Senate Votes to Let ISPs Sell Your Data Without Consent

[unknown]

I think Rand was absent but dont think it would have made a difference.

Senate Votes to Let ISPs Sell Your Data Without Consent (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-votes-let-isps-sell-your-data-without-consent-n737921).


The Senate took the first step Thursday toward blocking rules that would restrict how some big tech companies share and sell your personal data, a prospect that digital activists said would be a huge loss for online privacy.

On a party-line vote of 50-48, the Senate passed a joint resolution that would bar the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing rules it approved last year — when it was under Democratic control — that sought to ban internet service providers like cable and cellphone companies from selling your data without your consent.

If it becomes law, the measure, in effect, would preserve a two-track regulatory system that treats ISPs — the companies that connect you to the internet, which are overseen by the FCC — differently from web companies like Google and Facebook, which are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission.

The rules passed last year by the Democratic majority on the FCC would require ISPs to ask you explicitly to "opt in" to letting them share personal information. On web-based ad networks, data sharing is usually turned on by default and you have to dig through menus and setting and opt out of it.

[anaconda]

Sounds like a profit opportunity for new companies that will protect our data.

[kpitcher]

The FCC is now ran by a past lawyer for Verizon. Not surprising at all that big telco wants to make more money no matter what.

I have two thoughts on this :

- It is sad that it appears a democrat appointed FCC is better for our privacy.

- I want to start buying the browsing history of every politician. So many chances to humiliate them. I can't wait to see the first campaign attack ad that uses someone's browser history and what porn sites they visit.

[TheCount]

The FCC is now ran by a past lawyer for Verizon.Impossible. There is no swamp anymore. It was drained. the_donald told me so.

[timosman]

Sounds like a profit opportunity for new companies that will protect our data.

There is no way to protect your data against an adversary who copies everything and can issue subpoenas.

[Matt Collins]

Is this something the government should be regulating anyways, especially at the federal level?


If you don't like the privacy provisions of your ISP's contract, then go to another ISP. Granted most ISPs are government-created cartel/monopolies in the first place, but you get my jist.

[DamianTV]

Is this something the government should be regulating anyways, especially at the federal level?


If you don't like the privacy provisions of your ISP's contract, then go to another ISP. Granted most ISPs are government-created cartel/monopolies in the first place, but you get my jist.

Very few options left. Mostly any decent internet by current standards are, as you said Matt, government-created cartel/monopolies, and far too often there is only one option available for a lot of people. Thus, either have internet, or none at all. Im starting to think none at all is the real choice people should lean towards.

[nikcers]

I think Rand was absent but dont think it would have made a difference.
yeah no change in current law, but I see the ISP industry might turn into a data mining operation that can and will be abused by the feds.


Not Voting - 2

Isakson (R-GA)
Paul (R-KY)

[DGambler]

Why not use a VPN service located in another country?

[eleganz]

The big question is, who actually owns the data to begin with?

[timosman]

The big question is, who actually owns the data to begin with?

Al Gore, the guy who invented the Internet (as a government tool to control the population).

[FunkBuddha]

Hopefully once Google can make even more money off of people's data, they can ramp their fiber deployments back up.

[Superfluous Man]

If you don't like the privacy provisions of your ISP's contract, then go to another ISP.

"Privacy provisions of your ISP's contract."

That sounds a lot like another way of saying "consent," which is what this Senate action apparently said your ISP doesn't need.

[phill4paul]

Is this something the government should be regulating anyways, especially at the federal level?


If you don't like the privacy provisions of your ISP's contract, then go to another ISP. Granted most ISPs are government-created cartel/monopolies in the first place, but you get my jist.

Your "jist" is pretty much the long and the short of it.

[kpitcher]

Why not use a VPN service located in another country?

It's an added expense and the average consumer won't bother.

Besides, more and more things are country specific and/or are getting better at detecting a VPN. If I want to netflix something I'd have to turn off the VPN for that stream but continue to VPN everything else. Again the average consumer will have trouble so won't bother.

I was in the ISP industry for over a decade, once big telco decided they wanted to control the customer, the lobbyists made sure most ISPs didn't last. A few niche players but really you at best get a choice of 2 - your telephone company or your cable company.

[DGambler]

Then what the fuck do we do? What are our options? Already came out that the fuckers have access prior to full boot on iPhones, I wouldn't be surprised if that includes Android, Macs, Windows.

I'd use Linux, but the rest of the household won't... Would hop all over a Linux phone.

Don't want to sound defeatist, but we're fucked unless everyone starts using a meshnet.

[GunnyFreedom]

Why not use a VPN service located in another country?

Or just a no-logger like PrivateInternetAccess

[timosman]

Or just a no-logger like PrivateInternetAccess

or switch to incognito mode:D (just kidding)

[GunnyFreedom]

or switch to incognito mode:D

Incognito Mode has no affect on ISP logs, only on cookies and such. There are a large variety of countermeasures you can take. I actively employ several anti-tracking technologies, including garbling my browser fingerprint. To be effective, a VPN doesn't have to be outside the US (although PIA has exit points outside the US) it just has to be a no-logger. They can comply with Federal seizure requests all day long because they have no data to provide. :)

ETA - the only thing Charter gets from me is encrypted traffic to a local VPN node. Only occasionally do I have to shutter my VPN for some sites, but that is very rare so far.

[CPUd]

VPN + US proxy who accept bitcoin, though if the IP can be identified as a known proxy, they could block service. Rather than fight abuse as it happens (like doing 100 searches a second), some places just block proxies. They also block IPs from entire continents.

[FunkBuddha]

The solution is for people to take back control of their rights-of-way from the duopolies.

[kpitcher]

Then what the $#@! do we do? What are our options? Already came out that the $#@!ers have access prior to full boot on iPhones, I wouldn't be surprised if that includes Android, Macs, Windows.

I'd use Linux, but the rest of the household won't... Would hop all over a Linux phone.

Don't want to sound defeatist, but we're $#@!ed unless everyone starts using a meshnet.
It doesn't matter if you use Linux, Iphone, Android, Windows, Mac, etc. If it's plain traffic to the net your ISP can identify what website you're going to, or service you're using and then sell that information.

The best you can do is use a VPN service that means all traffic from your home/business/whatever is encrypted to the VPN service. Your ISP won't have a clue what it is.

The downside : Cost of having a VPN, having to use a VPN client, and maybe getting blocked from netflix if you're using a VPN.

Minor Upside: If you ever connect to an open hotspot and do something like check email or banking, a VPN will protect you from getting sniffed

[specsaregood]

Its always funny when the anti-govt people get butthurt and start demanding the govt protect them from companies and voluntary contracts.

anyways,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-data-idUSKBN1722D6



Comcast Corp, Verizon Communications Inc and AT&T Inc said Friday they would not sell customers’ individual internet browsing information, days after the U.S. Congress approved legislation reversing Obama administration era internet privacy rules.

The bill would repeal regulations adopted in October by the Federal Communications Commission under former President Barack Obama requiring internet service providers to do more to protect customers' privacy than websites like Alphabet Inc's Google or Facebook Inc.

The easing of restrictions has sparked growing anger on social media sites.

"We do not sell our broadband customers’ individual web browsing history. We did not do it before the FCC’s rules were adopted, and we have no plans to do so," said Gerard Lewis, Comcast's chief privacy officer.

He added Comcast is revising its privacy policy to make more clear that "we do not sell our customers’ individual web browsing information to third parties."

Verizon does not sell personal web browsing histories and has no plans to do so in the future, said spokesman Richard Young.

Verizon privacy officer Karen Zacharia said in a blog post Friday the company has two programs that use customer browsing data. One allows marketers to access "de-identified information to determine which customers fit into groups that advertisers are trying to reach" while the other "provides aggregate insights that might be useful for advertisers and other businesses."
...


It sounds to me like this was a good repeal, the federal government doesn't need to be meddling in the relationship between user and ISP, makes things more out in the open and the companies get to voluntarily give into their customers demands for privacy.

[KrokHead]

Obviously this is not good.

[GunnyFreedom]

Obviously this is not good.

What, precisely, is not good? :)

[youngbuck]

People, use a VPN! PIA is what I recommend (as Gunny mentioned). There are several others that are very good as well. It's simple and definitely worth the cost IMO ($40/year).

[DamianTV]

Its always funny when the anti-govt people get butthurt and start demanding the govt protect them from companies and voluntary contracts.

anyways,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-data-idUSKBN1722D6


It sounds to me like this was a good repeal, the federal government doesn't need to be meddling in the relationship between user and ISP, makes things more out in the open and the companies get to voluntarily give into their customers demands for privacy.

How long will the current policies last? Trouble is even if these mega corporations dont change their privacy policies in the next few years, the internet is going to be around for a long long while (hopefully) and what do our kids do? What do our grandchildren do? The current swamp sold us out, and I have very little confidence that in the next 50 years that this law will ever be challenged and / or repealed by another administration.

Now lets say the ISPs do change their privacy policies. What kind of warning or information is made available to the people they service that such changes are made? Since it will be very unpopular (as of right now with this hot potato of a story) they may wait a few months or years to change their policies to enable profiteering by privacy invading.

Without privacy, corporations have a financial incentive to subjectively interpret as many actions as they can as "wrong" so it costs you more and does not raise their overhead.

[DGambler]

People, use a VPN! PIA is what I recommend (as Gunny mentioned). There are several others that are very good as well. It's simple and definitely worth the cost IMO ($40/year).

Recommendations?

[specsaregood]

How long will the current policies last? Trouble is even if these mega corporations dont change their privacy policies in the next few years, the internet is going to be around for a long long while (hopefully) and what do our kids do? What do our grandchildren do? The current swamp sold us out, and I have very little confidence that in the next 50 years that this law will ever be challenged and / or repealed by another administration.

Now lets say the ISPs do change their privacy policies. What kind of warning or information is made available to the people they service that such changes are made? Since it will be very unpopular (as of right now with this hot potato of a story) they may wait a few months or years to change their policies to enable profiteering by privacy invading.

Without privacy, corporations have a financial incentive to subjectively interpret as many actions as they can as "wrong" so it costs you more and does not raise their overhead.

So are you seriously arguing for federal government intervention to insure your privacy? You can't handle making agreements and contracts on your own?

[GunnyFreedom]

Now lets say the ISPs do change their privacy policies. What kind of warning or information is made available to the people they service that such changes are made? Since it will be very unpopular (as of right now with this hot potato of a story) they may wait a few months or years to change their policies to enable profiteering by privacy invading.

BLING! (random email chime) Greetings from Charter Internet! We are enacting a new privacy policy as of August 1st 2017. Please review the changes at wwwdotcharterdotcomslashprivacy at your convenience, and thank you for being a Charter customer!


Without privacy, corporations have a financial incentive to subjectively interpret as many actions as they can as "wrong" so it costs you more and does not raise their overhead.

I dunno man, these companies went like 20 years BEFORE the Obama regulations were enacted and they never did any of this shady crap then, so why would they suddenly start doing it now that those regs got repealed?

[nikcers]

BLING! (random email chime) Greetings from Charter Internet! We are enacting a new privacy policy as of August 1st 2017. Please review the changes at wwwdotcharterdotcomslashprivacy at your convenience, and thank you for being a Charter customer!



I dunno man, these companies went like 20 years BEFORE the Obama regulations were enacted and they never did any of this shady crap then, so why would they suddenly start doing it now that those regs got repealed?

Pay TV is dead, why do you think AT&T bought DirectTV? Why do the patents for deep packet inspection exist?

[GunnyFreedom]

Recommendations?

PIA all the way. As I understand it they have been tested in court and come out victorious. When Russia(?) passed a regulation that all VPN services exits must enable logging, PIA shuttered all their exit points in Russia within like 24 hours -- BEFORE the regs were enacted. There aren't many names in tech-universe I can say I actually trust with my data for less than $10k a month, but PIA is one of them. Just bear in mind something we in the intell field called "best practices." ie If you don't USE the VPN it won't do you any good. If you don't work on cookie security then the sites you visit will still track you themselves. If you leave your canvass fingerprint intact, then a forensic network engineer (at very very high cost mind you) can reconstruct much of your traffic providing they have access to the target servers. So it's just one tool among several, really, and you have to be disciplined enough to actually use it for it to do any good........but at $40 a year? It's not that enormous an expense.

You can probably get PIA and install "Canvass Defender" not screw with your cookies too bad and just use incognito (in conjunction with PIA and CD) if you visit anywhere shady and be allright. Myself I whitelist sites that I allow to cookie me. :p

[GunnyFreedom]

Pay TV is dead, why do you think AT&T bought DirectTV? Why do the patents for deep packet inspection exist?

Let's see what happens if Charter randomly decides to throttle Netflix to customers. :D You will not have heard such weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth in your life. Half the nation will rise up in friggin riots if you mess with their Romcoms.

[r3volution 3.0]

If you don't like the privacy provisions of your ISP's contract, then go to another ISP.

Yep


"consent," which is what this Senate action apparently said your ISP doesn't need.

Every user agreement I've ever seen includes a privacy policy of some kind.

My take on this regulation is that it just required a more explicit opt-in, apart from the long user agreement that no one bothers to read.

Big "meh" for me..


the ISP industry might turn into a data mining operation that can and will be abused by the feds.

That's already the case (with or without the ISPs knowledge/consent).

And that's the problem, not what advertisers do with the data.

...advertisers aren't going to be torturing me to death in a secret Guatemalan prison.

[DamianTV]

...

Without privacy, corporations have a financial incentive to subjectively interpret as many actions as they can as "wrong" so it costs you more and does not raise their overhead.

I dunno man, these companies went like 20 years BEFORE the Obama regulations were enacted and they never did any of this shady crap then, so why would they suddenly start doing it now that those regs got repealed?

Desperation due to the value of the dollar continuing to go down. Basically, if they have enough meat, they wont scavenge off of inedible parts. But now that the value of the money has gotten down so low to such a degree, they need to eat what meat they can get as well as the inedible parts. Basically, they want to bilk every last penny out of everyone they can. This allows their profit margins to continue to go up while the people at the bottom just have more shit thrown in their faces to tell them "consume this".

Dont forget to also take a look at how these companies try to fight back against dissatisfied customers! How many have also had their asses handed to them in court every time they try to put into a contract "thou shall not give us a negative review"? Will that stop them from doing it? Nope. They'll keep doing it because they are monopolies and know damn well they can get away with it.

I really doubt whether the regulations were in place or not has anything to do with the transmission of data collected about everyone. May now be "allowed" to "sell" that data, but either way, that data is shared with other companies. Comcast owns NBC. Comcast collects data, then "gives" it to NBC so Viewer X can be shown targetted advertising. Even with the regulations in place, since Comcast owns NBC (Nuthin But Crap), it isnt technically "selling" but "using internally".

[DamianTV]

So are you seriously arguing for federal government intervention to insure your privacy? You can't handle making agreements and contracts on your own?

The only expectations I have of the Fed Gov is to find even more destructive ways to ruin my life. All this basically has turned into is the Political version of "go ask your mother if you can go outside and play".

But to play Devils Advocate, I would expect the Federal Government to adhere to the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as act in its appropriate role of a Civil Court system. Basically, a Supreme Court makes a ruling that decides the Invasion of Privacy is utterly destructive to individuality needs to also be upheld and enforced when applicable, and as a result, these mega corporations need to be paying people for the damages they do to them, not the other way around. I know I am absolutely dreaming here as most of the govt is bought and paid for and everything is done at the mundanes expense. If this dream were a reality, then Credit Card Companies would not be able to change the terms and conditions of the contract whenever they find a new loophole to drive trucks thru.

I think we can agree the criminal side of Criminal Justice has turned into a sham that does more harm than good, and most of the rest of govt intervention has become little more than a Tax and Control system. With our absolutely fascist govt, I have no confidence that anything will happen, and would not be surprised if govt passes other laws that allow every corporation to forcibly put cameras inside every room in your house at gunpoint. Pissed, yes, surprised, nope.

[DamianTV]

...

Every user agreement I've ever seen includes a privacy policy of some kind.

My take on this regulation is that it just required a more explicit opt-in, apart from the long user agreement that no one bothers to read.

Big "meh" for me..

...

And if you read carefully, even one of them, they will say they "value" your privacy, not "respect" it. And what has changed isnt an "explicit opt-in", but "opt-out" and that is optional to the ISP.


...

That's already the case (with or without the ISPs knowledge/consent).

And that's the problem, not what advertisers do with the data.

...advertisers aren't going to be torturing me to death in a secret Guatemalan prison.

There are two ways you can get hurt severely by this. First way to get hurt is one big push. Basically Concentration Camps if youre Jewish. Today, that may be something like being either a Ron Paul supporter or not hating Trump enough. Second way to get hurt is "death by a thousand papercuts". Take more money from you and freedom for you to resist being controlled. The effects are supposed to be small enough that they are not noticeable in each infraction. Trouble here is the effects are cumulative, thus, equally as destructive as Concentration Camps are on a much longer timeline.

Lets do an example. Your insurance company has access to every detail of your driving habits. Each time you make a turn and dont use a blinker, California Stop at a stop sign or red light, youre dinged $0.25 cents. That information is not presented to you on your insurance bill, so it goes up by a very small margin, and you are never told as to why it goes up. Now, even if you are a good driver, they have a financial incentive to subjectively interpret your driving habits as piss poor because it is more profitable. If that is extended to include eating and other lifestyle choices where youre dinged on Health Insurance, your cost of living goes up, quality of life continues to go down, the rich get richer, and youre powerless to resist. They'll also interpret things like "being a Republican" as "being bad for your health". Think your job sucks already? (in a hypothetical situation where you work for a mega corporation and get paid dirt wages) What happens when your boss clicks a button to find a reason to deny the raise you are due based on TV viewing habits and internet surfing history? Think that wont happen? Think again, employers have a financial incentive to keep you working slave wages, and deny you other job opportunities so you voluntarily subject yourself to an ever decreasingly shitty quality of life for the benefit of others.

Yay socialism, right? :P

[nikcers]

That's already the case (with or without the ISPs knowledge/consent).

And that's the problem, not what advertisers do with the data.

...advertisers aren't going to be torturing me to death in a secret Guatemalan prison.

ISP's don't have the infrastructure to data mine yet- unless they monetize it by selling ads. They didn't have the incentive to build symmetrical internet connections, thats why your download is probably faster then your upload. There was always a threat of being regulated like a utility, the phone company cant record your calls that you make to your doctor and then sell your info to pharmaceutical companies. Now companies past the ISP sell your data all the time, but at least those have a EULA or TOS that you have to "agree" to. This legislation means there will never be any consent, you just have to trust your ISP.

[r3volution 3.0]

And if you read carefully, even one of them, they will say they "value" your privacy, not "respect" it. And what has changed isnt an "explicit opt-in", but "opt-out" and that is optional to the ISP.

Is someone forcing you to use an ISP?

If you don't like the terms of their privacy agreement, don't agree to it.

Problem solved.


There are two ways you can get hurt severely by this. First way to get hurt is one big push. Basically Concentration Camps if youre Jewish. Today, that may be something like being either a Ron Paul supporter or not hating Trump enough. Second way to get hurt is "death by a thousand papercuts". Take more money from you and freedom for you to resist being controlled. The effects are supposed to be small enough that they are not noticeable in each infraction. Trouble here is the effects are cumulative, thus, equally as destructive as Concentration Camps are on a much longer timeline.

How does an ISP selling user data to other private companies make it easier for the state (which already has all this data) to tyrannize you?


Lets do an example. Your insurance company has access to every detail of your driving habits. Each time you make a turn and dont use a blinker, California Stop at a stop sign or red light, youre dinged $0.25 cents. That information is not presented to you on your insurance bill, so it goes up by a very small margin, and you are never told as to why it goes up. Now, even if you are a good driver, they have a financial incentive to subjectively interpret your driving habits as piss poor because it is more profitable. If that is extended to include eating and other lifestyle choices where youre dinged on Health Insurance, your cost of living goes up, quality of life continues to go down, the rich get richer, and youre powerless to resist. They'll also interpret things like "being a Republican" as "being bad for your health". Think your job sucks already? (in a hypothetical situation where you work for a mega corporation and get paid dirt wages) What happens when your boss clicks a button to find a reason to deny the raise you are due based on TV viewing habits and internet surfing history? Think that wont happen? Think again, employers have a financial incentive to keep you working slave wages, and deny you other job opportunities so you voluntarily subject yourself to an ever decreasingly shitty quality of life for the benefit of others.

Yay socialism, right? :P

Socialism..?

No, that's a series of voluntary interactions between individuals and the private companies with whom they choose to do business.


ISP's don't have the infrastructure to data mine yet- unless they monetize it by selling ads. They didn't have the incentive to build symmetrical internet connections, thats why your download is probably faster then your upload. There was always a threat of being regulated like a utility, the phone company cant record your calls that you make to your doctor and then sell your info to pharmaceutical companies. Now companies past the ISP sell your data all the time, but at least those have a EULA or TOS that you have to "agree" to.

Do you think the federal government doesn't already have all the user data we're talking about and more?


This legislation means there will never be any consent, you just have to trust your ISP.

See my response to Damian.

I'll just add that an absence of a requirement for privacy policy X does not entail that privacy policy X won't be implemented.

As far as I know, there is no law requiring beer to not taste like cat piss, and yet, behold, my beer does not taste like cat piss.

[nikcers]

I'll just add that an absence of a requirement for privacy policy X does not entail that privacy policy X won't be implemented.

As far as I know, there is no law requiring beer to not taste like cat piss, and yet, behold, my beer does not taste like cat piss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Wars

[Mach]

This could be a good thing.

Full Internet Encryption (FIE). :cool:

Can websites, self-encrypt?

------


By the way...... 7:15


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lZiK8zyC_g