Anger as US internet privacy law scrapped
bbc.com
bbc.com
Then, everyone else caught up. Now it's just like watching television. A bunch of companies vying to get you to buy something at any cost, and taking that strategy further than they ever did before the internet.
Now, I just want to leave my phone at home and go ride my bike. I rarely feel like developing anything anymore, haven't done a side project in over a year. Whenever I get motivated to do things like that I see shit like this and it just feels hopeless. There's no way to defeat these companies, because they are full of people struggling to get ahead and doing their cog's part in the machine that ultimately does this to us all.
What about working to elect representatives who will pass privacy legislation?
If they're not corrupt(-ed) before entering office, they most certainly will be through lobbying (aka "generous donations") once they enter office. Exceptions to this rule are certainly rare and seem to only surface ahead of elections and vanish -again- as soon as they are elected.
If even that proves impossible, well, then I guess it would have to come down to violent revolution.
German here. Absolutely believe there's virtually no difference in that regard. Lobbyists write law proposals that end up being the verbatim law.
I remember that in the late 90s through early 2000s, I would regularly see personal sites pop up on my searches through the web, but I'm finding less and less non-commercial content. Either all the search results want to sell me something, or they're optimized to make money off of my clicks.
That's because personal homepages have died off, to be replaced with better replacements - not because Disney and TimeWarner have paid Google to rank their results higher.
For example, Wikipedia (and Wikia) have replaced personal museum websites for all kinds of esoteric information - ditto fansites. For "Prof. Smith's computer science examples webpage" we have GitHub; Reddit has replaced "Links" pages and Webrings, and Google itself has rendered curated directory sites completely obsolete.
The only thing on Geocities and Angelfire/Tripod that Facebook has replaced are those insufferable "The Baker Family Homepage" websites.
Is it really a replacement if it's private and stuck in some walled garden? I don't care about the platform used, I care about the surfacing and availability of non-commercial content.
Try making a significant change or writing a new article without being mired in beaurocracy.
It's not an example of diverse user-generated content any more. For good reason -- it can't be, if it wants to be considered a useful source on anything.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202
Plenty of dots in there to scape, connect, visualize, and disseminate for anyone looking for a fun way to let off some steam.
A big shout out to the reps on both sides of the aisle that had the guts to stand for what's right.
And anyone reading this should take a minute to check the list to see how their rep voted and take action. The easiest thing to do is call your rep and let them know how you feel about their vote (good or bad), but it's even more affective if you share the link with your friends and family outside of your area. Explain to them why this is a bad idea and point out how their representative voted (good or bad) and make a date to check back with them before the next election.
You can all feel as hopeless and defeated as you like. When it comes down to it nothing in history came easy. With the Advent of the internet it forced the hands of those in power come up with new ways of making us think they are more powerful or have more power.
And unfortunately it works like a charm. A tech revolution would completely undermine the entire worlds markets over night. With the help of HN, it's members and a few months and some serious agenda pushing anything can get done. Problem is you all feel so defeated nobody wants to agree on the same agenda.
Like I said. It works. But we know how now. And with all the brain power on HN it's only a matter of time before they start targeting us. And they already have by passing this and putting that shit head in charge of the FCC.
For example here, there is a good example in France there is fdn, an association of very smalls internets providers, they are not companies, but associations,
What if everyone could make an internet provider with no motivation in financial profits...
Maybe it will be a bit more expensive, because it scale less, but trusting you internet provider is priceless.
I don't think this is true at all. It certainly won't happen fast enough for most people's liking though.
The best example of this is how Microsoft had no option but to do a 180 on open source once it realized that it was turning into an object of ridicule. (Although Windows 10 shows they still have some ways to go). You are really underestimating how powerful peer respect is amongst geeks.
For example, imagine if someone from Google asked you to come work for them in 2002-2004, and said "Our motto is Dont be evil", and suddenly that became a sort of rallying cry and everyone knew who the target was. Imagine if they said the same thing today - they would be laughed off. And that is a great thing. I would guess most geeks working at the tech giants have some part of them thinking they are doing things which really benefit humanity.
Here is a thread where you can see this in effect, when the person's motives are challenged, they become completely defensive. We want more of that. My prediction is at some point there will be serious internal conflict, which is excellent!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13868299
Once more people start making a lot of noise about this in the very places that the geeks wish to hang out, they will find themselves with fewer and fewer places to go hang out. And it will then only be a matter of time before there is a large exodus from the top companies to the more obscure companies - those which can't do much damage simply because they are too small.
At that point, both outcomes would be favorable - either things get so bad that the tech giants implode from internal conflict and external competition, or they will change their behavior so that they can continue to attract the developers who actually care about these things.
Or it could go in the exact opposite direction because everyone stops caring, in which case we are all just completely screwed :-)
(1) Companies will become better at deceiving their employees they are not evil, not eliminating small competition, and that they care about privacy and diversity. Many younger devs are as naive as cocker spaniel pups and will easily buy any corporate propaganda.
(2) How will there be an exodus to smaller companies when the giants do their very best to kill competition? Google is known for buying an emerging company in a certain area then quietly shut it down but still keep patents and knowledge for the future, being one prominent example.
(3) People become more and more indifferent every day, I feel, even on HN. I know I am in that group as well. The people who want the internet to be a controlled environment are, as of today, much too powerful and very, VERY persistent. Plus it's not like you can just sue; for a long time now it's not about justice, it's about who has the deeper pockets for lawyers. And that's not you and me.
IMO we're headed for a pretty classic cyberpunk future. I kind of hoped that I will die before that but at the rate things are going... It's pretty scary.
I understand your sentiment; it sucks.
One can still do stuff that doesn't need net access, computing is a very broad field, not limited to the internet. Or one can search for technological fixes that make it harder to snoop on us ....
I know the hot new thing is to get zillions in VC funds to provide some half-assed free service, based on the idea that one day you'll have a heap of users who you can somehow milk for a profit, but once upon a time, tech companies made money by providing useful products and services that people were willing to pay for.
True, but the biggest ones among them definitely are (depending on your definition of "data whores/pimps", Apple might or might not be included here).
And of course the politicians passing this don't give a shit about the Silicon Valley culture or ideals; Republicans care about profits for corporations because that means more fat donations to them.
No offense, but that's the most ludicrous statement I read in a long time.
Silicon Valley is about money and power. Ideals, apart from "ideals" packed into cheesy marketing slogans, just don't play into that.
Before you scoff, please realize that legal restrictions are immensely heavy-handed, and very frequently abused or misappropriated. Regulations frequently accidentally overshoot their target, and they stay on the books for years. Discarding unnecessary regulations is not only good hygiene, but it may be critical to the development of some improvement or technology that the lawmakers had not conceived when the law was made.
It'd be nice if Congress was fast enough on its feet to recognize this as it was occurring and make the necessary adjustments, but it simply does not work that way; once something is law, it's very likely going to stay that way, untouched for decades or even centuries. Remember all the articles about the FBI attempting to invoke a statute from 1798 (yes, seventeen-ninety-eight, numbers not transposed) to compel the decryption of an iPhone?
For example, the CFAA passed long before the World Wide Web was a thing, but it's had an immense effect on the internet's development and continues to be misappropriated by large companies to harass small players and break their products before they get large enough to pose a threat. Another example is the Copyright Act, which, under current interpretation, considers RAM copies of copyrighted works as distinct copies eligible for protection. This means that you're potentially violating someone's copyright just by downloading their web site!
Combine these two statutes written for bygone times but very much in full effect today, and if you make the wrong person mad, you're looking at not only going bankrupt trying to figure out how to pay your legal bills, but also becoming a felon. Such was the case with Aaron Swartz, who was facing prosecution under these outdated regulations for downloading publicly-funded research papers from a paywalled database.
It should also be clarified that this repeal only removes one set of regulations, a set imposed by the FCC and that has only existed for the last couple of years. I'm not a lawyer, but somehow I doubt the issue is so simplistic that Comcast is going to open up "BuyYourNeighborsBrowsingHistory.com" any time soon. There are a variety of other laws that may apply to the legality of reselling such data, and surely these would require evaluation before the concept was greenlit. Furthermore, if Congress can be convinced that this is a bad idea, they need only to pass a new bill.
The core issue is that telecommunications services, including ISPs, are not what most people would consider a functioning free market, because 90%+ of the U.S. can not obtain comparable service from anyone besides the main telecommunication provider in their area. If they could, moving to an ISP that respected privacy without being compelled to do so by legal force would be a perfectly reasonable position to take.
The focus must be on getting our reps to solve the constrained telco market. Interestingly enough, that may also involve liberations to and/or removals of the FCC regulations around radio broadcasting, licensing, etc.
One humorous note: if we believe the most dramatic prophecies about the meaning of this repeal, the last season of South Park may be closer to real life than we think. A foreign company develops technology to uncover the complete internet history of every human and the real-world identity behind every anonymous or pseudonymous post and threatens to publicize these. Complete social breakdown ensues.
In order to justify their legal authority to issue this rule, the FCC used a reinterpretation of legal terms defined in a 1934 law.
Often times in DC, the fight is not really about the end goal, it's about the path that is taken to achieve that goal. Usually, when you see literally unbelievable claims and hyped-up rhetoric, it's a sign that the situation is probably a bit more complicated than those who are making those claims are letting on. (e.g., "Republicans want to sell your, and their own, incognito browsing history because all they care about is making more money for big corporations!"). As everyone knows by now (see: TRUMP, Donald. 2016.), it's much easier to sell scary straw men than nuanced policy details. It's also a convenient way to hide what is really going on behind the scenes:
Nearly every Republican Member and Senator believes that consumers should have these exact same privacy protections!
That's right: they agree with the goals of this regulation! Broadly, these lawmakers disagree with this federal agency taking liberty with the law, especially in the Eleventh Hour of an administration. (Can you really blame them? The FCC is justifying their authority to regulate online privacy by using a law written 55 years before the World Wide Web was even invented!)
For decades, the U.S. government agency responsible for protecting consumers (ISP users) through the regulation and enforcement of online privacy rules has been the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). (see Privacy Policies, Safe Harbor, etc.). This is within both their historical role and their statutory mandate. They are the "nation's consumer protection agency."
Nancy Pelosi had two options: she could call it the "GOP Measure to Eliminate Internet Privacy" and score some (admittedly really, really, really easy) political points – or, she could try to get into a nuanced inside-baseball debate over the roles and mandates of specific regulatory regimes, and no one would bat an eye.
Easy pick for her. But that doesn't make it the truth.
I don't know the motives for the votes on this and afaik most members haven't commented to explain themselves. There are some particularly libertarian-leaning Congresspeople, like Rand Paul, who would clearly support it out of principle. We assume that others also support it out of ideological sympathy, and that everyone else is trying to play nice with the party leaders by going along with it.
You are 100% correct that a great deal of these legal modifications are technicalities that are touted as disasters for political convenience.
Let's not forget that the Republicans did the same thing when they pretended that the sky was falling over net neutrality going into effect, claiming that Obama was trying to "take over" the internet. Whether one agrees or disagrees with net neutrality as a policy matter, those claims are absurd.
Political parties, and especially the parties not presently in power, are always going to be trudging this type of muck up. It's very tiring, from both sides.
* The Communications Act of 1934 was substantially updated in 1996. Even if it hadn't been, age alone doesn't make a law outdated.
* The FCC classified ISPs as "telecommunications services", same as now, until the mid-2000s.
* The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the FCC had the authority to classify ISPs as either "telecommunications services" or "information services".[1]
* By 2010, ISPs had begun to violate the consumer protection guidelines the FCC laid out in 2005. The FCC responded with regulations, but ISPs challenged even the most basic provision: no outright blocking of lawful content.
* The DC Circuit ruled the FCC couldn't regulate "information services" that way but suggested the FCC could undo the reclassification.[2] So it did.
* ISPs sued over that too, but the DC Circuit upheld it.[3]
Is that the FCC reinterpreting a 1934 law or a court applying a 2005 precedent?
After that was settled, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the FTC had no authority to regulate common carriers.[4] The FCC published the regulations Congress just overturned two months after that.
I'll believe Republicans want the FTC to enforce these exact same privacy protections when they pass a bill giving it that authority.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommuni...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Telecom_Ass'n_v....
[4] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/1...
Why? Most consumer ISPs are larger than data centre ISPs, if they're not the same company in a given region.
As you are a paying customer it is not in Digital Ocean's interest to sell usage stats attached to real identities. This somehow is not the case for Comcast.
Edit: also https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/12/12/meet-algo-the-vpn-th...
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/pages/privacy-from-int...
Disclosure: I'm a customer but thankfully not a US-based customer (there are more and more reasons to NOT live in the US these days).
https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/808355117011521537
Worth noting. I guess no solution is flawless.
We need them by default in a way that says nothing about the real user.
other note...it also makes me feel like I contribute to taking money out of the pockets of the greedy US cell carriers but that is probably just an ego trip
The general consensus on tor-relays seems to be against running relays, or at least exit relays, at home.
Not a long time ago people were completely ignorant about this subject. As companies started to take advantage and abuse the lack of awareness of general people they started to do it more broadly and publicly.
Now the idea of lack of privacy is starting to get out on the streets and make people more aware of the problem.
At some point we will be able to turn the table and a strict legislation around privacy will be put in place.
Things are going to improve, but they still need to get worse, before.
Cheaper faster internet for all in the USA!
Wait, they don't have to lower rates, I'll go to the one of the other many ISP options I have...
Oh wait..
Additionally, I find the implications of this kind of admission to be astonishing: Last year, the Federal Communications Commission pushed through, on a party-line vote, privacy regulations designed to benefit one group of favoured companies over another group of disfavoured companies. That's a pretty huge statement, made in a business-as-usual kind of way, that calls into question the overall integrity of the FCC.
No, it's not.
2/5 full (and, a few months ago, 3/5 full) you might have an argument for.
It's very simple. The government is not working towards our interests, but their own.
That applies to every government everywhere, all throughout history, because all governments are populated by psychopaths.
They don't want you to have any privacy at all. Instead, they want to monitor everything you say and do, because it helps them maintain their rule over you.
Red Pill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE&t=8
Oh and by the way, this account will be shadowbanned, because HN is controlled by psychopaths too, and anti-government (=pro-sanity) posters are censored out.
One more thing. You're being told about a "privacy law" being scrapped, because they want to advance "the chilling effect". They want everyone to be afraid of speaking out, as the budding police state engulfs them.
You could look into moving to some less scary country.
Still, you don't have to use such an extreme language. I too agree USA is becoming pretty scary, but "corrupt" is probably a much better word than "psychopaths".
Give me a break.
Doesn't matter thought because I overall agree with you.
If you're lucky enough to have one, support your local ISP!
https://twitter.com/monkeybrainsnet/status/84658580913846272...
I recently switched to them from Comcast, and this news makes me all the happier that I did.
"New York is closer to D.C.," she observed. But that doesn't explain why the average person from Silicon Valley has less influence than, say, from Los Angeles.
We're Alan Turings, she said. Turing wanted to be left alone to make things. Unfortunately, his government didn't see similarly. First, with World War II and later by prosecuting him for his sexual orientation. Being able to be left alone to make things is a luxury, a delicate balance almost unprecedented across human history.
We will lose the privilege if we refuse to defend it. Please donate to the EFF [1] or the ACLU [2]. Call your Congressperson [3] and Senator [4]. Get to know their aides. Let your Attorney General [5] know you care about this.
[1] https://supporters.eff.org/donate
[2] https://action.aclu.org/secure/protect-rights-freedoms-we-be...
[3] http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
[4] https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
[5] https://oag.ca.gov/contact
Note: this comment recapitulates an earlier one [I]
Is that the logical endpoint of capitalism? Becoming so successful that competition is obliterated? There are no real checks and balances working against monopoly/cartels these days.
WhatsApp said that too. When they change their minds, it will be too late.
What gets me, in the world we live in data is king, now that the ISP's can use this data, surely they could sell it, but what's stopping them from looking at googles throne?
Google at the moment leverages the data they gather from their services, but your ISP has _everything_
Am I missing something here, or does the endgame look like the issue will be what ISPs choose to do with this data in house rather than out of it.
Not to mention, do they also no longer need to disclose when they suffer a data breach or am I mis-remembering?
All this together looks like it ends with gross oversteps in the use of data by your ISP, not to mention they will do the [three letter agency of choice]'s job for them, all they need to do is find a way in.
...which is surely part of the reason Google is pushing so hard to encrypt everything.
(I'm not saying there aren't altruistic reasons too.)
And they make it worthwhile for you to give them data because they pay in features - Gmail search works beautifully, just try web Outlook to see how hard is to get it right; maps works so well that I can't even name a competitor.
What benefit will consumers get from ISP sharing their data? None, obviously.
https://consumercal.org/about-cfc/cfc-education-foundation/c...
I met a guy who started a bakery instead of a web startup as he was worried about patent trolls & being bullied by the big companies.
The internet is today over commercialized and it cannot be relied on for accurate information thanks to fake news.
I am reminded of a quote by Jeff Hammerbacher: ‘The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads… That sucks.’.
Nothing motivates politicians more than them being directly affected.
As ironically amusing such a story would be, I don't think they'll draw the right conclusion however. They'll probably push for more laws "against terrorism" and will not see such an accident as a proof of how much of a slippery slope the killing of internet privacy is.
PS/PSA: It was the best value with unlimited internet I could find. It was the cheapest option from OVH. Cheapest, considering I wouldn't have to worry that the company would shut down. Latency isn't terrible actually.
I believe that Canada's ISPs might have stricter data protection laws, but really you should have been using a VPN well before this latest policy change.
sshuttle -r user@remote_host 0.0.0.0/0 --dns
Also, stop using Google as a distraction.
Google doesn't share or sell your information. This is a common misunderstanding. No advertiser can identify you individually. Rather you're an anonymous part of a large group with certain characteristics specified by the advertiser. Google also allows you to opt out of targeted advertising. Finally, Google's philosophy is that it will release PII data of its users over Google's dead body.
In comparison, ISPs can share "precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications”.
There are powerful financial interests at work here. I think this is going to be a common way to swerve the conversation away from the heart of the issue.
Disclaimer: used to work at Google.
Not trying to swerve any convoys more just trying to figure out how the head of the FCC could possibly in any way rationalize this without assuming loads of money changing hands. Sigh.
2) Google doesn't sell your data to third parties. This is a big one. They make money by showing you ads and reporting to the advertisers that they did it. Nobody else gets access to your data, and Google goes to great lengths to lock it down and prevent unauthorized access. Do you trust every company your ISP will sell the data to?
3) Google itself has ways to opt out temporarily for highly sensitive things, like with an incognito window. Can't do that with an ISP.
4) You generate a lot of traffic that Google has nothing to do with. Do you have an iPhone? Do you use a laptop other than a chrome book? Have a gaming console? Use a non-chrome browser? Your ISP will inhale all of this.
The silver lining might be, considering your ISP can now access your data, that maybe the culture will shift and people will take online privacy a little more seriously, both applicastion and services providers and users. Maybe people will stop sending user analytics in plain text all the time. Maybe people will expect tls everywhere. Maybe a layer 3.5 overnet will emerge..
Surely a new business opportunity if there isn't one good enough to recommend for privacy.
Ones that have been around for years and widely trusted: AirVPN, BolehVPN, Insorg, IVPN, Mullvad, PIA.
Disclosure: I write stuff for IVPN.
Finnish privacy laws are really strong.
Or use a VPN.
--- The Cable Act authorizes Comcast as a cable operator to disclose limited personally identifiable information to others, such as charities, marketing organizations, or other businesses, for cable or non-cable “mailing list” or other purposes. From time to time we may disclose your name and address for these purposes. However, you have the right to prohibit or limit this kind of disclosure by contacting us by telephone at 1-800-XFINITY or by sending us a written request as described below under “How do I contact Comcast?” Any “mailing list” and related disclosures that we may make are limited by the Cable Act to disclosures of subscriber names and addresses where the disclosures do not reveal, directly or indirectly, (i) the extent of any viewing or other use by the subscriber of a cable service or other service provided by us; or (ii) the nature of any transaction made by the subscriber over our cable system.
But consider that many major ISPs supported this unpopular change. Why didn't they fear backlash? Well, outside large cities, there isn't much competition among ISPs. And even when there is, there may be no privacy-friendly options.
Conversely, VPN services compete on privacy and speed. VPN services that pwn users will likely get called out in communities like /r/VPNs. And there are resources like https://thatoneprivacysite.net/ that rate VPN services.
(I personally recommend you also do a web-based proxy, because who is going to filter https://www.google.com now or in the future?)
I believe in you. You can do it!
Counter this chilling effect today - and show more adwords as a result. (There is no irony in this statement. I mean from web sites that opt into adwords, not from selling VPN traffic logs.)
Of course I agree with you that attacking the policy is also very important, but people still have to use the Internet every day. I'm not asking Google to do this as a policy statement - but as a practical matter. They can solve this problem for users by running a VPN for everyone and also web proxy via https://www.google.com which nobody could really filter.
This does not take away from the importance of attacking this policy.
http://www.opera.com/computer/features/free-vpn
Disclaimer: Worked at Opera ~5 years ago which is why I'm familiar but no skin in the game now.
If given the choice of targeted ads vs an extra $30 a month I suspect most people would choose targeted ads.
Edit: remember downvote if you disagree
I have never been harmed by targeted ads. Maybe someday but right now they just provide a bunch of free services.
Not to be pedantic. If you don't stream video or audio then a mobile connection is a viable alternative.
You are correct that in the general sense, the term "regulation" applies equally to laws intended to restrict some commercial behaviors as well as rules put forth by agencies with regulatory powers like the FCC.
This is a lie — "fake news", if you will. This congressional action cancels an upcoming change in policy: it maintains the status quo, and therefore "no longer" is not an accurate characterization of the situation.
Sometimes news stories contain inaccuracies. It happens. Then corrections are issued.
EDIT: I chose "lie" because to make such an obviously false statement accidentally would be a huge mistake for such a trusted organization as BBC; therefore I judged it far more likely to be a deliberate deception. Obviously there's room for interpretation. We'll see if it's ever "corrected".
That is a very optimistic view of news gathering. The BBC makes mistakes all the time. So do all other news organisations.
This error could be a deliberate lie, but to what end? What does the BBC gain by incorrectly describing American consumer protection as existing when they are actually only proposed? I know we live in era of conspiracy theory but I'm struggling to see this one.
> it maintains the status quo
No, it reverses the status quo.
The "status quo" was that the FCC would regulate ISP's sale of consumers' data. There is now a climate for where we were before these rules were passed, ala: a business can be built upon schemes like supercookies without opt-in and other dark patterns
They used the Congressional Review Act to strike it down, which requires that it be a new federal regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act
The CRA includes this, too, so the FCC can no longer do anything about it without a new law passed by Congress:
Once a rule is thus repealed, the CRA also prohibits the reissuing of the rule in substantially the same form or the issuing of a new rule that is substantially the same, "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule"
> Effective January 3, 2017, except for §§ 64.2003, 64.2004, 64.2006, and 64.2011(b) which contain information collection requirements that have not yet been approved by OMB.
The section in question in the article is 64.2004. It did not go into effect on January 3.
The CRA still ensures it will never come to pass, in any form out of the FCC, and I guess the clauses on data security and breach notifications are considered acceptable collateral damage here.