Sort of, but you've missed a key aspect. Yes, six months ago (or whenever) there was (possibly) no protection. However, that was a fairly recent development. Earlier, ISPs had been regulated by the FTC when it came to privacy.
As part of the implementation of its net neutrality order, the FCC changed its classification of ISPs from information services to common carriers. Last year a court ruled that the FTC did not have the authority to regulate common carriers.
The FCC's privacy rule was meant to step into the void left by the FTC losing jurisdiction.
Yes, we've "essentially" just gone back in time, but it's not a positive regression.
I agree, but with the way this thing has been reported you'd think we've gone back to the dark ages rather than where we were just prior to the election. I don't recall a lot of discussion on HN about which proxy to use because "OMG my ISP is going to sell my browsing history!!!" back then.
That's all I'm getting at. Wondering why the reaction to going back to the status quo of not long ago at all is seen as some assault on civil liberties.
> There were some ISPs which were selling people's data prior to this order (Verizon was one, IIRC, and a few others were actively injecting ads and JS into non-TLS traffic), and many more were considering it.
edit: spelling
The status quo was wrong, which is why we passed the law in the first place.
The difference, of course, is:
* [thing isn't thought about, so isn't made illegal - making it implicitly legal] * Hey, this thing they're doing is bad - now that we know about it, we should make it illegal. * Repeal: Hey, let them do this thing.
When the articles about ISPs came up (as Verizon did, fairly frequently; though it was also as frequently buried), there was discussion about using VPNs. We're primarily technology users and creators; our first instincts are to find technological solutions to such problems.
Give this a week, and it will fade from the front pages as well. That doesn't mean it's not still important, or that we accept the new status quo as being right or correct.
> Wondering why the reaction to going back to the status quo
Because, IMO, that "status quo" was not a good place to be, and was getting worse. And is now likely to continue to get worse since we've regressed back to it.
We pride ourselves as Americans as being progressive - trying to make things more fair for everyone. Everyone should have a vote. Everyone should be able to express their thoughts without fear of censorship. Everyone should have the ability to rise above their station. Everyone should have a right to privacy. When our elected government take steps away from these ideals, people (rightly, IMO) complain that we're moving in the wrong direction.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202
It repealed 73 pages [1] of regulation on ISPs.
Personally, I'd like to see more competition in the ISP space. This bill may help by reducing barrier to entry, but the central problem remains that national carriers have lobbied the state to prevent competition at the municipal level.
Furthermore, this bill seems like a minor nuisance compared to the data collected by Facebook, Google, and the NSA.
So yes, I'd say this is being blown out of proportion. The Republicans aren't being evil, but they have much more to do before I'd consider them being good.
[1] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.p...
Please, this just means no protection for an environment where, right now, we have no competition to move to when our ISP decides to do something shitty.
This is the bullshit argument Republicans/ISPs are pushing that anyone technical should immediately realize as such. It's conflating two separate issues.
I can choose whether or not to use Google and Facebook, and indeed willingly "agree" to their TOS when I log on. But to even get to those providers, I need to go through an ISP. As someone in rural America, I don't have a choice in ISPs, and even in a lot of cities where you have "choice," they all share the same privacy-invading practices. That's the point of the rules passed by the FCC: protecting us, the consumers who are subject to the whims of anti-competitive corporations that have access to large swaths of our personal data.
The root issue is the national providers lobbying the state to prevent competition at the municipal level. Granting more power to the FCC does not solve that problem. Rather, it would only serve to lock in the existing monopolies and further centralize control with the state/corporate nexus.
The state preventing the market from functioning is not a valid reason to introduce more state intervention. In my view, competition will protect the consumer better than regulation in the long run.
In the meantime, it seems logical to take some steps to limit the damage that our currently monopolistic telcos can do and give someone power to enforce a rule that: "(1) applies the customer privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet access service and other telecommunications services, (2) requires telecommunications carriers to inform customers about rights to opt in or opt out of the use or the sharing of their confidential information, (3) adopts data security and breach notification requirements, (4) prohibits broadband service offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights, and (5) requires disclosures and affirmative consent when a broadband provider offers customers financial incentives in exchange for the provider's right to use a customer's confidential information." [0]
I mean seriously, considering the current landscape, does that seem like unreasonable overreach? Is anyone going to go out of business with rules like that?
[0]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...
For example, there's a Mom & Pop cellular-based ISP that serves my small mountain community. They could certainly be put out of business by this type of regulation after they pay for lawyers, IT services, training staff on new operations, etc. -- and heaven forbid they get audited by the FCC.
Maybe if the regulations only applied to national carriers, then you could argue this wouldn't hamper competition. That'd be something I could support.
The FCC gave small providers a one-year extension and other concessions. And, as they pointed out, small providers generally collect less customer information and use it more narrowly.
Even if you think this will never be abused, I don't see how it's being blown out of proportion, this is still bad.
Really? Where was all the hyperventilating about the status quo on HN prior to when the protection was put in place? That's all I'm getting at, the reaction to being back in the dark ages of late 2016 seems a bit overblown in my opinion.
Edit: Nope, apparently this just nullifies the FCC rule, it's not an actual bill to change authority away from FCC. D'oh.
Seriously? Free pass to do bad stuff because "it won't last". Come on.
As far as "simply blowing the situation out of proportion because Republicans did it", it has been pretty obvious that Republicans have been aligned with the telco / big cable companies (as opposed to content companies) for a while. Maybe some are surprised and shocked, but personally I have no problem with this action highlighting that there are differences between current political parties beyond the usual social politics and political memes.
Nope:
> The bill not only gives cable companies and wireless providers free rein to do what they like with your browsing history, shopping habits, your location and other information gleaned from your online activity, but it would also prevent the Federal Communications Commission from ever again establishing similar consumer privacy protections.
Also, a lot of things are broken. Voices are raised when something bad is actively done, not when something good isn't actively being done.
Do you get the difference? I am dismayed that the healthcare system is currently bad and has been bad for generations. Is it smarter to kick up a fuzz randomly out of nowhere, or to do it when there's legislation being made on it, in either direction?
I wouldn't bet on it. All the discussion about politics and policy leave out the fact that the GOP now controls 33 state assemblies. 1 more power grab, they will be able it invoke it. They won't have the 38 needed to ram through changes without opposition, but there's a good chance they will attempt to put in legal guards against the Democrats from undoing their policies.
"The thirteen largest pay-TV providers in the US, representing about 95% of the market, lost about 385,000 net video subscribers in 2015." http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/03/11/us-pay-tv-continue...
The ISPs have been complaining about being reduced to a dumb pipe for a while now. They are very motivated to increase data revenue...