Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Businesses Government The Almighty Buck The Internet United States

Minnesota Senate Votes To Bar Selling ISP Data (twincities.com) 112

Posted by BeauHD from the thou-shall-not-sell dept.
Kagato quotes a report from St. Paul Pioneer Press: In a surprise move, the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday voted to bar internet service providers from selling their users' personal data without express written consent. The move was a reaction to a Tuesday vote in Congress to lift a ban on that practice imposed in 2016 by the Federal Communication Commission. Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, offered the amendment onto the Senate's economic development budget bill, saying it was urgently needed to protect Minnesotans' privacy after the congressional vote. Latz's amendment was challenged under Senate rules on the grounds that it would impose a cost on a state agency and thus needed to go through committee rather than be added on the floor. Republican Sen. Warren Limmer, of Maple Grove, broke with his party to overturn the Senate president's ruling and allow the internet privacy amendment to continue by a single vote. Once the amendment cleared this procedural hurdle, it was overwhelmingly added to the bill on a 66-1 vote. The lone critic, Sen. David Osmek, R-Mound, said Latz's amendment needed more study and review before being adopted. The Register reports that Illinois has also fought back against Tuesday's vote by approving two new privacy measures. "On Thursday, the state's Cybersecurity, Data Analytics and IT Committee approved two new privacy measures," reports The Register. "One would allow state residents to demand what data companies such as Comcast, Verizon, Google and Facebook is sharing about them. The other would require consent before an app can track users' locations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Minnesota Senate Votes To Bar Selling ISP Data More

Minnesota Senate Votes To Bar Selling ISP Data

Comments Filter:

  • Terms of Service (Score:3, Insightful)

    by transami ( 202700 ) on Friday March 31, 2017 @08:05AM (#54150165) Homepage

    The only problem with this is "express written consent" just becomes an inescapable back door. They'll just put it into their Terms of Service and you won't be able to get service from any ISP without agreeing to them. So this is weak sauce, that looks good but doesn't;t accomplish anything.

    • Re: Terms of Service (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2017 @08:13AM (#54150235)

      The Minnesota law says they are required to have an opt out provision and can't deny service.

      • The opt out provision will be on page 87 of the 89 page service agreement. The form for opting out will be available in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” When you file the Opt-Out form, you must also attach documentation that your grandfather was eligible to also Opt Out.

      • Re: Terms of Service (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday March 31, 2017 @09:53AM (#54150961) Homepage Journal

        The Minnesota law says they are required to have an opt out provision and can't deny service.

        It needs to be OPT IN.....why do they have such a problem making it all opt IN, rather than opt out assuming you want your info gathered, analyzed and disseminated?

        • Since I can't add any mod points to support this comment, I need to add an emphatic "HELL YES" to it.

          ANY time there is a policy that might affect an individual's privacy due to a corporation potentially dispensing that individual's personal data, the default should be to OPT IN to allow the corp to sell the data. Not opting in means "don't sell my freakin' data."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        And that is how you do it. While I generally have an exceptionally low opinion of politicians ("those that can neither do nor teach, i.e. those that fail at everything"), somebody in Minnesota seems to at least be able to listen to experts. For a politician, that is a great achievement.

    • They'll just put it into their Terms of Service and you won't be able to get service from any ISP without agreeing to them. So this is weak sauce, that looks good but doesn't;t accomplish anything.

      Depending no how the law is written, any conflicting clause of the Terms of Service would simply be unenforceable. So, it may accomplish quite a bit (if you live in Minnesota, at least).

    • I'd assume that a contract of adhesion doesn't count as 'express written consent.'
    • I found awhile ago you can re-negotiate your contract with an ISP if you're a govt of commercial user. So, ymmv.

  • This is going to get messy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lbmouse ( 473316 ) on Friday March 31, 2017 @08:08AM (#54150183) Homepage
    How are ISP going to manage their privacy policies if each states has different laws? This is why the FCC needed to regulate the abuse of user data at the federal level.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zaphon ( 13837 )

      The bill overturned (which wasn't even in effect yet) only blocked ISP's while allowing Facebook, Google, etc. to do it. How about a full privacy bill!

      • Re:This is going to get messy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday March 31, 2017 @08:12AM (#54150223)

        That would pretty much invalidate the whole social media business model. Every social media webpage would pretty much lose all its value over night and would have to...

        Where do I sign?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Zaphon ( 13837 )

          And search, advertising, etc. Basically all the things we all hate about the internet but just accept as "normal."

          • Hell let's just roll it completely back and start using Usenet newsgroups.For as much as we all don't like the online advertising and social media business they have done a great and innovative service to the whole of the WWW. (sorry not sorry for the hyperbole)

            • Oh, Usenet. I kinda miss it, it was almost like the social media bullshit today. About as much spam, but with more openness and less restrictive.

              Plus, as an added bonus, no idiots trying to "friend" you so they get ahead in some bullshit game.

        • The internet would mostly be a bunch of online stores and services you had to subscribe to but at least the services would be ad free.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tomhath ( 637240 )

            but at least the services would be ad free

            Ad free? Nope. The services would still be bloated with ads, just more of them will be non-targeted.

            • There are some services I wish would have a subscription model available for an ad free experience but that doesn't really happen that much.

          • You mean, like, say, how it was 20 years ago?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kagato ( 116051 )

        Because that would be interstate commerce. And the state wouldn't be able to defend the bill. By concentrating on the local point of presence they can narrow the scope.

    • No, the FCC did not need to regulate this. Congress needed (needs) to pass a law (although, even better would be for Congress to stop facilitating the creation of monopolies). We do not need unelected bureaucrats deciding what we can and cannot do.
      • So instead we get election-by-gerrymandering bureaucrats deciding what we can and cannot do?
        • At least in that case it is possible to throw them out. It takes work, but it can be done. I fully understand that most people are too lazy for democracy and much prefer some form of tyranny.
          If you are willing to make the effort, you can change things. Most people are not willing to make the effort.

      • We do not need unelected bureaucrats deciding what we can and cannot do.

        Of course we do. We need to be overlorded or else the Terrorists/GlobalWarming/Trump/Pelosi/IRS/NSA/Russia/NRA/NOW/Gays/Christians/Whites/Illegals wins!

        Duh

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The Regulatory State (federal and below) developed because The Legislature doesn't have time to deal with administrative details. That's always been the case - Kings & Queens have Prime Ministers; the US has a President (the latter is NOT a King; he (so far) executes the laws and his discretion in doing so is not unlimited); states have a Governor and cities have Mayors to do the same thing; even a tribal chief usually has a subchief or chief of staff to get the orders carried out. It's even more import

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tsqr ( 808554 )

      How are ISP going to manage their privacy policies if each states has different laws? This is why the FCC needed to regulate the abuse of user data at the federal level.

      Maybe something similar to the way auto manufacturers cope with the fact that California has different emissions requirements than other states.

      • Maybe something similar to the way auto manufacturers cope with the fact that California has different emissions requirements than other states.

        I'm amazed that anyone here would try equating "the Internet" with some limited number of physical objects. Very expensive physical objects at that.

        Think about it for a minute. What do the California laws for emissions require? Cars that are sold within the state of CA, (and licensed therein) must meet certain emissions standards, which are tested on a regular basis when you renew your vehicle registration.

        The Internet is a world-wide operation, and people who live in CA may buy Internet service from a c

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tsqr ( 808554 )

          I'm amazed that anyone here would try equating "the Internet" with some limited number of physical objects.

          I would be amazed by that as well. Of course, I didn't compare "the internet" to cars. I compared the ability of car manufacturers' ability to craft policy to the ability of ISPs to craft policy.

          If you didn't know, the way car manufacturers cope with the California emissions standards is by making cars that comply with those standards. Those cars are referred to as "50 state compliant', a class that includes almost all cars manufactured for sale in the United States. A small number of cars are "49 state com

          • Of course, I didn't compare "the internet" to cars. I compared the ability of car manufacturers' ability to craft policy to the ability of ISPs to craft policy.

            That is an implicit equating of cars to the Internet, otherwise you cannot claim that the ability to have state-level policies for one means you can have effective state-level policies for the other.

            Those cars are referred to as "50 state compliant',

            And every penny of what it costs to add that compliance is paid for by the customer. It's a negative selling point in 49 states. And it does not apply to used cars in those states.

            If enough states pass laws similar to Minnesota's, the ISPs will most likely cope by complying with those laws everywhere,

            What if the laws are not identical? How does an ISP know someone lives in MN vs CA vs OH vs ...? Do you want the prices of service to

    • How are ISP going to manage their privacy policies if each states has different laws? This is why the FCC needed to regulate the abuse of user data at the federal level.

      There are two obvious solutions: Make sure that you only sell the data of people outside of Minnesota, and the data of people in Minnesota who have given written consent. OR don't sell that data at all.

      Option 2 is much easier to implement, requires absolutely no changes to your existing systems, and is customer friendly.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by caseih ( 160668 )

      Frankly, who cares how difficult it is for the ISPs. This is just a fact of life about how the US is set up and runs. Companies already have to navigate state-specific regulations. And if the states can and should regulate and enforce privacy, why not let them do it and assume the burden?

      So while I disagree with almost everything the Republican Party stands for, on this I can certainly see their point. Why not let the local government, who theoretically has a better handle on the needs of its citizens th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Companies already have to navigate state-specific regulations.

        That's like reasoning that since your backyard pool already has alligators inhabiting it, it's okay to also put piranhas in it.

        Why not let the local government, who theoretically has a better handle on the needs of its citizens than the federal government, decide what privacy is needed and enforce it on companies?

        It hurts international competitiveness because companies have spend resources dealing with local laws that cover the same issue diffe

        • I guess you don't yet realize that the Republicans (as with the Dems) are a coalition of factions.

          Small government libertarians != big government social conservatives != corporatist.

          Republicans, just as the Democrats have parties that disagree strongly with each other

          Labor v Environmentalists
          Labor v Open border

          And in some cases there is union between the two parties: Example, Corporatists in both the Rep and Dem party are for open borders

          All this to say that the statement "political freedom"

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Tablizer ( 95088 )

            Small-govt-ists and corporatists are pretty much the same thing. Small gov't in practice means corporations fill the void/swamp. Libertarians romantically decorate their "small gov't" claims by saying it enables freedom for ordinary folks, but that mostly stopped working after mass industrialization, and the winner-take-all pattern is ever growing (network effect).

            The FCC tracking dereg vote was almost purely along party lines.

            • No!!!

              I'm a small-government libertarian and I assure you I am not a corporatist. In case it matters the very concept of "laissez-faire" arose in opposition to mercantilism (the 18th C word for corporatist).

              So. Laissez-faire (small-government libertarian) types are very much opposed to corporatism.

              • You are deluding yourself if you think laissez-faire benefits anyone other than the megacorporations and the 1%ers who own/run them. Someone will always wield power. When government cedes its economic and regulatory power, it falls to the next most powerful entity - the large corporations - who will then write the rules for themselves.

                • Guess I'm f**king deluding myself that a small gov't means that corporations can't use the govt to suit itself. Maybe, just maybe, growing the govt means more power to corporations who collude with the govt

                  • Re: (Score:1)

                    by Tablizer ( 95088 )

                    As a business, if there is nobody to bribe to do X instead of Y, then you can do X yourself. Gov't would just be the middle man.

                    For example, suppose Biz A wants to dump pollution into a river. With a gov't, they'd have to bribe/manipulate the gov't to allow them dump pollution. If there is no gov't or a small gov't who doesn't regulate rivers, then Biz A simply dumps.

                    • Small government libertarians != anarchists.

                      The courts easily deal with this scenario.

                    • Courts are mostly after-the-fact "solutions". Pollution regulations often require a company to log and monitor their own expulsions. To break the law you have to actively forge documents and test results. If we rely on lawsuits, there is little incentive to "fly right" being a lawsuit could be distant and delay-able with enough legal finagling. Corporations only tend to think about 5 years out. The internal executive mantra is "get big, get laid, then leave for another company".

                  • The only time businesses and the government collude specifically for the benefit of the corporations rather than just to get the government out of the way as Tablizer is getting at, is when government is actually the customer of the business. The biggest and most obvious example of this is the military industrial complex. Does your small-government libertarianism also include a desire for a small military, and thus an end to the business model of companies like Lockheed Martin?

                    • You mean to tell me government isn't used to protect and give things to industry? Really?

                      I'm not talking about accelerated deductions (which I'm for by the way) but removing or capping liability for preferred industries (nuclear) or putting quotas, duties, loans, favoring one industry over another, and in times of extreme corruption favoring specific companies (Solyndra anyone). This is the collusion btwn business and gov't that is fought best by having the concept of limited government firmly in mind w

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by DarkOx ( 621550 )

                  You are deluding yourself if you think laissez-faire benefits anyone other than the megacorporations and the 1%ers who own/run them.

                  That just inst true. Real libertarian policies don't favor mega corps at all. Imagine if we had not done the bank bailouts, the auto bailouts, etc. Most of the mega corps you can name and their owners would be nothing today. Mega corps EXIST and only can exist because of interventions and entry barriers large government provides. In absence of those things big ~= brittle, and brittle things break before they get to big.

                  There is a reason the natural world isn't ruled by giant lizards any longer but by s

            • Both lead to situations like ALEC, the "non profit" who writes up very pro-corporate laws and then gets their collaborators in various state and local governments to pass them. I'm all for "individual rights" and "market freedom", but it's impossible for a single person to be able to fight their way against the corporatist beachhead that is a blob of non-profits like ALEC, Heritage Foundation, Kock brothers, and their billions of dollars. So people need to organize together...however that is what our "gover

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swb ( 14022 )

      I suspect that this is kind of a hidden intent in the Federalist system -- if a policy or business behavior is noxious enough to get specifically banned by a group of states such that it becomes difficult for a multi-state organization to choose between "safe" behavior permitted nation-wide vs. the extra work of engaging in the banned behavior and managing the overhead of where it's allowed then organizations will more than likely choose to drop the noxious behavior everywhere.

    • How are ISP going to manage their privacy policies if each states has different laws? This is why the FCC needed to regulate the abuse of user data at the federal level.

      Well, the federal government is the highest law of the land. I haven't read the law created by the US congress, and I'm not a lawyer, but if the federal bill expressly permits the selling of user data, the states can't create legislation that requires the opposite.

      i.e. federal law overrules state laws.

    • Presumably they are going to say "No, we're not breaking minnesota's privacy laws" a lot, followed by "prove it in court" followed by "Oops, we're sorry, here's the slap on the wrist fees" followed by "No, we're not breaking minnesota's privacy laws"...
    • It will not be that hard. I used to build software in the tax industry. Do you know how many regional tax rules are out there? Yet, somehow, everyone manages to get along with that. Besides, every single ISP already has to deal with not only state regulations, but even the local community regulators when providing service to the area. This will be no different. It is just one more template that must be customized for the jurisdiction. Besides, they could always opt for the easy option and just choose to do
  • This will be an interesting test of the power of State versus Federal authority, but anything that slows the rapid repeal of privacy rights is welcome news.

    A strong federal government is important in a lot of ways, but the State's right to redress grievances in court is another important check & balance.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 31, 2017 @08:23AM (#54150281)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      I hope my state adopts something similar. This is actually how the "Federalist" model is supposed to work: each state regulates what and how they want to.

      However, it can result in fractured laws where a corporation has to consider up to 50 laws (and more if county-specific ones appear) instead of just one. In other words, "poor factoring".

      The same could happen to laws on the environment, finance, labor, etc. per GOP deregulation. California has even threatened to start its own space program to launch envir

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Altus ( 1034 )

        yeah except with the environment your state gets to poison mine regardless of the laws passed in my state. While having 50 privacy laws is a workable, if stupid, way to handle things like ISP data, it doesn't work for the environment.

        And if states like California, who already put far more into the federal government than they get back, end up having to fund things like space exploration and environmental protection and basically everything else that is being cut from the budget, what reason do they have t

    • If the FCC cared, they'd have had this ironed out years ago.

      Perhaps you don't know how the FCC works. They suffer from exactly the same political party biases as any part of Washington D.C. does. They have a board of 5 commissioners and by law no more than 3 can belong to the same political party. The current makeup is 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat and 2 unfilled seats. I don't know why the 2 seats are unfilled. Could be that Obama appointed people and the Senate refused to consider them. As far i know there's nothing to stop Trump from appointing a Republican

  • Trolls are already pushing "it's illegal to pay for the browsing history of the politicians", pointing to an article[1] that says some things "arguaby" may still be prohibited by laws, pased previous to the FCCs regulation. Watch out for "false facts" here.

    --dave
    [1. http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15115382/buy-congress-web-history-gop-fake-internet-privacy]
    see also https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/03/29/1717201/activist-starts-a-campaign-to-buy-and-publish-browsing-histories-of-politicians-who-passed-ant
  • Several democrats who ran for state senate had this as part of their platform. This was an issue that was brought up at multiple caucuses across the state and in the state convention as well. The only surprise is that their were some republicans who were willing to favor people over profit on this vote and join with the democrats.

    • Several democrats who ran for state senate had this as part of their platform. This was an issue that was brought up at multiple caucuses across the state and in the state convention as well. The only surprise is that their were some republicans who were willing to favor people over profit on this vote and join with the democrats.

      There are quite a few of the GOP MN state legislators that are more moderate (at least the ones from my area). The state GOP controls both the House and Senate, but they can't simply push their agenda too hard due to Governor Dayton's veto power.

      • Several democrats who ran for state senate had this as part of their platform. This was an issue that was brought up at multiple caucuses across the state and in the state convention as well. The only surprise is that their were some republicans who were willing to favor people over profit on this vote and join with the democrats.

        There are quite a few of the GOP MN state legislators that are more moderate (at least the ones from my area).

        We do have an interesting collection of ducks from the 2016 election. Ultimately though as was the case nationwide, the overwhelming majority of candidates anywhere who ran for re-election were rewarded with another term. Hence which the balance shifted slightly the overall composition changed little.

        The state GOP controls both the House and Senate, but they can't simply push their agenda too hard due to Governor Dayton's veto power.

        Correct. The state GOP does not have enough votes in either chamber this session to override a veto on a straight party-line vote. They do have the option to do nothing and shut down the state government (

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close