Verizon Wants To Ban States From Protecting Your Privacy (dslreports.com) 183
DSLReports that Verizon sent a letter and white paper last week to the FCC, insisting that "the FCC has ample authority to pre-empt state efforts to protect consumer privacy, and should act to prevent states from doing so." Verizon's letter reads in part: "Allowing every State and locality to chart its own course for regulating broadband is a recipe for disaster. It would impose localized and likely inconsistent burdens on an inherently interstate service, would drive up costs, and would frustrate federal efforts to encourage investment and deployment by restoring the free market that long characterized Internet access service." From the report: But there's several things Verizon is ignoring here. One being that the only reason states are trying to pass privacy laws is because Verizon lobbyists convinced former Verizon lawyer and FCC boss Ajit Pai that it was a good idea to kill the FCC's relatively modest rules. It's also worth noting that ISPs like Verizon (and the lawmakers paid to love them) have cried about protecting "states rights" when states try to pass protectionist laws hamstringing competitors, but in this case appears eager to trample those same state rights should states actually try and protect consumers. Verizon makes it abundantly clear it's also worried that when the FCC votes to kill net neutrality rules later this year, states will similarly try to pass their own rules protecting consumers, something Verizon clearly doesn't want. "States and localities have given strong indications that they are prepared to take a similar approach to net neutrality laws if they are dissatisfied with the result of the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding," complains Verizon, again ignoring that its lawsuits are the reason that's happening.
Gotta love the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
... for corporations, not for consumers.
Halloween-by-car is not a tradition. It's perverse. GO AWAY!
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, if they'd have stuck "For The Patriotic Children" to the end, it would be a grand slam.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid, I know, but the freedom for corporations to f*ck people over technically qualifies as a form of freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
"Affordable Care Act", "Patritic Act", "Dreamers Act"
It's all just trips that people fall for because they assume the title is written by honest people.
What's scary here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Gotta love the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon themselves admitting their business is interstate. Sounds kinda like a utility that should be regulated as Title 2, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're currently law, so that doesn't matter.
It does matter in determining whether their existence, or their mode of operation, can be used as justification of other additional state power which are otherwise domain of the Federal government. If they have not survived any challege, then their existence does not set any precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wanna pass a new law too. (Score:5, Insightful)
We should make it illegal for Verizon to send shit to the FCC, period. No cash. No gifts. No threats, suggestions, hints, love letters, junk mail, or flowers. This has go to stop. Just shut the fuck up, Verizon. Shut the fuck up now.
Re:I wanna pass a new law too. (Score:4, Insightful)
... and the day you have more money, er, I mean, "free speech" than Verizon, I am absolutely certain they will listen to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Then perhaps their spokespeople should be permanently and repeatedly SILENCED.
Take the voice away from the people and the pitchforks and torches come out, and people start disappearing.
Re: (Score:3)
If you torture the Verizon execs in public, you'll make lobbying for Verizon a much less enticing position. The problem with the Western world is that it has forgotten that a person's value should be based on their deeds, and not assumed to be inherent. There's no reason a corporate executive who willfully abuses his position to harm others should have any value as a person.
So (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
What the US needs is a moderate party.
A bi-partisan bloc that will accept anyone who thinks things are too extreme on "their side". You think the democrats are catering to Hollywood and the media too much sign in. You think the republicans are too pro-tax cuts, put your name down.
Then, finally, there will be an impetus for parties to become more moderate. At the moment, everything in US politics is pushing the two parties further apart, widen the line between "them" and "us". The reasonable people need to s
Re: (Score:2)
Let's fix that. [movetoamend.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. Did Ajit come with a return address?
Re: (Score:2)
Too late because Verizon is a person.
See Citizens United [cornell.edu].
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. It found no compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make election-related independent expenditures.
Re: (Score:2)
That does not make them people.
What objective and fair justification can you give for restricting an individual's right of free speech? (Hint: There is none.)
What objective and fair justification can you give for restricting a group's right of free speech? (Hint: A group, such as a corporation, is a collection of individuals.)
Re: (Score:1)
I forgot who said it originally, but I'll believe that a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Ever hear of "proxy votes?"
Re: (Score:1)
The objective and fair reasoning is that it corrupts the electoral process such that only those with the most money get listened to.
Re: (Score:2)
That's neither objective nor fair.
Define the corruption and quantify it.
Then show how it is fair to restrict groups of people from spending money to speak while not restricting an individual from doing the same (which you cannot due because of that bill of rights thingy).
Money in politics is absolutely a problem. But there's no easy way to stop it without shitting on the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(in Canada)
applies here because:
(in Russia)
Re: (Score:2)
We should make it illegal
Only members of the legislature can make activities illegal in The United States. You probably don't get that because you are an idiot, but that must insensitive of me.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I prefer the former since corporations are just organizations - dotted lines you draw around a grou
all about California and Texas (Score:2)
The FCC GtH (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Tenth Amendment says that stuff that's not a Federal responsibility, like interstate commerce, is to be handled by the states or the people. Interstate commerce is most definitely a Federal concern. Congress can, and has, passed laws so that the FCC can make regulations that must be obeyed. There is absolutely nothing about this that is unconstitutional.
Given a lack of competition, Net Neutrality is the only way to allow people to choose freely where they want to go on the Net.
Bluexit (Score:3, Insightful)
States Rights are just about the only Constitutional thing protecting normal states from the corporate nazis in Washington DC.
Re: (Score:2)
Which ones are the "normal states"?
Re: (Score:1)
Answering that would probably get me (more) negative mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Capisco.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine you get more bang for your buck at the federal level, but if a state starts to legislate against corporate interests (whatever the industry might happen to be), then I am sure a well funded opponent will pop up.
I am also sure this [vice.com]didn't happen by accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last-mile access isn't. States should ban Verizon from offering service in their state until Verizon is ready to follow local laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the Internet REALLY imply Interstate commerce?
There are plenty of destinations within a state.
Yes, but the traditional overbroad definition of the Interstate Commerce Clause has been that if something CAN affect interstate commerce, then the federal government can regulate it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the Confederates are in charge in Washington this time, do you not?
Re: (Score:1)
The United States is indivisible. We will crush you rebel scum if you try anything. Don't dare. We did it before and we'll do it again.
The Democrats were the rebels before and looks like they're going to try it again. Seriously, the Democratic Party just needs to cease to exist. It doesn't represent anyone but corporate donors and identity politics grievance-mongers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The United States was supposed to look like the European Union, a confederation of independent states.
United States under the Articles of Confederation were supposed to look like the European Union. This didn't work terribly well, and Shays's Rebellion exposed the weakness of the central government. The Constitutional Congress shifted more power to the executive as a result.
The best government money can buy (Score:1)
Thank Trump Voters (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Despite what the Slashdot hivemind says Trump's policies are largely reasonable - moderate, mildly-libertarian conservatism combined with economic nationalism, both an antidote to the aggressive globalist neoliberalism which has been crammed down our collective throats for 30-odd years. He takes on very strong right wing positions on some things, say illegal immigration and dealing with Islamic terrorism, but he's not a Bible thumping ideologue that the GOP has been moving towards in the recent years. He wa
Re: (Score:2)
"Hillary was going to put an end to us."
Who are "us" and what exactly was the Wicked Witch of Arkansas going to do that would "put an end" to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Globalists! OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
Pretty sure you mean (((Emmanuel Goldstein))).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm infuriated with Ajit Pai and the demise of net neutrality, but let's take this in the context of mass surveillance and extra judicial executions, and "we came, we saw, he died" in terms of wars of aggression. Given the paid speeches bribery and avoidance of releasing transcripts, there's no reason to expect that a hefty donation to the Clinton Foundation would not have resulted in a similar outcome with the FCC. Public and private positions, after all.
Where playing the condescending blame game is reall
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't have the power you think you do. Russia installed your orange con man, seeing as Hillary won the vote by more than 3 million over Trumplethinskin.
The popular vote is meaningless. Neither candidate ran on the strategy of capturing the popular vote, they ran with the strategy of capturing the electoral vote. If the popular vote decided the election instead, then maybe both Hillary's and Trump's strategies would have changed. Maybe the result would have changed, and maybe not. But it's disingenuous to have a system where you seek electoral votes, and then complain afterwards that you won the tallying system that doesn't count for much and that you weren
What do you expect ? (Score:2)
If Team - A ( Congress ) can't come up with a plan to protect everyone's privacy, then Team - B ( The States ) will do it themselves.
The latter is likely to create a regulatory minefield for the players in question, so it would be in their best interests to pressure Team - A to get off their ass and do their job.
Considering the current Congress track record of doing anything GOOD for anyone ( other than themselves ) you might hire some minesweepers for you.
Have fun.
The future of the internet is global "BBSs" (Score:1)
Everybody makes encrypted connections to an exchange and no data ever leaves that exchange in the clear. It doesn't store anything and only connects encrypted tunnel end points. Kind of like a VPN, if you could only talk to other users of the same VPN, except that's everybody so it's no problem. A big part of the internet is relayed through big commercial internet exchanges, so this wouldn't be very different from today's internet, except none of the providers could see what they're carrying.
Free Market.... pshhhhh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Free market ideology only works when the playing field is level... not when monopolies exist
It's a fact that free-ish markets have produced the best results in economic history (even reducing poverty) despite the shortcomings like the one you mentioned where clever big picture thinkers game the system in ways that weren't intended, economic game theory style. That is not a rational justification to abolish the free market system we have and institute a completely different system. I don't think any free market economist in their right mind ever suggested the inmates ought to run the asylum aka t
FCC Will Never Support This (Score:1)
The Republicans are all about a small, limited Federal government, with control be handled at the state and local level. Consistent with this, the FCC will never interfere with local efforts to protect privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regulating interstate commerce is an enumerated power. Even the most hardcore Constitutionalists will not argue that regulating the Internet is outside of the domain of the Federal Government.
Specious: apparently good or right though lacking real merit. Even the most hardcore Constitutionalists will not argue that regulating railroad trains is outside of the domain of the Federal Government, yet California has many train regulations enforced by the Caliifornia Public Utilities Commission.
Re: (Score:2)
yet California has many train regulations enforced by the Caliifornia Public Utilities Commission.
As long as they don't contradict federal train regulations. If those clash, I'm sure you know which side wins.
Re: (Score:2)
yet California has many train regulations enforced by the Caliifornia Public Utilities Commission.
As long as they don't contradict federal train regulations. If those clash, I'm sure you know which side wins.
Of course. But in the case of the ISP customer privacy regulations, the FCC proposal is to get rid of the regulations. State regulations don't conflict with Federal regulations if the Federal regulations don't exist.
Corporate Representatives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where the representatives of We The People have gone. Anyone seen any around D.C. lately?
Last time I checked you, me and everyone else are "We The People". I suspect "We The People" are busy posting on slashdot, commuting to and from our jobs, raising families and we're just SO BUSY that we don't have time to get engaged in the affairs of our own country in any real, meaningful way. We seem to have incredible amounts of time to incessantly complain online and to our friends and families but when it comes to really getting engaged and taking collective ownership of our own country, we pass the
And the FCC said Net Neutrality was an overreach?? (Score:2)
It's an overreach of FCC power if it goes against his current bankroller... er, Verizon Wireless... when it comes to Net Neutrality. But the FCC can now override the 10th Amendment of the Constitution??
What balls on that FCC chairman... Unbelievable.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tenth Amendment says that powers not reserved to the Federal government, like interstate commerce, which the net is, go to the states or the people. The FCC doesn't override the Tenth, because the Tenth doesn't apply.
This logic works for taking away many state rights (Score:3)
Verizon's letter reads in part: "Allowing every State and locality to chart its own course for regulating broadband is a recipe for disaster. It would impose localized and likely inconsistent burdens on an inherently interstate service, would drive up costs, and would frustrate federal efforts..."
This line of reasoning could also be used for taking away most of the state rights. Inconsistent set of rules across states for roads, criminal justice, elections... Taken to an extreme, UN should be making rules for everybody.
US vs the EU from a scumbag lobbyist perspective (Score:2)
In Europe before the EU if a large corporation wanted to lobby for something unpopular it had to do it with national governments. So in the UK that meant it needed to lobby MPs. MPs are of course elected and know that, in theory if they backed something highly unpopular they could be challenged. Of course this doesn't really limit scope for corruption much in practice but there have still been cases where MPs flipped their stance on a law because of its unpopularity. Governments have failed to pass unpopula
Re: (Score:2)
So in the UK that meant it needed to lobby MPs. MPs are of course elected and know that,
But in the USA, elections are a muti-million dollar business. In some cases, billions. With most of that money going to mainstream media outlets. Because of this, candidates are beholding to their funding sources to a much greater degree than in most other true democracies.
One could propose a system where media outlets (many under the regulatory authority of the FCC) would have to contribute free air time to candidates, freeing them from much of their fundraising needs and resulting quid-pro-quos. But the
Simplified privacy law: (Score:2)
1) Don't snoop.
2) If your business plan requires you to snoop, refer to item 1.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a rule of thumb about this... (Score:2)
If a large corporation is requesting specific regulations, the best course of action for the average American is to give them the opposite.
Most of the basic rules for fairness have been in place for years; new requests usually lead to profiteering, abuse of customers, or restriction of competition. It looks like Verizon is aiming for two of those things.
Thie isn't about telecommunications (Score:2)
It's about personal property. My property happens to include my data. I might be hiring an ISP to move it for me, just like I'd hire a moving company to pack and haul my household effects. But it's still all mine. Verizon can't have it. And the FCC has nothing to say about it other than to set down rules for how it will be moved. Just like the USDOT regulates the trucking industry.
Help me out here (Score:2)
So if each state can set their own standards, companies will either default to high privacy standards that apply in all states, or they will have to spend inordinate amounts of money to find and exploit loopholes, right?
What's the downside?
Context here matters (Score:2)
We need a quick review of the history here to see that the Slashdot article misses key parts of the story.
Previously, the Federal Trade Commission regulated tech companies to protect consumer privacy.
Then the last chairman pushed forward Title II classification which stripped the FTC of their jurisdiction, killing those privacy protections and replacing them with weaker protections under the FCC.
Pai is pushing to revert that change, working with the FTC to restore the stronger consumer protections. Technica
Re: (Score:2)
Here's just one example of a release from 1999 about the FTC's activity in protecting consumers online, showing that it was a concern of the FTC before.
This is a longstanding issue, so I've seen analyses in the past that detail the FCC's weaker protections than those of the FTC. It may even be a legal matter, that the FTC had more authority to go after companies misbehaving online, and when the FCC revoked their jurisdiction, the FCC just didn't have the same broad legal tools to replace those of the FTC.
ht [ftc.gov]
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
You get that the states are not separate private corporate entities, right? They're effectively just groups of people. Oh, wait, you probably don't actually know that because you're Russian and have no rights. Sorry, I guess that was insensitive of me.
Re: (Score:2)
They're effectively just groups of people.
No, they are legal entities which have rights with respect to the other legal entity -- the Federal Government. Which people live in which states changes as people pick and choose where they live. You probably don't get that because you are an idiot, but that must be insensitive of me. The Federal Government, btw, is fully within its rights to regulate "interstate commerce"; so, on this issue, state rights are subservient to the Federal Government's enumerated powers.
Re: (Score:2)
The Federal Government, btw, is fully within its rights to regulate "interstate commerce"; so, on this issue, state rights are subservient to the Federal Government's enumerated powers.
Absolutely correct.
And I believe the federal government should mandate robust privacy protections on all providers of telecommunications and information services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I write this: Your statement is half true. Except for Regarding Insurance. They now can pass "garbage" insurance from one State to another. To top that, they don't have to follow any rules that meet any requirements or regulations your State has put in place.. Don't the monsters at the White House pass nice laws?
People would not need to buy "garbage" insurance policies if the government hadn't mandated they everyone is required to purchase insurance simply because they are living. And honestly, most people do not need an insurance plan that covers everything under the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People would not need to buy "garbage" insurance policies if the government hadn't mandated they everyone is required to purchase insurance simply because they are living
But everyone NEEDS insurance if they're living, because no one has the choice about whether they get sick or get into an accident. If people without insurance have something catastrophic happen, they're not going to be able to pay for it. Everyone else pay for it.
So at that point, we have some options:
1) Only people who can pay out of pocket get help if they get into a car accident, or get shot on the street. Everyone else gets to die. As a society, we already decided that this is unacceptable.
2) Everyone i
Re: (Score:3)
Not if it's a stupid standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? If there are 50 standards, it would be reasonable for Verizon to set a single policy that simply meets or beats every single one of them. The only increase in the costs that is necessary is the analysis to create the virtual super-standard that meets them all.
It is their choice to decide whether it is worth it to them to go to the extra expense of splitting their system to take advantage of the lower standards in some states to make more profits off of their user's data. I would hope they'd take a high
Smog (Score:5, Insightful)
California has it's own standards. The EPA can go and fsck themselves. Want to sell cars in California? Meet CARB standards. Don't want to build 50 versions of cars? Make them all meet CARB. Same idea for privacy.
[Oblig. Bad Car analogy.]
Re: (Score:2)
OK. That's for emissions. But no such law or regulation exists for privacy yet. So the states need to get busy and pass 50 different sets of laws before the federal government steps in like they did for the EPA.
Re: (Score:1)
That's easy to say now that you're under house arrest, Mr Manafort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I agree (Score:2)