Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Privacy Security IT Technology

Maine Lawmakers Pass Bill To Prevent ISPs From Selling Browsing Data Without Consent (zdnet.com) 37

Maine lawmakers have passed a bill that will prevent internet providers from selling consumers' private internet data to advertisers. From a report: The state's senate unanimously passed the bill 35-0 on Thursday following an earlier vote by state representatives 96-45 in favor of the bill. The bill, if signed into law by state governor Janet Mills, will force the national and smaller regional internet providers operating in the state to first obtain permission from residents before their data can be sold or passed on to advertisers or other third parties. Maine has about 1.3 million residents.

The Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission voted in 2017 to allow internet providers to sell customers' private and personal internet data and browsing histories -- including which websites a user visits and for how long -- to advertisers for the biggest buck. Congress later passed the measure into law.

This discussion has been archived.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

Maine Lawmakers Pass Bill To Prevent ISPs From Selling Browsing Data Without Consent

Comments Filter:
  • One small step for Man,.....

  • Will the ISPs be prevented from "punishing" the customer because consent was not given? Maybe the internet connection will become a bit less reliable....
    • "Will the ISPs be prevented from "punishing" the customer because consent was not given? Maybe the internet connection will become a bit less reliable..."

      Just use a VPN, costs around 5-10 bucks a month, they'll get nothing and you can download music and movies to your heart's content.

      • I don't download music and movies. I do pay my ISP to provide access to the internet, access which I hope the ISP will not mess with, should I decide to opt out of the selling of my browser data. I should not have to pay an additional $5 to $10 per month for a VPN should I decide to opt out.
    • That's really the bigger issue. The way I see it, if your local government has awarded the ISP a cable or DSL monopoly, then they should be required to give you service even if you do not give consent. It's the only way to handle this fairly when the customer has no choice of ISPs.
      • The way I see it, if your local government has awarded the ISP a cable or DSL monopoly,

        Exclusive franchises ("cable monopolies") have been illegal for more than two decades now. Try another legal argument.

  • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @12:12PM (#58686488)

    The ISPs will just add language to the TOS that, by accepting the TOS and using the service, they authorize their data to be transferred or sold to third parties. I'm surprised that it's not in there already.

    Also, the link in TFS is to the wrong article.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Much like your Social Security number is only for Social Security and taxes... You don't have to give it to any other company, but then, they don't have to give you service.

    • Re:Easy workaround (Score:5, Informative)

      by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @01:19PM (#58686948) Homepage

      The ISPs will just add language to the TOS that, by accepting the TOS and using the service, they authorize their data to be transferred or sold to third parties. I'm surprised that it's not in there already.

      Believe it or not, legislators aren't stupid. Also, it helps to read the bill. [mainelegislature.org]

      1 3. Customer consent exception. Consent of a customer is governed by this
      2 subsection.
      3 A. A provider may use, disclose, sell or permit access to a customer's customer
      4 personal information if the customer gives the provider express, affirmative consent
      5 to such use, disclosure, sale or access. A customer may revoke the customer's
      6 consent under this paragraph at any time.
      7 B. A provider may not:
      8 (1) Refuse to serve a customer who does not provide consent under paragraph A;
      9 or
      10 (2) Charge a customer a penalty or offer a customer a discount based on the
      11 customer's decision to provide or not provide consent under paragraph A.

      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        Also, it helps to read the bill. [mainelegislature.org]

        Tried to. The editors linked to the wrong article and I wasn't going to waste my time digging around trying to find it.

        And I don't see how adding it into the TOS runs foul of the wording anyway. A TOS is take it or leave it, you can't object to certain provisions and not others. So easy argument is that the ISP didn't deny service due to not agreeing to the additional provision, they denied service because the customer did not agree to the entirety of the TOS (which no one reads anyway). The way I see i

        • A TOS is take it or leave it, you can't object to certain provisions and not others.

          You won't read the law even when it is quoted, will you? The law, as quoted, says that the consent can be revoked at any time. Yes, you can object to that provision of a TOS because the law tells you that you can.

  • If they aren't careful, ISPs are just going to lump it in with the subscription contract that is 12 pages of legalese. They need to make it illegal to run an ISP that mandates you allow them to sell your info.

    • They need to make it illegal to run an ISP that mandates you allow them to sell your info.

      They already did. That's what this law does. Why does there need to be another?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Rewind back a year, and any legislation like this would not have even been sent to then Republican Gov. Paul LePage, for potential passage.

    Simply put, for as much as Democrats get crapped on for whatever the right-wing and conservatives drum up, this type of potential passage by Gov. Mills does show that they're at least trying to level the field for data-sharing. This is a small step, but its at least a step.

    It seemed that the Republicans biggest argument, was that to allow states to pass this would be too

    • Part of the problem is the current lack of partisanship. States are going on their own, because the federal solution for the States, whose political persuasion is opposite of the party currently in charge, is being ignored or punished because the party in charge, will not compromise to come up with a working solution for everyone, even if it isn't optimal for anyone.

      Federal Politicians are punished for bipartisanship or going off the party line, even if the party line is obviously stupid. Their constituen

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...