Amash and Massie join Rand to support telecoms data selling wo permission

[eleganz]

“Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”



EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION
(It appears Justin Amash voted yes to question preceding, to allow the vote, then Amash voted no on final passage 215-205, Mark Sanford and Tom Mclintock also Nays, both conservative)

Question to allow vote : Massie and Amash voted yes
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll200.xml

Final Passage :
Massie AYE
Amash NAY
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml

Rand abstained but cosponsored:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...3A%22all%22%7D



The official White House statement isn't very clear about why this is good either but there is a vague attempt at persuasion.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...roving-federal

S.J.Res. 34 – Disapproving the Federal Communications Commission’s Rule on Privacy of Customers of Broadband Services
(Sen. Flake, R-AZ, and 24 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s final rule titled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services," 81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016). The rule applies the privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other telecommunications carriers. In particular, the rule requires ISPs to obtain affirmative "opt-in" consent from consumers to use and share certain information, including app usage and web browsing history. It also allows ISPs to use and share other information, including e-mail addresses and service tier information, unless a customer "opts-out." In doing so, the rule departs from the technology-neutral framework for online privacy administered by the Federal Trade Commission. This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor.

If S.J.Res. 34 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law.

[dannno]

If I sell you an apple, should you have to make a prior agreement with me in order to be able to go sell that apple to someone else?

[dannno]

On the other hand, we still have an FCC..

[CPUd]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...35546639388672

[eleganz]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...35546639388672

I went to Amash's Facebook for context but he hasn't updated for a while. I thought he had some pledge saying he explains every single vote he makes. Does he just update when he goes back to his CD or something?

[CPUd]

I went to Amash's Facebook for context but he hasn't updated for a while. I thought he had some pledge saying he explains every single vote he makes. Does he just update when he goes back to his CD or something?

He'll probably post something in the morning, because a lot of folks asking him about it.

[jmdrake]

If I sell you an apple, should you have to make a prior agreement with me in order to be able to go sell that apple to someone else?

Your analogy is false. Here is an accurate analogy. I sell you an apple. Should you have to opt out to keep me from selling my store security footage of you to someone else?

[specsaregood]

Your analogy is false. Here is an accurate analogy. I sell you an apple. Should you have to opt out to keep me from selling my store security footage of you to someone else?

Why wouldn't they have that right? Are you saying they don't currently have that right, I'd be surprised by that.

[Pizzo]

If I sell you an apple, should you have to make a prior agreement with me in order to be able to go sell that apple to someone else?

Do you have a government created monopoly to sell these apples?

[jmdrake]

Why wouldn't they have that right? Are you saying they don't currently have that right, I'd be surprised by that.

I'm not saying they don't. I was simply cleaning up a false analogy. Dannno's analogy would apply to someone who bought internet service from an ISP having the right to put up wireless hospot and sell access to it without the ISPs permission. What's at stake is the ISP reselling information garnered from use of their product. Two entirely different things.

Now at some point a company shouldn't have the right to sell images of you without your permission. Here's a good example. Say if a department store puts cameras in changing rooms to prevent shop lifting. Should they have the automatic right to sell those pictures/videos? I would say no. Maybe you think otherwise?

[dannno]

Do you have a government created monopoly to sell these apples?

On the other hand, we still have an FCC..

I'm not saying they don't. I was simply cleaning up a false analogy. Dannno's analogy would apply to someone who bought internet service from an ISP having the right to put up wireless hospot and sell access to it without the ISPs permission. What's at stake is the ISP reselling information garnered from use of their product. Two entirely different things.

Now at some point a company shouldn't have the right to sell images of you without your permission. Here's a good example. Say if a department store puts cameras in changing rooms to prevent shop lifting. Should they have the automatic right to sell those pictures/videos? I would say no. Maybe you think otherwise?

The point of my two posts is that in a free market, companies would be tripping over themselves to make sure that their customers were happy, and they would use customer agreements that they would be legally bound to, and they would NEVER sell security footage of their customers or something like that because they would go out of business.

Unfortunately these are government monopolies we are talking about, they have no interest in competing for their customers like that because the customers, largely, don't have much choice in the matter if they want that type of product.

[angelatc]

"Should the government ban...."

No.

[Athan]

If I sell you an apple, should you have to make a prior agreement with me in order to be able to go sell that apple to someone else?

More like, if I sell you an apple, say goodbye to your privacy and fourth amendment rights.

[specsaregood]

.
Now at some point a company shouldn't have the right to sell images of you without your permission. Here's a good example. Say if a department store puts cameras in changing rooms to prevent shop lifting. Should they have the automatic right to sell those pictures/videos? I would say no. Maybe you think otherwise?

Good question, I'm glad I'm not a libertarian as I'd probably have to say that the stores do have that right by default.

[TheCount]

How can I go about purchasing the browsing history of Congress and their staffs?

[TheCount]

Now at some point a company shouldn't have the right to sell images of you without your permission. Here's a good example. Say if a department store puts cameras in changing rooms to prevent shop lifting. Should they have the automatic right to sell those pictures/videos? I would say no. Maybe you think otherwise?

That's where that 'reasonable expectation of privacy' comes in. A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a changing room or bathroom that they do not have while in the main areas of that store. That, of course, brings up the question: Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy while utilizing their private internet connection in their home? I would say yes.


Is it legal for your phone company to sell recordings of your phone conversations? Should it be?

[ARealConservative]

Your analogy is false. Here is an accurate analogy. I sell you an apple. Should you have to opt out to keep me from selling my store security footage of you to someone else?

your analogy is a lie. I don't know if you bought apples form someone else, if you even stored the apples, or how many apples you consume in total. I just know what you bought from me. I can share to the world that you bought 500 apples from me every Tuesday for 52 weeks.

[TheCount]

The point of my two posts is that in a free market, companies would be tripping over themselves to make sure that their customers were happy, and they would use customer agreements that they would be legally bound to, and they would NEVER sell security footage of their customers or something like that because they would go out of business.

Unfortunately these are government monopolies we are talking about, they have no interest in competing for their customers like that because the customers, largely, don't have much choice in the matter if they want that type of product.

In your other 'if there was a free market, then' argument, you support the concept of government regulation of immigration because there is not a free market.

In this argument, you oppose the concept of government regulation of internet service even though there is not a free market.


Is there a reason why your position is different on the two issues?

[dannno]

In your other 'if there was a free market, then' argument, you support the concept of government regulation of immigration because there is not a free market.

In this argument, you oppose the concept of government regulation of internet service even though there is not a free market.


Is there a reason why your position is different on the two issues?

What do you believe is my position on this issue?

I started off making two contradictory posts, I don't know that I have drawn a conclusion. I did like Justin's tweet.

[CPUd]

Some of you will be better off growing your own apples instead of buying government subsidized apples.

[charrob]

The official White House statement isn't very clear about why this is good either but there is a vague attempt at persuasion:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...roving-federal

S.J.Res. 34 – Disapproving the Federal Communications Commission’s Rule on Privacy of Customers of Broadband Services
(Sen. Flake, R-AZ, and 24 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s final rule titled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services," 81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016). The rule applies the privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other telecommunications carriers. In particular, the rule requires ISPs to obtain affirmative "opt-in" consent from consumers to use and share certain information, including app usage and web browsing history. It also allows ISPs to use and share other information, including e-mail addresses and service tier information, unless a customer "opts-out." In doing so, the rule departs from the technology-neutral framework for online privacy administered by the Federal Trade Commission. This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor.

If S.J.Res. 34 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law.

According to the following the Federal Trade Commission does not have authority over internet service providers, and so cannot protect privacy of those using ISPs:

The Federal Trade Commission has done a lot of work on privacy over the past couple decades. Unfortunately for us, the Federal Trade Commission does not have any authority to regulate internet service providers. [...] Repeal of the privacy rule will, in addition to giving internet providers the green light to share and sell information without consumers’ consent, might help expand mass surveillance programs, as well. [This is] because of the way that internet providers are required to protect information and not share it without a lawful order from the government, if it's classified as protected information under this rule. With repeal of the rule, that could lead to the expansion of some of these surveillance programs.

[Matt Collins]

Six Reasons FCC Rules Aren’t Needed to Protect Privacy:
https://cei.org/blog/six-reasons-fcc...rotect-privacy

[kpitcher]

How can I go about purchasing the browsing history of Congress and their staffs?

There is a crowdfunding going on to purchase the browsing history of everyone who voted for the law.
https://www.searchinternethistory.com/

[charrob]

Six Reasons FCC Rules Aren’t Needed to Protect Privacy:
https://cei.org/blog/six-reasons-fcc...rotect-privacy

From the article:

Similarly, Verizon’s privacy policy restricts the company’s ability to share any information that individually identifies its customers to third parties outside the Verizon family of companies. Although this policy reserves the right to share certain information with third-party firms for advertising purposes, Verizon may do so only on an aggregate basis that does not individually identify any customers.

I guess I don't really understand what ISP's are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do with the current rule that is in place. I have Verizon and, with the current rule in place, whenever i go online to buy anything, sure enough a day or so later when i go into Facebook there are advertisements from various companies that sell the product i went online to buy. When i bought a stadium chair, sure enough the next time i went into Facebook, there were advertisements showing different stadium chairs from various companies. We recently were looking to buy a used Rav4... sure enough the next time i went into Facebook, there were advertisements from used car companies selling used Rav4's.

I would think that would mean Verizon has given my web history to both Facebook as well as to companies that sell the products that I have researched and read about.

Is this what the rule was supposed to prevent?

[specsaregood]

I would think that would mean Verizon has given my web history to both Facebook as well as to companies that sell the products that I have researched and read about.

Is this what the rule was supposed to prevent?

Not, it means you're already being tracked by a number of methods independent of what Verizon will be able to provide later. If anything, the data facebook and the advertisers have will actually be more detailed than what the ISPs have.

[charrob]

Not, it means you're already being tracked by a number of methods independent of what Verizon will be able to provide later. If anything, the data facebook and the advertisers have will actually be more detailed than what the ISPs have.

Sorry, i don't understand. I don't use my last name in Facebook, so how would a used car seller that I've had no contact with know how to place an ad selling the exact car i was researching onto my Facebook page?

[dannno]

Sorry, i don't understand. I don't use my last name in Facebook, so how would a used car seller that I've had no contact with know how to place an ad selling the exact car i was researching onto my Facebook page?

[specsaregood]

Sorry, i don't understand. I don't use my last name in Facebook, so how would a used car seller that I've had no contact with know how to place an ad selling the exact car i was researching onto my Facebook page?

a whole lot of ways, advertisers use cookies, tons off websites use googles visitor trackers stuff for the webmaster tools, google then uses that info to place ads. if any sites you researched cars on had one off those facebook icons, then facebook knows you loaded that site and probably knows what car you were looking at, etc.

so many ways, everything you do online is already being tracked and monitored by the big web companies.

[charrob]

a whole lot of ways, advertisers use cookies, tons off websites use googles visitor trackers stuff for the webmaster tools, google then uses that info to place ads. if any sites you researched cars on had one off those facebook icons, then facebook knows you loaded that site and probably knows what car you were looking at, etc.

so many ways, everything you do online is already being tracked and monitored by the big web companies.

So you are saying the cookies contain my facebook id as well as the product ids of products I'm interested in and it is these cookies that are being sold by websites to other websites? And that these other websites have my facebook id from the cookie so that they can now directly advertise products I've previously looked for on my facebook wall?

Would my facebook id be incorporated into a cookie from a website that contains a facebook icon if I was formally logged out of facebook?

[TheTexan]

The telecoms should have to get permission from the federal government before selling it, after all, its the federal government that owns their customers' data