Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Network Republicans Security The Internet United States

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California May Restore Broadband Privacy Rules Killed By Congress and Trump

Comments Filter:
  • by H3lldr0p ( 40304 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @05:28PM (#54664329) Homepage

    I know where I'd like to setup a new VPN service.

    • by cunina ( 986893 )
      You would be crazy to run a VPN service anywhere within federal US jurisdiction. For now, that includes California.
      • If you're already physically within US jurisdiction, then throwing a VPN into the mix doesn't make your situation any worse (except for stuff like speed and cost).
        • Replying to remove bad moderation. Apologies

        • 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.

          • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
            Depends on where VPN and its locations. Does the USA have any access to their government/mil?
            XKeyscore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] will find VPN users.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @05:34PM (#54664359)

    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.

  • Google is CA company, they can continue as always.

  • It's nice of them to do this, but it seems to me that having an opt-in will still basically force people to allow it due to few viable alternatives.
    • Why is not opting-in a viable alternative to opting-in? I don't get it.
      • EULA (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @05:52PM (#54664481)

        "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.

        • You don't have to use your ISPs DNS.

          • I don't. :-) Not sure how much privacy that preserves, though, they can still log every single IP address you connect to.
          • 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.

        • 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

        • 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."

        • 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."

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          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.

  • 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....

  • It should be illegal to access any of that information without a warrant, period.
  • 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

"Don't think; let the machine do it for you!" -- E. C. Berkeley

Working...