California May Restore Broadband Privacy Rules Killed By Congress and Trump (arstechnica.com) 85
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A proposed law in California would require Internet service providers to obtain customers' permission before they use, share, or sell the customers' Web browsing history. The California Broadband Internet Privacy Act, a bill introduced by Assembly member Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) on Monday, is very similar to an Obama-era privacy rule that was scheduled to take effect across the US until President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress eliminated it. If Chau's bill becomes law, ISPs in California would have to get subscribers' opt-in consent before using browsing history and other sensitive information in order to serve personalized advertisements. Consumers would have the right to revoke their consent at any time. The opt-in requirement in Chau's bill would apply to "Web browsing history, application usage history, content of communications, and origin and destination Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of all traffic." The requirement would also apply to geolocation data, IP addresses, financial and health information, information pertaining to minors, names and billing information, Social Security numbers, demographic information, and personal details such as physical addresses, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers.
Well, if it goes through (Score:3)
I know where I'd like to setup a new VPN service.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to remove bad moderation. Apologies
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically if I use a foreign VPN then the US government isn't able to have vague warrants to capture thousands of people. The feds can still target me individually and drag me into court, but using a foreign VPN probably makes the usual fishing expeditions more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
XKeyscore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] will find VPN users.
Re: (Score:2)
assuming they can decrypt the traffic, which is unlikely unless they were able to strong arm the provider in giving up private keys. In the US it's pretty easy for the government to require a business to give up encryption keys, and place everyone under a gag order to prevent them from talking about it. Plus if you're a security-oriented service provider, you're not going to talk about cooperating with the government because that's bad for business.
Re: (Score:2)
They capture any traffic in or out of our border. Unfortunately I cant reveal where I have learned of this information. Encrypt everything. Thats out last hope right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Best to use a VPN service from outside your legal jurisdiction. The US is particularly bad because of things like National Security Letters, but the rule applies everywhere. Your own country can likely force the VPN provider to supply them with information on you fairly easily, but if that provider is based in another country, with a different legal jurisdiction where they need foreign court approval for the data, it's much harder. There is also a possibility that the VPN provider will be able to notify you
Off the mark? (Score:4, Insightful)
Its not really the history aspect that concerns me. Its the potential of throttling netflix or hulu, paid "fast lanes" and ISP's potential to shut down site's they dont agree with that concerns me.
Re: (Score:2)
California could reasonably set its own rules for that, too. One thing at a time.
Won't touch Google. (Score:2)
Google is CA company, they can continue as always.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd not be be surprised if Google was actually a Delaware company, merely having offices in SV...
Let's check. [sec.gov] Duh. A big US company not incorporated in Delaware? Ain't such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice gesture, but it's not enough (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
EULA (Score:4, Interesting)
"By clicking you are agreeing to use our services. Click "no thanks" at the bottom if you do not agree."
And when you click "no thanks" you are brought to a blank page.
If you agree, you get these constant emails stating the the terms and conditions have changed. And then you have to read hundreds of pages of legaleese. Apple, eBay, PayPal, .... all of them are fuckers who are out to fuck us.
That's how these fuckers work. It's their way or nothing.
I think EULA's should be deemed not enforceable just for that fact.
EULA == EVIL.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to use your ISPs DNS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because your PC doesn't use their DNS service to look up an IP address doesn't mean that you are bypassing their pipes to get there. They still see where you are going. Changing your DNS server doesn't magically shift all your traffic to some other ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
And when you click "no thanks" you are brought to a blank page.
So, in other words, it is not an opt-in selection. The law requires opt-in. They can't legally refuse service if the provision is opt-in otherwise it wouldn't be.
If you agree, you get these constant emails stating the the terms and conditions have changed.
You will get those no matter what, so it's not an issue of the opt-in vs. not opting-in under this law.
Did you think that this one opt-in was intended to replace the TOS agreement process? Sorry, that's not what it does.
So, again, exactly how is not opting-in to the collection of browser data etc under the CA law NOT a viable alternative to opti
Re: (Score:2)
So much this.
You know those signs in the parking lot of Walmart that say, "Not responsible for damages from shopping carts?"
That responsibility is determined by due process.
Same as with signs that say, "Not responsible for lost or stolen items."
Maybe ... maybe not. The judicial system may have a ruling that disagrees.
The EULA should be demoted to status of "preference," rather than "contract."
Re: (Score:2)
Attorney: Sir, You clicked "I agree." User: "Prove it. (I didn't agree to anything, as I don't install my own software. A technician does that.) Until you can prove I read and clicked the agreement, go away."
Re: (Score:2)
One unexpected benefit of EULAs is that you can return stuff you otherwise might not be able to. Most of them say something like "if you don't agree, return the product for a full refund". Could even be long after you bought it; just wait for an EULA update, decline it and return the unwanted thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something like this should never have been set at a national level to begin with. Let states decide what makes sense from a privacy standpoint and then consumers can decide where they want to live based on restrictions they have to liver under making sense or not.
Isn't there a big cost to patchwork of states' policies? It also allows broadband companies to jurisdiction-shop non?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to start thinking about how powerful you want the Federal Government to be. Are you scared of what the Trump administration can do? If so then you ought to consider curtailing the power of the federal government - and you ought to also be cognizant that others were just as scared of the Obama administration a
Re: (Score:2)
To summarize, "Don't ask what the current administration will do with this new law. Ask what the NEXT one will do with it."
Re: (Score:2)
However, there is no reason that states cannot decide for themselves whether or not to increase the level of privacy protection for their citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
At issue is whether or not something is a Federal or State issue issue. And it's a complicated issue, further complicated by both sides willing to push the envelope into, what seems to me clearly, contravening the US Constitution.
Example of states overreaching : sanctuary cities and non-compliance with Federal immigration law.
Example of the Federal govt overreaching: enforcing federal marijuana law in states that legalized grow
Federal Preemption (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Area A buys this stuff at this rate as opposed to Area B.
Or making psychometric analysis through search analysis, comparing to buying patterns, etc.. to get a grasp about whether Area A or Area B is the best place to open up a new Whole Foods or whatever.
Yes for freedom (Score:1)
Would you rather Trump later on passes some kind of regulation that all ISPs must send all customer data to the RNC for targeting voters? I don't see any reason he could not do so, since after all he controls appointments to the FCC.
Now he has not done so and probably would not, but you are supporting the kind of system that makes that reality way more possible than I personally am comfortable with.
You should never support a system that is so powerful where it actually matters who gets elected to control i
Re: (Score:1)
Re:This is how it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
Let states decide what makes sense
So, what is a person to do when all of the states supporting his or her real life needs adopt the same "screw the citizen" approach? This notion that a person can just move to a city or state that works for them or take their money to a business that is not trying to screw over the consumer in an endless pursuit of unreasonable profit is bullshit. Choice tends to not exist in the practical sense, because there is no alternative when all are the same. This is specifically true for profit driven businesses. What are you going to do when your state of choice creates a legal and regulatory environment not to your liking? Are you to insist that it be decided at the town/city level?
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens when the federal government adapts a "screw the citizen" attitude?
Special interests own politicians at all levels, and this will never change. It might just be the wealthy family on the hill that has in their pocket the supposedly elected by the people mayor of Tiny Town, USA. It may be a global conglomerate behometh that owns half the U.S. House. This might be less of a problem if politicians were not allowed to have consecutive terms, and terms were kept short enough. It would be harder to buy individuals with so many in play and when the person isn't to be in offic
Re: (Score:2)
The USA was not set up to take all powers from the states.
Federally the US gov has some tasks, roles and has to protect some rights.
If too much power was granted to a new US gov the States would have never agreed to become part of the USA.
Re What are you going to do when your state of choice creates a legal and regulatory environment not to your liking? Are you to i
Re:This is how it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
no, it should NOT be on a per-state basis. why do you think some states 'deserve' privacy and others do not?
no PERSON would want to give away their privacy. any fails on net-neutrality or privacy is solely due to politicians collecing kickbacks when they sell us all out. they stopped representing us a long time ago.
no, basic human rights (of which privacy IS one) should not be sold out based on which state (and more so, which color your state is) you are in.
if you think states should decide this, maybe you also think states should allow slavery again? or that child labor is 'ok' in some states.
some things should be national. human rights and quality of life issues are NOT state-specific!
oh, and fuck trump and his GOP 'screw everyone but the rich' agenda. impeachment can't come soon enough for that orange idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
if you think states should decide this, maybe you also think states should allow slavery again? or that child labor is 'ok' in some states.
Barely 50 posts, and we're soooooo close to Godwin... come on now, don't disappoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Let people decide for themselves instead of forcing your values upon them
That's why there's opt-in. Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. You should be able to choose.
Re: (Score:2)
oh, and fuck trump and his GOP 'screw everyone but the rich' agenda. impeachment can't come soon enough for that orange idiot.
Yeah, this was such an important policy for Obama that he made an executive rule on his way out of office that wouldn't go into effect until a couple of months into the next Presidency. Obviously, it was *really* important for Obama, right? He had 8 years to do it, and he didn't. That way, he didn't have to piss off his corporate overlords and clueless people like you could then blame Trump. Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of Speech in Kentucky but not Georgia, you can murder in Boston but only on Tuesdays. Make sure not to each chicken or you must divulge your browser history during May in Ohio.
They can just throw the Constitution on a Twister matt and will just start spinning to make up the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
What good is your second amendment right?
You never exercise the goddam right.
The reason you don't is because you only have a right to own guns.
You don't have the right to actually use the motherfuckers.
Obama era rule? (Score:1)
So, we have another Obama Era rule that never applied for a single day of Obama's eight years in Office?
Might have been harder to just toss the Rule on the ash-heap of history if it had been effect already, as opposed to being something that wouldn't inconvenience the Obama White House in any way....
Wow, not nearly good enough. (Score:2)
The FCC is trying to restore privacy rules (Score:2)
Remember, the rules that were recently rolled back were themselves a rollback of previous privacy protections that were arguably much better.
The FCC and FTC are in the process now of restoring the privacy regulations dismantled over the past few years.
Yes, it's unfortunate that this has gotten so complicated, such a story of double and triple negatives. In short, though, Congress and the president worked to undo the previous undoing of privacy rules. It's part of an effort to make internet privacy regulatio