Republican senators yesterday introduced legislation that would overturn new privacy rules for Internet service providers. If the Federal Communications Commission rules are eliminated, ISPs would not have to get consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other third parties.
As expected, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and 23 Republican co-sponsors introduced the resolution yesterday. The measure would use lawmakers' power under the Congressional Review Act to ensure that the FCC rulemaking "shall have no force or effect." The resolution would also prevent the FCC from issuing similar regulations in the future.
Flake's announcement said he's trying to "protect consumers from overreaching Internet regulation." Flake also said that the resolution "empowers consumers to make informed choices on if and how their data can be shared," but he did not explain how it will achieve that.
Flake called the FCC's privacy rulemaking "midnight regulation," even though it was approved by the commission in October 2016, before the presidential election, after a months-long rulemaking process.
“The FCC's midnight regulation does nothing to protect consumer privacy," Flake said. "It is unnecessary, confusing, and adds yet another innovation-stifling regulation to the Internet." Flake's announcement also said that the FCC-imposed "restrictions have the potential to negatively impact consumers and the future of Internet innovation."
Opt-in rule and other requirements
The privacy order had several major components. The requirement to get the opt-in consent of consumers before sharing information covered geo-location data, financial and health information, children’s information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications. This requirement is supposed to take effect on December 4, 2017.
The rulemaking had a data security component that required ISPs to take "reasonable" steps to protect customers' information from theft and data breaches. This was supposed to take effect on March 2, but the FCC under newly appointed Chairman Ajit Pai halted the rule's implementation. Another set of requirements related to data breach notifications is scheduled to take effect on June 2.
Flake's resolution would prevent all of those requirements from being implemented. He said that this "is the first step toward restoring the [Federal Trade Commission's] light-touch, consumer-friendly approach." Giving the FTC authority over Internet service providers would require further FCC or Congressional action because the FTC is not allowed to regulate common carriers, a designation currently applied to ISPs.
Flake's co-sponsors are US Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Dan Sullivan (R-Ark.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.).
Democratic senators support consumer privacy protections
US Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) blasted Flake's proposal.
“If this [resolution] is passed, neither the FCC nor the FTC will have clear authority when it comes to how Internet service providers protect consumers’ data privacy and security," Schatz said in a statement issued yesterday. "Regardless of politics, allowing ISPs to operate in a rule-free zone without any government oversight is reckless."
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) offered similar criticism. "Big broadband barons and their Republican allies want to turn the telecommunications marketplace into a Wild West where consumers are held captive with no defense against abusive invasions of their privacy by internet service providers,” Markey said. "Consumers will have no ability to stop Internet service providers from invading their privacy and selling sensitive information about their health, finances, and children to advertisers, insurers, data brokers or others who can profit off of this personal information, all without their affirmative consent."
217 Reader Comments
<sigh>
Why on earth would anyone want to control their own private information? /s
As a resident of Arizona, I humbly apologize for Senator Jeff Flake et al.
Last edited by THavoc on Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:39 am
/s
Edit: ninja'd by eldonyo
Last edited by dlux on Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:42 am
You'll probably just get a blizzard of advertising from VPN providers.
And when did the Republican Party motto become "Screw everyone, I got mine!". They aren't even pretending to give a rip about the American public at this point.
In a related bill, R lawmakers also included language which would enable providers of computer hardware to record every key(and mouse)strokes and use that information to market to specific demographics (writers, artists, etc.)
/sarcasm (at least for now)
What a stupid fucking bill.
Last edited by publ_contact on Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:51 am
Couldn't Congress pass something and change it at a future date tho?
Granted, this is unlikely in the near future but I'm not sure "never" isn't a good description.
Last edited by THavoc on Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:48 am
Probably around the same time as the Southern Strategy, and building ever since.
How the hell is invading and exploiting the privacy of consumers a "consumer-friendly approach"?
leads to
Wait. How? I honestly can't see the connection between these two...
Oh no! but, consumers are poor uncomplicated souls who do not these complicated regulations.
When confronted with a simple opt-in form, consumers go "Ohhh ... what do I know! this is all so complex .. I am a simple wallflower" and faint. R senators are out to protect these consumers!
asshats!
Couldn't Congress pass something and change it at a future date tho?
Granted, this is unlikely in the near future but I'm not sure "never" is a good description.
Well, yes, but that's true of any legislation of the like. They essentially are just writing in a clause that says FCC does not have the authority to do such and such, but the entire law can be repealed or amended at a later date by congress (though if I recall correctly, it's a more difficult vote than to enact a law).
How the hell is invading and exploiting the privacy of consumers a "consumer-friendly approach"?
I'm really trying to think this through, and the closest I've gotten is that they believe by selling the data the savings will be passed on to the customer. Which of course won't happen. The companies will just horde the profits and possibly introduce a feature that doesn't include selling data for an extra 25.99$ a month.
We make a lot of jokes about 'Freedumb' and 'Murica here, but damned if it isn't based on a very real pattern of behavior by our voters and elected officials.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to swallow one word of that?
leads to
Wait. How? I honestly can't see the connection between these two...
That's because you have not positioned your head correctly, i.e. up your ass.
Obviously, these (R "law"makers) retards have their heads up their (or their masters') asses.
Last edited by publ_contact on Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:50 am
How does a user manage VPN blocking? I'm new at this (TunnelBear) and continually get captchas from Google search and complete blocks from other sites when it's on. It's not a smooth experience so far.
<sigh>
Why on earth would anyone want to control their own private information? /s
As a resident of Arizona, I humbly apologize for Senator Jeff Flake et al.
He seems aptly named. I can foresee a jump in VPN services in the near future if this law passes.
Look, if you're too poor to afford the bootstraps you'd pull yourself up by, that's your own problem, you taker!
The stuff in bold appears to be outright lies.
The stuff in italics is without any evidence to support it.
So a guy named Flake is a total scumbag. Whodathunkit?
John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
John Boozman (R-Ark.)
Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
etc
This might be the silver lining. VPN services becoming ubiquitous: quality, price, speed
Couldn't Congress pass something and change it at a future date tho?
Granted, this is unlikely in the near future but I'm not sure "never" isn't a good description.
No. They'd have to undo the entire Congressional Review Act for the rule to go back into affect. Not impossible, but unless they do, the FCC can never reintroduce the same regulation and Congress cannot pass a law dictating the regulation either. That's how the CRA (stupidly) works.
Every single time there is an article posted about screwing the people and catering only to the rich, you know who is on board or creating it.
I seriously don't get why so many are okay with this. We don't need to live in an Orwellian society and no, every damn business doesn't need access to every single click, keystroke or piece of information about every web user.
I get tired of saying "Fuck! Enough is enough!"
As a resident of Arizona, I humbly apologize for Senator Jeff Flake et al.
Yeah, as a Texas resident, both of my senators backed it. I'm sorry. I didn't vote for them? I explicitly voted against them? But since I live in a big city (blue) my vote doesn't count. Because we don't want the cities to tell the country to live, god forbid. But the rural can tell the urban how to live, that's just natural.
Edit: spelling
How does a user manage VPN blocking? I'm new at this (TunnelBear) and continually get captchas from Google search and complete blocks from other sites when it's on. It's not a smooth experience so far.
Not using the number one free VPN would probably help...
I'm a subscriber on their high tier.
How the hell is invading and exploiting the privacy of consumers a "consumer-friendly approach"?
I'm really trying to think this through, and the closest I've gotten is that they believe by selling the data the savings will be passed on to the customer. Which of course won't happen. The companies will just horde the profits and possibly introduce a feature that doesn't include selling data for an extra 25.99$ a month.
I think that they actually consider targeted advertising to be a service to the consumer. "See ads that are more relevant to your interests!", etc.
Ironically, due to their actions, my browsing tastes are going to run heavily towards Democratic activism and my targeted advertising will no doubt reflect that.
Probably around the same time as the Southern Strategy, and building ever since.
Didn't you hear? Being a dick is the new cool thing to do.
You must login or create an account to comment.