FCC ushers in a troublesome new world for online privacy | Hacker News Reader

FCC ushers in a troublesome new world for online privacy

techcrunch.com

42 pointstanto25928 comments

"...onerous limitations on Internet service providers’ use of web browsing information without regard to whether the information is sensitive or not, which differs greatly from the guidelines governing all other online companies, like search engines and mobile apps."

They're trying to spin this hard, I get that, we all have our spin on things. I know that paragraph is supposed to make me think "oh no, those poor ISPs, that's not fair they have onerous limitations and others don't." But all I can think is GOOD, they should have onerous limitations on this stuff. It should be unfair. We (we being end users in this case) ALWAYS lose when companies start to "innovate" with our personal information. I totally get that there's been a ton of innovation, I totally agree with them on many points, but we're already paying for access with our money and we shouldn't pay a second time with our privacy.

This is only going to stop when we legislate a value associated with our privacy.

Considering the current and former casts of the DHS Data Privacy & Integrity Advisory Panel[0], those who 'recommend' and write the laws, that will be a cold day in hell.

[0]

https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-advisory-committee

It's true, and why the only solution is widespread education of voters; making this a "big issue". Then again, it's hard to imagine that happening with some large-scale disasters regarding personal privacy.

That was the single most ridiculous thing in the entire article.

Why should USPS be allowed to read a letter that I send to my mother? Why should AT&T be able to listen to the telephone conversation I'm having with Comcast?

Yes, how dare we institute different rules for privacy between two participants in a communication and the simple pipe that facilitates the communication. It's only a centuries old concept.

Looks like the editor missed a big set of repetitions in the middle of the article:

> But at the same time, consumers who enjoy access to Internet services are concerned about protecting their privacy. As a result, the best way to give consumers what they want is to strike an appropriate balance between which uses of personal information to permit and which ones to restrict.

> The FCC’s approach abandons this nuanced perspective in favor of an approach that prohibits practices on which online companies frequently rely, such as making product recommendations based on past browsing and purchase history.

> As a result, the best way to give consumers what they want is to strike an appropriate balance between which uses of personal information to permit and which ones to restrict. The FCC’s approach abandons this nuanced perspective in favor of an approach that prohibits practices on which online companies frequently rely, such as making product recommendations based on past browsing and purchase history.

To me, this suggests that this is "native advertising", effectively, that was emailed over and rushed out.

I agree, this absolutely reeks of a press-release-turned-article.

I clicked on this link expecting to see another case of government failure when it comes to understanding technology, but was pleasantly surprised to see the government doing EXACTLY what it's supposed to be doing... Shame on TechCrunch for peddling this kind of misinformation.

I upvoted this story because it helpfully made me understand a lot more about TechCrunch than I have in the past. This read like a PR statement from an ISP, not like an article from any type of news source.

Odd article, seems like the authors are upset that ISPs are being curtailed from partaking in the same kind of tracking that web sites can conduct. I wonder where the author's academic research institute gets its funding from... Comcst maybe?

>The approach taken by the FCC will lead to a world in which technological progress is dictated by the actions of regulators [...] instead of by innovators experimenting with ways to provide users with groundbreaking new services.

It's interesting how the author seems oblivious to the fact that the "groundbreaking new services" in general seem to care very little about user privacy.

More specifically, I think the authors assume that groundbreaking new services care very much about violating privacy, since that's their business model. So any pro-privacy regulations are "destroying the future".

Onerous? Or modest?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161027/11361035900/as-ex...

Those poor, poor ISPs. How could they ever abuse our info again? Oh wait, they'll still be able to, because for one, they can still COLLECT all of our info, they just may get more slaps on the wrists and "huge" record-breaking $2 million fines, when they misuse that data and break these new rules.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/10/11/comcast-fine-mischargi...

Also FCC's new rules exempt law enforcement, so AT&T can still make money selling all of that collected data to law enforcement and the NSA for profit, just as they have in the past.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/at-t-is-spy...

But yeah, other than that, what will the ISPs ever do to not go bankrupt? (I mean other than charging for their basic services at monopoly prices).

Well, the author is a pro telcom lawyer and law professor at UPenn. Here's an amicus brief he filed asking the court of appeals to reconsider their order classifying ISPs as telecom services (net neutrality):

https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/15-1...

His foundation is supported by telecom money:

https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/ctic/about-ctic.php

Techcrunch should reclassify this story as an opinion piece, or delete it.

So in a summary: FCC tries to stand up for users. Paid article tries to go against FCC.

Troublesome for large ISP's, a bit less troublesome for people who already pay their monopoly prices and care about privacy.

In case you missed the By-line!

By David J. Farber & Christopher S. Yoo

    > David J. Farber is Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunications
    > Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Adjunct Professor of
    > Internet Studies at Carnegie Mellon University and former Chief
    > Technologist of the Federal Communications Commission.

...and...

    > Christopher S. Yoo is the John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, 
    > Communication, and Computer & Information Science and the Founding
    > Director of the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition at
    > the University of Pennsylvania.

Comcast HQ: Philadelphia, PA

I was amazed to see Dave Farber's name on that. He used to be a good guy and involved with the EFF. But he's 82 now.

Carriers are in a uniquely privileged position. In many areas, you don't have a choice of cable carrier or phone carrier. So they have stronger privacy responsibilities than online services, where you get to pick which ones to use.

This is weak product from what would appear to be a shill source.

poorly edited, blindingly biased, puff piece. If nothing else this is a smear on techcruch.

Haha. This needs to trend, so I will add to the list of comments my opinion that this is a paid piece. Something a PR firm would churn out for an Internet Service Prov... AOL.

What's troublesome in it? They are doing the right thing.

I read the article, and left convinced that the FCC is doing the right thing. You cannot avoid using an ISP in the first mile, so it is appropriate to limit what that monopoly can do. Most people cannot reasonably switch ISPs, after all. Good job FCC.

Exhibit (A): Conflict of interest inherent when the content deliverers own the content creators.

So far everyone in this thread agrees with you in principle, so I'm not sure why your comment was dead. Perhaps they disagree with some specific point about exactly who owns techcrunch?

I think everyone posting comments here is already familiar with the story via other sources...

Could someone who doesn't already know the story describe what they think this article is about? Thanks...

This is what (a form of) propaganda looks like. Use it to learn to recognize propaganda on topics you're less versed in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com