FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data
npr.org
npr.org
I'm triple checking with the FCC on this though.
More info here:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/ is one that i use, its decent.
Super easy setup and config. Download the app for the VPN, generate SOCK5 cteds for the proxy via their site.
If the FCC allows ISPs to collect data as long as they swear it will never be used, the ISPs can then sell it to law enforcement with a contract that says they will also "never use it". https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/25/att-secretl...
How would LE defend money being spent on something that they cannot use? I mean any judge will see it, no?
The common-sense interpretation is not always (and, much as I hate to say it, probably sometimes should not be) the interpretation arrived at by a judge.
This isn't saying it can never happen, but it would be in contrast to the multitude of times that evidence was discarded for less.
I haven't had a chance to read the fcc's reasoning on why the ISPs are allowed to collect the data in the first place, and I do agree it seems like a ruling that's just can't wait to show off all its loopholes; but I think this would be pretty difficult to bring as evidence in trial. Though I do agree and think it'll be used as a cudgel for other purposes outside of the courts, for threats or for discriminatory justice.
Copied this from another comment of [his] on this post, but it answers part of your question. From the FCC fact sheet[0] on the decision:
> The Order prohibits “take-it-or-leave-it” offers, meaning that an ISP can’t refuse to serve customers who don’t consent to the use and sharing of their information for commercial purposes.
So at least they can't cut you off entirely if you don't consent/opt-in.
[0] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016....
I'm not all that worried about law enforcement. I think it is much more likely that the database will be hacked and the data will just get shared that way.
The only way to protect private data is to prevent the ISPs from collecting it in the first place. Otherwise, everyone knows the ISP has the data whether they share it or not, it's a big juicy target, and it's probably not that difficult to get to.
AT&T turned this into a product:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-27/us-taxpayers-pay-at...
That may have been a useful policy in a time where you yourself could decide what data you shared, now that devices share data on your behalf that can be stored forever, aggregated, analyzed and what not it is clearly no longer acceptable. We desperately need a whitelist approach to companies storing and handling cleartext user- and metadata.
After all, do you read and act on the privacy notifications other providers give you?
Does this at least require them to provider service irregardless of your consent to share data? If not, this is a pointless law that just makes it look like they did something.
> The Order prohibits “take-it-or-leave-it” offers, meaning that an ISP can’t refuse to serve customers who don’t consent to the use and sharing of their information for commercial purposes.
So at least they can't cut you off entirely if you don't consent/opt-in. The fact sheet also touches on the "pay for privacy" issue:
> Recognizing that so-called “pay for privacy” offerings raise unique considerations, the rules require heightened disclosure for plans that provide discounts or other incentives in exchange for a customer’s express affirmative consent to the use and sharing of their personal information. The Commission will determine on a case-by-case basis the legitimacy of programs that relate service price to privacy protections. Consumers should not be forced to choose between paying inflated prices and maintaining their privacy.
Not an outright ban on discounting service for opt'ing-in, but looks like they're leaning towards not allowing something like that.
[0] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...
The regulators and legislators pursue and get credit for incremental actions, but there is no agent or body with accountability for overall impact. When regulators impose a new disclosure requirement, they often show that if a consumer reads the document, the individual will learn something; the problem is that when this document is page 53 of a 200 page disclosure, almost nobody reads it.
This issue was pointed out by Chief Justice Roberts when he said that he never read any of the prescription drug warnings that drug-producers have been required to provide (by courts and regulators).
They probably can't advertise service as $49.95, then add an additional $20 charge if you opt-in to the privacy plan.
They probably would need to at minimum advertise both prices in their marketing copy.
probably not a viable option because a VPN offers complete privacy from the ISP, and only costs $5/month.
Why is it hard for the majority of users to use a password manager?
Because most people on the planet are busy and don't give a damn.
It also takes a few minutes to change your smoke-detector batteries...
I'm not sure how you de-incentivise something like that.
I'm more concerned about getting this fixed in healthcare. Recently had to get lawyers involved over a debt dispute for a bill that was never sent to insurance and that the hospital couldn't even verify because it came from a "partner" no one could contact. The chief argument against us: an agreement signed by my wife while in labor that placed all the responsibility for any bills, correct or not, on us with no recourse. I remember disputing it at the time but they insisted it was just a CYA form and they couldn't admit us without it.
So that's an interesting thing that's come up in the European Union, where the "constitution"/"bill of rights"[1] mandates "consent" for processing of personal data, namely does one of those click though I Agree things count as "informed consent".
Let's be honest, vast majority of people aren't actually consenting to things that are in the contract.
[1] For political reasons there is no "European Union Constitution". However there is the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" which is sorta a "Bill of rights"
Maybe someone who knows can confirm or deny this.
Also: personally I think current EULAs are stupid and "Contents hot" on coffee cups only exist because Americans like to sue each other.
I somewhat naively think that contracts between consumers and companies should be brought down to Creative Commons level.
Yes. Never sign a contract without reading it.
We desperately need to work on reducing the importance of data itself. We must assume by default that all information will be improperly handled pretty much anywhere (or, that the task of keeping it secure indefinitely is just too hard).
That means: data whose usefulness expires extremely quickly (with corresponding protocols), and the complete retirement of stupid bits of information we now carry like social security numbers and credit card numbers that can instantly screw you in the wrong hands. In fact, we ought to have proxies for EVERYTHING; I don’t know why I even have to hand out my home address, for instance, when in theory I could give a company some temporary proxy address that routes to my house only as long as I ALLOW that forwarding; after that, it becomes meaningless and cannot be used for junk mail.
Think of it like when you authorize facebook or someone else to share data via OAuth, how many people read that list?
What world are we living in where the post service is allowed to rip open mail and deface it.
I personally don't think "not modifying user data" above IP is much of a net neutrality issue either; it should be a felony issue, as is tampering with mail.
(I agree with you, for what it's worth... I just don't see a path by which it's possible under current law)
Any reasonable person reading that would infer that Pai thinks that these rules are not sufficient and is in favor of stricter rules. That turns out not to be the case at all.
Next step would be to disallow hijacking and data insertion into your stream of data. It would be a step towards cementing ISPs role as a dumb carrier of data.
> The Order prohibits “take-it-or-leave-it” offers, meaning that an ISP can’t refuse to serve customers who don’t consent to the use and sharing of their information for commercial purposes.
So at least they can't cut you off entirely if you don't consent/opt-in.
[0] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...
Edit: source
ISPs are not allowed to refuse you service for opting out and they're also not allowed to make you "pay for privacy". We'll see how strictly this is applied but it implies that they're also not allowed to weasel out of it by giving a 'discount' to people who opt-in.
for real?
What alternative is there? Our elected officials can't possibly have the time or the expertise to perform all those tasks themselves.
I'm not saying the US regulatory agencies are at that point, but I would feel better about them if their power was more directly checked by the Executive branch.
Instead of "FCC voted today on a new ISP resulations..." it would be "Today President Obama approves new FCC recommendation...".
Again, how could that be done realistically? The President would do nothing else and still have no chance to keep up. They could print the statement the way you describe, but it would be deceitful.
Also, we want to depoliticize regulations; I'm not sure I want the President involved in every one.
[1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._W._Hampton,_Jr.,_%26_Co._v....
They can. The executive can always modify or repeal the act that defines their constitution and authority.
Um, what? Once it's signed into law (which the acts that empower agencies like the FCC are), the executive branch can't modify the law at all. Only Congress can. The only thing the executive can do is veto a bill when it comes, to prevent it from becoming law in the first place.
Sorry, I should have said 'government'. There are three branches of the US government : the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. You have a say in all of them though. Don't you vote in your congress-people and senators?
So...
They can. The government can always modify or repeal the act that defines their constitution and authority. They're your representative. If you don't like an act, get them to change it.
Ah, ok. Yes, the government--specifically the legislative branch--can always modify or repeal a law.
> The government can always modify or repeal the act that defines their constitution and authority.
If by "their" you mean "the FCC's" (or some other agency), then yes. But if by "their" you mean "the government's" in general, it's not so easy. A Constitutional amendment has a much higher threshold of passage than a simple law. It takes a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment, and then it takes 3/4 of the states ratifying it before it actually can take effect.
> If you don't like an act, get them to change it.
Sure, as long as enough other voters agree with you to get their attention. Which practically never happens.
You are misunderstanding the word 'constitution'. Every company and regulatory body has one. It defines who does what, and the 'what you can do, and more importantly, what you should do' of a regulatory body is defined within the act. It is not the 'american constitution'. It is created and modified during the regular practice of government with the creation and modification of an act. Every democratic government, and indeed, even non-democratic ones, does it roughly the same way. If it didn't happen this way, cars would still be driving with lead petrol.
> Sure, as long as enough other voters agree with you to get their attention.
It happens all of the time.
You know dude, I'm not really sure you know how the government functions. This is what they do, and there are so many levels of it. It's true that large multi-state regulatory bodies have larger impacts, and therefore require more support, in order to be enacted. But they get created in the first place for a reason, and end up getting modified for a reason. Your representatives create and modify acts that allocate funds to fund regulatory bodies to enforce laws. That's democracy. That's how it works.
If you want to use that word in an unusual way, that's fine; but I didn't understand that that's how you were using it in reference to regulatory bodies created by US statutes. ("Statute", btw, is the usual way of referring to laws that tell what regulatory bodies can and should do.)
> You know dude, I'm not really sure you know how the government functions.
You know, I'm not really sure you know how to describe how the government functions using proper terminology. If you had said "statute" in the first place, which, as above, is the correct term for what you are referring to, I would have understood what you said right away. But you didn't.
> Your representatives create and modify acts that allocate funds to fund regulatory bodies to enforce laws.
Yes, and these are called "statutes", not a "constitution".
the 5 leaders of the FCC get to unilaterally make regulations (laws) that affect every single citizen in america. everything from tv broadcasts to net neutrality
You don't like it? Get you politician to change/repeal the act. That's how democracy works.
The [Federal Trade] Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous Commission administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/h...