We Have 24 Hours to Save Online Privacy Rules
eff.org
eff.org
What's fascinating is that other online privacy areas that I would argue are much more invasive and threatening to consumer privacy are completely ignored. I'm referring, of course, to the ecosystems of Google, Facebook, the new Verizon (AOL, Yahoo), and the many other companies looking to amass as much consumer data as possible for profit.
These FCC rules feel a bit like the FCC was patting themselves on the back for fixing a drip in the bathroom faucet while ignoring the broken pipe to the water main.
From a business perspective I can also see why ISPs would be so upset about their businesses having to abide by these rules while their competitors (again, Facebook, Google, et al) are left to collect data unbridled. The all sell ads after all.
> Myth 3: The FCC’s privacy rules put Internet service providers at an unfair disadvantage when compared to Internet companies like Google who can profit off of consumers’ data.
> Fact: Google doesn’t see everything you do on the Internet (neither does Facebook, for that matter, or any other online platform)—they only see the traffic you send to them. And you can always choose to use a different website if you want to avoid Google’s tracking. None of that is true about your ISP. You probably only have one, maybe two options when it comes to ISPs offering high-speed Internet, and your ISP sees everything—they have to, in order to send your traffic to the right place. That’s why we need the FCC’s privacy rules: ISPs are in a position of power, and they’ve shown they’re willing to abuse that power.
> Plus, if you’re worried about creepy third-party tracking online, you can use free tools to protect yourself; the only way to protect your privacy from your ISP is to pay for a VPN.
> Extended Version: > To begin with, it’s worth remembering that ISPs and companies like Google or Facebook see entirely different parts of your Internet activity; namely that Google or Facebook only see the traffic you send to their servers, while ISPs see all your traffic. Even when you take into account the fact that Google and Facebook have creepy third-party trackers spread across the web, they still only see a fraction of what your ISP sees. Being able to see all of your traffic gives your ISP an unprecedented view into your life (everything from what you’re shopping for, to who you talk to, to what your politics are, to what you read), which not even Google or Facebook can achieve.
> There’s also another big difference between Comcast and Google: choice. While Internet users can choose between numerous online services for search, email, and more—including services that feature built-in privacy protections as a selling point—most consumers have few if any options when it comes to choosing an ISP. According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 51 percent of households have access to only one high-speed broadband provider. If that provider decides to sell their data, they can’t vote with their wallets and choose another ISP.
> There’s one last difference: Internet users can prevent companies like Google from spying on them as they surf the web. If you want to do something online without being tracked, you can use a variety of free tools that even powerful companies like Google cannot overcome. But nothing short of paying to use a virtual private network—essentially having to pay a fee to protect your online privacy—will protect you from your ISP.
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-in...
One could apply the same logic to ISPs, after all. If you don't like Verizon's privacy policy you're free to switch to Comcast, or ATT. Oh - they all have the same privacy sapping policy? Too bad.
Certainly it should not be too much to ask that a "normal" non-technical internet user should feel free to roam the open internet without every click and view being tracked. I cannot expect to train my grandmother avoid google/facebook, use privacy badger and/or ublock and know what to do when her video doesn't load or play because privacy badger has blocked some adobe tracker....
This is hacker news. Let's not accept cringeworthy arguments that could have been proudly published by lobbyists for Facebook here. If this audience cannot scale higher what hope do we have for society at large? So yes, we should have regulations to limit what ISPs can track. And yes, those policies should apply to extremely large internet ecosystems as well.
The argument is essentially the same for Google/Facebook et al. Try telling someone who has used gmail for the last 10 years before Google altered their privacy policy for Google's benefit that if they want to keep their email private they're free to switch to Yahoo or Outlook. And that's a case where consumers have a choice. Consumers have no voice in web sites use of Google Analytics or Doubleclick. Or Facebook's like button. Or Adbobe's audience tracking....
Fact 1: Google sees very huge part of the Internet traffic through AdSense and Analytics and other smaller tools like fonts, scripts etc.
Fact 2: Google has access to more detailed traffic given SSL makes most traffic (thankfully so) opaque to a ISP.
Fact 3: ISP only sees its own traffic but Google has access to the traffic from multiple ISPs.
This does not mean that we should give the same advantage to ISP, quite contrary - we should take this advantage from Google (and everyone).
ISPs used to also be subject to the same rules, but when the FCC changed the classification of ISPs from information services to common carriers in order to restore the net neutrality rules that had been struck down by the courts that took them out from under FTC regulation.
EDIT: from the FAQ looks like there is a house command but it is only active to more "experienced" users.
EDIT EDIT: https://resistbot.io/privacy.html worth reading before you use, there are some clauses in there that are a little sketchy.
The way to improve politics isn't to make political engagement as casual and low effort as possible.
#ArmChairPhilosophy
What's perhaps striking is the low number of total calls regarding AHCA (439 support, 6 against) compared to the total population of her district (~700k). Unless I'm misinterpreting, this seems like pretty strong evidence that a call to your representative can have a massively disproportionate impact?
I checked your link, and you did in fact put those in the wrong order. There were 439 against and 6 for AHCA.
Do you think your congressman was more receptive to constituent calls to his local office? Or did he not care about any of it?
I think the reason people say that phone calls are the most effective is because they are the most exhausting to deal with, and thus may leave the strongest impression on those who have to deal with them. From there, it's a matter of flow of information within the Rep's office. If anything, I would suggest that callers ask how exactly their opinions will reach their representative at the end of the call. Find out if a staffer will be relayed this information, and if so, which, and then inquire how that staffer will be relaying it to the rep. Adding verbal accountability may increase the likelihood of it getting moved up the chain?
Nobody has advised us not to call.
I'm not sure its accurate to depict constituent communication as market research, as the constituents are not always/not usually the market elected representatives are catering to. The people they need to please are the people who pay for their campaigns, rather than the people they try to reach with those campaigns.
Health care, foreign policy, corporate taxes, etc. are all extremely complex issues, and its hard to derive an informed opinion from the press alone. I think that's why it's hard to be a good leader and a popular leader at the same time.
Resistbot, can you easily convert these texts and faxes into phone calls by providing the number of the office... So that I can call with a single tap, after organizing my message? And then ask me to report my outcome?
> According to Ad Age, SAP sells a service called Consumer Insights 365, which “ingests regularly updated data representing as many as 300 cellphone events per day for each of the 20 million to 25 million mobile subscribers.” What type of data does Consumer Insights 365 “ingest?” Again, according to Ad Age, “The service also combines data from telcos with other information, telling businesses whether shoppers are checking out competitor prices… It can tell them the age ranges and genders of people who visited a store location between 10 a.m. and noon, and link location and demographic data with shoppers' web browsing history.”
Your data is available now.
It was made available by Obama starting in 2015 when he removed FTC authority over them. That tap wouldn't shut off until December at the earliest if the current administration did nothing.
The EFF is oddly silent about why they've been so oddly silent about this exposure for close to 3 years now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/technology/internet-priva...
I'm sure there are VPN providers that support it, though.
Guys, I don't think the "Federal Communication Commission" should be passing consumer protection regulations. What's to stop Amazon, Netflix, etc from selling a service where an advertiser sends them an IP and they get back your name and interests? These regulations need to be passed at a much broader level. I think the FCC should focus on anti-competitive behavior on ISPs right now, and leave these sorts of matters to another regulatory body.
And besides, with TLS (and DNSCurve if you're paranoid), I'm not sure this regulation means much anyway.
The practices you describe (with Amazon etc) are none of the FCC's business. Anti-competitive behavior and privacy violations by non-telecoms businesses falls under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission.
It means something, because the idea is to protect the vulnerable from predatory practices, not to prevent the technically proficient from what they see as easily avoided practices.
Why not let the agencies that administer different fields and businesses have a "consumer protection" section?
Will we ever be able to remove it one it's in effect? Or is that likely to never be an option.
While the only people who can affect the decision are Americans (members of congress won't, and fundamentally shouldn't listen to calls and emails sent by foreign nationals), this is an issue that affects much of the internet-using world by virtue of such a large volume of international internet traffic going through lines on US soil.
In this case, it would make sense for there to be a framework whereby international citizens can provide input, but I doubt there's a way to do this without setting a precedent which could seriously compromise the integrity of their federal decision-making bodies (any further).