majority of commissioners supported keeping them in place, because the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau can make the decision on its own. That "full commission vote on the pending petitions" could wipe out the entire privacy rulemaking, not just the data security section, in response to petitions filed by trade groups representing ISPs. That vote has not yet been scheduled. The most well-known portion of the privacy order requires ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers before sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other third parties. The opt-in rule is supposed to take effect December 4, 2017, unless the FCC or Congress eliminates it before then. Pai has said that ISPs shouldn't face stricter rules than online providers like Google and Facebook, which are regulated separately by the Federal Trade Commission. Pai wants a "technology-neutral privacy framework for the online world" based on the FTC's standards. According to today's FCC statement, the data security rule "is not consistent with the FTC's privacy standards."
The consumer gets buttraped again. Thanks Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow.
Your guy Trump sure is sticking it to the corporations and elites, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I know you are being sarcastic, but clearly you are forgetting about her emails.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, Ajit Pai was Asshat Number One at the FCC before Trump, too. It's just that he's in charge now.
Not that Wheeler was all that wonderful either; but Pai seems to regard consumers as an unpleasant side effect of business. He's the sort of Randian who longs for the days of the robber barons.
Hell, the guy used to be Associate GC at Verizon. That's not a job they hand out to someone inclined to protect consumer interests.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct.
OH! Sorry, thought you meant all the courts and cops and so on. I guess in a Libertarian paradise there aren't any of those, they all get sold to the highest bidder and operated for a profit, paid by those who can afford it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't you get it? In the absence of police, the courts, and so on, people and companies will all choose to do the right thing voluntarily.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, IIRC Xerxes thought the Greek economy worked "sort of" that way. The translated quote is "Who are these people who have special places where they go to cheat each other?".
Re:The Million Regulators March on Washington (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because the only thing protecting the consumer is the Government.
Yes, because we have so much robust competition in the ISP market now! We don't need any government intervention, my local monopoly ISP has all my best interests at heart. If they provide poor service or screw me over, I can just switch to - oh, wait, I can't.
By making it less likely that an ISP will be (frivolously) sued for violating the nebulously unclear standard to take "reasonable" measure measures, Trump's government lowers the cost of the legal insurance, which lowers the total cost of doing business. And that's a good thing for both producers and the customers alike.
Of course, because Comcast/Verizon/etc are totally going to pass those savings on to me, the consumer, rather than pad their executives' bonuses or pay more dividends to stockholders.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
With fewer useless regulations, maybe, it will become more robust.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think, this is the likelier outcome?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that that's repeatedly been the outcome of unregulated economies? Either one, or a very small number of people establish a controlling position, and abuse it to shut everyone else out.
Re: (Score:1)
Hahahahahahahhahahahaha
You're a complete imbecile if you actually think that.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if one of the regulations overthrown is government guarantees behind contracts. Even then I think that's a hopelessly optimistic prediction. But as long as contract law stands many areas, perhaps most, are required to only allow one vendor access to their lines.
Come to that, you might also need to overthrow government enforcement of the right to property. Sometimes those lines are officially property of some particular private entity even though they were paid for by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Point of Fact - historically (at least over the last few decades), these 'protection' issues being implemented by 'The Donald' and his 'regulators' won't be seen as savings by the ISP's, but will be touted as 'added premiums' and they will actually ADD to the cost of your service under the guise of 'extra service' elements itemized on your bill - basically another tag-line item charge to your monthly tithe to the monopolized and protected tele-com providers in the USA.
Jeez, if it only WERE a tithe, which is
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't give a shit if they have legal insurance, I want my data protected.
Negligence must be punished.
Re: (Score:1)
Because self-regulating corporations have no history of screwing consumers through price gouging, collusion or from polluting people's drinking water.
The frictionless slope (Score:3)
Not that the FCC was ever very much more than a corporate puppet, but it's fascinating to watch them, and the government in general, find ways to be of even less service to the people.
So far, in just a couple months, we've seen the elimination of the requirement that energy companies must disclose royalties and government payments; the elimina
Re:The Million Regulators March on Washington (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is this not happening with pizzerias or sneakers?
Why am I paying the same price for 75 Mbps up/down today, that I used to pay for 35 Mpbs up/down 6 years ago?
The answer: competition. It is competition, that keeps the services improving and/or the prices dropping.
Once you have a monopoly — such as "Single Payer" education, or healthcare, or Internet-Service provision — the price goes up and the quality goes down.
Re: The Million Regulators March on Washington (Score:2, Informative)
My options are Verizon or Comcast. Yea that's some great competition there bunk.
At my old house, Verizon said it was Comcast area; Comcast said it was Verizon that had the lines. Stuck with no one willing to sell me internet. HughesNet wanted +100$ a month for capped and slow ass internet. Once again, great competiton we have there bunk.
The way you THINK it should work usually isn't the way it works. So while your theories may hold some water, in real life they never work out that way, and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I KNOW it works, where I live. Fixed that for you. Comcast sends their promotions monthly, and FiOS is well aware of it...
Your anecdotal evidence may be different and I do not doubt your truthfulness. But absence of ISP-choice is in itself the government's fault [wired.com] — it is too easy for the local mayors and city councils to block an ISP. So easy, even the mighty Google gave up [vox.com].
Re:The Million Regulators March on Washington (Score:5, Insightful)
"Once you have a monopoly -- such as "Single Payer" education,
or healthcare, or Internet-Service provision -- the price goes up
and the quality goes down."
what absolute bollocks - USA health costs per person
is about $8000 whereas that bastion of capitalist competition,
Sweden, is $4000 (you can check it out if you know how to
use this thing called the internet).
I think you should think twice before accusing someone
of being "unbelievably dumb" because the world is more
complicated than your view of it.
Re: (Score:1)
A conservative doubled down on the derp in the face of facts. Don't be accusing someone else of comparing apples and oranges when you turn around and do the same. The US does NOT have monopoly on education. There are 4 private schools with 10 miles of me. To even roughly make your point, you'd need to also provide the data for the private schools which you didn't do. Did they also see price increases since the 50s? Has THEIR quality gone up in the same period public ed was going down? Those questions
Re: (Score:2)
While that is true, they've gotten worse since standardized testing was implements. There are *reasonable* standardized tests. They'd happen perhaps once per year. Possibly twice. Three times is definitely overkill. And if you want to make them mandatory, make them mandatory for ALL schools. Otherwise make them local option.
Re:The Million Regulators March on Washington (Score:4, Insightful)
Once you have a monopoly — such as "Single Payer" education, or healthcare, or Internet-Service provision — the price goes up and the quality goes down.
Actually, no - you've got your monopoly on the wrong side with single payer healthcare.
Companies that are monopolies are allowed to arbitrarily increase their prices because they are the single seller.
Single payer health care involves there only being one single insurance company buying goods from the drugs companies, doctors, and hospitals, allowing them to drive the price *down*, not up. That's why healthcare is so much cheaper in Europe than the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The single payer they're typically comparing to is the NHS in the UK. While other insurers exist, they're such a small share of the market, that effectively the NHS holds a monopoly on paying for goods sold by drugs companies and/or hospitals.
Re: (Score:2)
The free market, pizza, and sneakers (Score:3)
It most definitely is. A decent quality pizza worth less than $2.00 (I make them from scratch, and that's what they cost me in low quantity in a relatively isolated region where raw materials prices are high, so I'm quite sure of the number) often costs well over $10.00. Sneakers worth about $8.00 can cost far, far more than that -- no more than a little bit of canvas, plastic and metal off a mass production line. The gouging is blatant and obvious. The f
Re: (Score:2)
Pizzas and sneakers are luxury markets with no dependencies on infrastructure and low barriers to market.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, to start an ISP right now means you need to build physical infrastructure
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly the example I wanted to cite. Google can count. They know, what cables cost and how hard it is to run it. But the costs and, more importantly, the intangible difficulties of obtaining the permits can not be estimated in advance.
And so it follows, that it were these government-imposed costs and difficulties, that scuttled Google Fiber — because, had it been anything else, they wouldn't have
Re: (Score:2)
.
Available evidence suggests not quite 'too dumb to reproduce' and dumber than 'Dayam!.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How fucking stupid do you think we are, anyway?
we have a failed TV reality personality running our country.
nuff said ;(
(to the world: I am sorry. I did not vote for this clown, he does not represent me or even the majority of my country and I'm sorry you and us all have to suffer thru this next 4 years. I'm really sorry, world. you and we both deserve better.)
Re: (Score:2)
By making it less likely that an ISP will be (frivolously) sued for violating the nebulously unclear standard to take "reasonable" measure measures, Trump's government lowers the cost of the legal insurance, which lowers the total cost of doing business. And that's a good thing for both producers and the customers alike.
How is it good for customers? Their bills will continue to be same or go up and they'll shoulder all the burden to clean up the identity theft issue after the data breach.
Are we from different countries? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, over the decades the cost of internet service in constant dollars has gone down and the speed of transmission has improved. Some of the content has also improved, and that isn't the fault of the ISP anyway.
When you compare the US to the rest of the world, of course, it's a far different story. And it may be different outside the metropolises (whatever the proper plural is). When my sister lived in a city in South Dakota the local phone company refused to allow internet connections...it can't
BeauHD (Score:5, Funny)
What does data security have to do with technology? This is why I don't come to Slashdot any more.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you trolling? Slashdot had a section called "Your Rights Online" for as long as I can remember, which dealt with issues like this. This matters because it's a serious privacy issue and the FCC's position is ridiculous. It is ridiculous to equate an ISP to companies like Facebook and Google. It's definitely possible to avoid Facebook and Google by not using their services and blocking their trackers that are embedded within other sites. I block Facebook's scripts and Google analytics, which accomplishes
Re: (Score:1)
And yet you are here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:BeauHD (Score:5, Informative)
That was supposed to be the punchline. I hate to be the guy who has to explain his own jokes, but every BeauHD article comment section seems to have one knucklehead who's complaining about SJWs or some such and the comment is always, "What does Grace Hopper have to do with tech? Slashdot has really gone downhill. That's why I don't come here any more."
Irony is hard enough to pull off in plain text, and I've been drinking since 10:30am, so I apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: BeauHD (Score:1)
Irony and sarcasm are no longer recognizable to many. I'm not sure why this is exactly but my guesses are:
A) People now interpret everything as being literal.
B) Reading is hard.
C) Too many big words.
D) Donald Fucking Trump
Sad...
Oh, Very Fscking Hilarious, Pai... (Score:5, Informative)
How convenient that Mr. Pai neglected to mention that AT&T was sued in 2014 by the FTC for false advertising -- namely, describing their mobile Internet service as "unlimited" when in fact they would throttle you or cut you off after you exceeded undocumented limits.
AT&T argued that, because the package included voice service, the dispute was outside the FTC's jurisdiction and should properly have been brought by the FCC. Mindbogglingly, the 9th Circuit agreed. ( https://consumerist.com/2016/0... [consumerist.com] )
So Pai's claim about wanting to achieve regulatory harmony and improved demarcation between agencies is unvarnished bullshit. He's trying to create more opportunity for regulatory arbitrage and pitting one federal commission against another.
Re: (Score:2)
Bannon was just recorded on audio the other day at some meeting. The topic was Trump's clear mandate to disassemble the administrative state and gut non-statute regulations. That's the plan. They want to make sure if something's not in the statutory code it's not legally enforceable. The want to completely dismantle the Executive agencies beyond Defense, State, and DHS basically.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com]
Pai's not there to provide regu
This is what actual Net Neutrality looks like (Score:2)
Net Neutrality is about the government staying out of your networks, or at the new FCC chairman puts it:
Pai wants a "technology-neutral privacy framework for the online world" based on the FTC's standards
Somewhere in here is a real story but you aren't getting it from the summary.
Long form to say the same thing (Score:2)
All actors in the online space should be subject to the same rules
Exactly. THAT is net neutrally. Any other action is just corporations pulling the strings in one way or another.
Boggle! (Score:3, Insightful)
As a European I am astounded that companies don't already have a requirement to keep personal data safe. It is something that I just expect to happen. OK: I do realise that what the law says and what companies actually do can be very different, but still - companies do get fined over here for lax security. This must be why people tell me that the USA is not a safe country for personal data.
Re: (Score:2)
There are laws in the US that mandate PII be kept secure, and the gov't & people notified of breaches.
That's what puzzles me about this.
Re: (Score:1)
From EFF's comment on the specific privacy rule under dispute:
"The FCC describes ISPs as the most significant component of online communications
that poses the greatest threat to consumer privacy. This description is inconsistent with
the reality of the online communications ecosystem. Internet users routinely shift from
one ISP to another, as they move between home, office, mobile, and open WiFi services.
However, all pathways lead to essentially one Internet search company and one social
network company. Pr
Of course there are laws. BeauHD is full of shit (Score:2)
> As a European I am astounded that companies don't already have a requirement to keep personal data safe. It is something that I just expect to happen.
Of course there are laws. Several of them. This submission is just BeauHD spouting more utter bullshit.
Yesterday, the FCC decided that some of the hundreds of thousands of Title II regulations originally written to regulate the phone companies would apply differently to small ISPs. BeauHD claimed the order said "ISPs are now allowed to lie about their
Elections have consequences (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure everyone who made this happen knows what "consequences" means.
Not elections (Score:1)
The gap between who the people voted for and who ends up in the office is where the consequences lie. If the majority person was in office, he'd try to make the lives of the majority better, to keep a majority.
On the other hand, if POTUS candidate conspires with a foreign government, getting hacking help and propaganda and possibly funding, then he'd block cyber security bills. Undermine government investigatory powers. Refuse to open his books for inspection. Put people in power more for their loyalty not
Unsafe at any speed (Score:1)
full-speed reverse (Score:3)
Re: full-speed reverse (Score:1)
He's making America great again*
Isn't this what you people wanted __and__ voted for?
*meaning great for the people with money and who make the rules.
When is a rule not a rule? (Score:2)
But the privacy order stressed that following these standards is "voluntary" and that "providers retain the option to use whatever risk management approach best fits their needs." If there are complaints about security, the FCC would decide whether the ISP has implemented reasonable data security practices based on a few factors.
So ISPs don't have to do anything. But whatever they do, the FCC can step in and decide if it was enough - after the fact. Sounds like a half-baked regulation that should be tossed.
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
"According to Ars Technica, "The Federal Communications Commission plans to halt implementation of a privacy rule that requires ISPs to protect the security of its customers' personal information." From the report: The data security rule is part of a broader privacy rulemaking implemented under former Chairman Tom Wheeler but opposed by the FCC's new Republican majority."
Republicans screwing over the American public? This is my shocked face.
Re: (Score:2)
"According to Ars Technica, "The Federal Communications Commission plans to halt implementation of a privacy rule that requires ISPs to protect the security of its customers' personal information." From the report: The data security rule is part of a broader privacy rulemaking implemented under former Chairman Tom Wheeler but opposed by the FCC's new Republican majority."
Republicans screwing over the American public? This is my shocked face.
You see if companies implement reasonable measure to protect privacy then it might be more difficult to hack and use that information against their political enemies. It is sort of like the White House's actions earlier today.
I believe it goes something like this.
1. Classify everything that might embarrass the government. (even though they aren't suppose to.)
2. Be able to have their people troll through private email and such without warrants to help find any leakers.
3. Make the press less likely to accep
Re: (Score:2)
It's vague and arbitrary rules without clear enforcement that screw over the American public, and that's what this looks like. This looks more like an FCC power grab and possibly even a way for the FCC to shield ISPs against legal claims.
If your ISP leaks your information, you should be able to hold them responsible in court (if need be, via a class action lawsuit). That's far better than FCC rulemaking.
probably not what it seems (Score:1)
That sounds like a very pro-consumer rule, doesn't it? Except, it really isn't, because "reasonable" is pretty arbitrary, and so is FCC enforcement. More likely than not, such a rule is simply an excuse for ISPs to say "we took reasonable steps, so if something happened
Wow, unlimited sock puppets (Score:1)
FCC rule is too vague - that's the real issue (Score:2)
OP should READ and COMPREHEND before cutting ans pasting.
This rule uses the legally indefinable word, "reasonable" which renders it unenforceable and a total waste of everyone's resources.
That's why it's being killed.
Trump /= Emmanual Goldstein
No surprises here. (Score:1)
Pai is wasting no time kicking that nepotism into high gear.
Regulations (Score:1)
Is lying to an ISP a crime ? (Score:2)
I know that providing false information to the feds is a crime but does that apply to your ISP. Just make up a SSN and remember it. Where do they have the authority or source to check or verify your provided info ?
Actually (Score:2)
In truth all ISPs should be required to log NOTHING from their customers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That'd be a great idea if people had 5 or 6 different ISPs to choose from that had competitive plans and also had different management mentalities, such as protecting clients' privacy or not. Show me how many places have such markets.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Because FUCK YOU, that's why (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you missed what the AC's point. The fact of the matter is there is NO competition in most markets. Consequently, competitive market forces do not work. IOW, if someone doesn't like "their conditions," they probably don't have any options which would enable them to say "thanks, but no thanks" to their provider.
And the idea that another will appear to "fill in the gap" is much easier said than done. With the current investment environment, startups are having a tougher time getting cash. And that doesn't consider the issue of how many people are interested in or willing to startup an ISP business. I suspect that's a pretty small segment of the population. So the chance of that occurring seems quite remote.
The "free market" is not as "free" as some people think.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Want to go without internet for a few months to wait for one? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it would really be years or decades, not months. The current legal environment allows companies to have contracts that monopolize access to the telecommunication lines, and wireless frequencies are also strictly regulated. You might be able to handle SOME connections with laser links, but not most of them.
FWIW, there used to be many more ISPs when things were over dial-up *because* it was impossible to monopolize the lines.
If you want to go dial-up, you can probably still find a choice of ISPs, b
Re: (Score:3)
No, another one won't fill the gap. ISPs require massive startup costs (digging up the ground to put new cables in isn't cheap) and are legally prevented from providing service in many areas anyway (due to exclusivity agreements).
Fix those problems and then you'll have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were outside the USA, then it's relatively simple, but for some reason USA consumers have low to zero market choice when it comes to ISPs.
The _reason_ these rules are required in the first place is because of the legislated monopolies in many areas which mean that incumbents are under on commercial pressure to do the right thing. Removing the rules without removing the reason is a fast trip down to Pwnville