Comcast Thinks Having Basic Broadband Privacy Protections 'Irrational'
from the we're-angels dept
Last week the FCC announced that it would be imposing some relatively new basic privacy protections on broadband. While the full rules will be hashed out after extensive public and company input (meaning if anything they'll get weaker), FCC boss Tom Wheeler's proposal (pdf) is fairly basic: ISPs should alert customers when their data is stolen, ISPs should be totally transparent about what they're collecting, and ISPs should provide users with working opt-out tools for any data collection service the ISP employs. None of these requirements are particularly onerous, and most ISPs will find that they're already adhering to them.Given that an informed and empowered customer that opts out of snoopvertsing means less money earned, it's no mystery that ISPs have been whining about the FCC's proposal. After all, as wireline and wireless subscriber growth has become saturated, companies like Comcast and Verizon have turned to advertising as their next great growth market (thus Verizon's $4.4 billion AOL buy).
Obviously Comcast can't just come right out and say it's solely worried about losing money, so top company lobbyist David Cohen (apparently the company hates it when I call him that) has coughed up a new company blog post in which Comcast tries to argue that having some basic, new broadband privacy rules is an "irrational" move that creates an "unjustified set of regulatory shackles." Shackles that would, apparently, prevent consumers from enjoying all of the marketing Comcast intends to throw at them:
"Beyond blocking ISPs from competing in the online advertising marketplace, the FCC proposal will have other spillover effects. One example of the extreme nature of the FCC’s proposal and how it would negatively impact competition and consumers relates to cross-marketing of our competitive products and services to existing ISP customers. Under the FCC proposal, Xfinity Internet customers could miss out on learning about lower prices for taking bundles of services like Xfinity Home Security. Today, consumers are benefitting from competition in these new and expanded services, and they expect to receive these offerings from their broadband provider. The proposed FCC’s rules would unjustifiably make that much more difficult."That's really just an overlong, alternative way of saying that Comcast is worried they won't be able to upsell you as much unnecessary shit as they otherwise would. But again, with transparency and opt-out consent the cornerstones of the FCC's plan, the FCC has made it clear that there's really nothing that will prevent ISPs from upselling their own, or anybody else's services. Despite hysteria in the telecom sector there's no indication the FCC's panning anything more elaborate or "difficult," with the primary focus being letting consumers opt out -- with no hard focus on requiring consumers opt in (much preferred by many privacy advocates).
ISPs have been pushing funded studies for months stating privacy rules aren't necessary because ISPs don't really collect much about you (just flatly incorrect) and VPNs and encryption means consumers have tools to protect themselves already making further action unnecessary. But as studies like this one from Team Upturn have noted, ISPs collect an ocean of data on users via multiple technologies. Most Internet of Things and other household traffic isn't encrypted, and ISPs still track and monetize user behavior by studying DNS records and other network footprints.
Still, Cohen tries to pretend that there's no reason for the FCC to get involved in privacy because nothing bad has ever happened on the broadband privacy front:
"There is no evidence of any problem with ISP privacy and security practices: research published by the Harvard Business Review and the Pew Research Center shows that consumers trust their ISPs just as much, if not more, than other providers in the Internet ecosystem. And there have been very few ISP-related privacy or data security issues under the FTC regime, even while the FTC has taken numerous enforcement actions against others in the Internet ecosystem. "Cohen has a short memory. You'll recall that one of the key reasons the FCC is even pursuing new broadband privacy rules was Verizon's abuse of so-called "stealth cookies," which involved embedding wireless user packets with unique header identifiers that let Verizon track consumers and build detailed online profiles. Verizon was using this tracking technology for three years before security analysts even noticed. Consumers were never informed. It took another six months of public pressure and an FCC investigation before Verizon allowed customers to opt out. The FTC never raised a finger, which is why you'll generally see ISPs argue for leaving some telecom enforcement in the hands of said agency.
Again, ISPs had spent the last decade arguing that a "self-regulatory regime" was all that was needed to protect consumer privacy -- but when push came to shove it simply couldn't do it. Between Verizon's stealth cookies and AT&T's decision to make opting out of snoopvertising a steep monthly premium, the lack of broadband competition has meant ISPs could consistently ignore customer privacy rights without repercussion. In an ideal, competitive market you might not need net neutrality or privacy rules, but as anybody held hostage by the nation's dynamic duopoly knows, that's just not the reality most broadband consumers live in.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, david cohen, fcc, isp, privacy
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why, when as as an ISP Google will be happy not collecting again the data they get as the search engine/gateway to the web, along with their analytic business. Besides, as an ISP, they will let their customers consume all the YouTube that they want, along with any other service that they can use for advertising to people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No he doesn't. Verizon is a wireless service, not an ISP, duh.
/don't really believe this
//Not sure he doesn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opt out, isn't informed consent.
Many of their users, and particularly the ones most exposed to abusive and psychologically-invasive media practices are under 18. So even IF the end user fully understood their service contract, (which is unlikely even for well educated consumers) it wouldn't be informed consent.
The ONLY way to fix this is to break them up. You are either in the carrier business, or in the content business. Allowing a monopoly carrier to be in both will ALWAYS be an invasion of civil rights. They will just find a new corner of the 1st amendment to diddle, no matter how much the FCC regulates.
It is like Glass Steagall. Banks are predisposed to commit insurance fraud, so Glass Steagall separated banks and insurance in 1933. Clinton repealed it, (probably in a deal to avoid impeachment) and the market promptly boomed and crashed, because... banks committed insurance fraud.(AIG was a securities insurance scam)
In the same way, telecoms corrupt free trade by constraining speech. The only way to fix that, is to insure that they cannot constrain speech AT ALL. Which means separating responsibilities for content management, and transmission. Period.
Overturn Citizens United. Reinstate Glass Steagall. Bust the Trusts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opt out, isn't informed consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Opt out, isn't informed consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Opt out, isn't informed consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Opt out, isn't informed consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opt out, isn't informed consent.
If I wanted to get my packets deeply inspected, I wouldn't be encrypting everything. Or I would be getting into the TSA line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opt out, isn't informed consent.
But if it's informed in the strict sense, no sane person would opt into a system that thoroughly monitors their traffic. Not if they really understand what deep packet inspection is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opt out, isn't informed consent.
That's the same thing as charging you more for not wanting it ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opt out, isn't informed consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opt out, isn't informed consent.
Unless I'm missing something, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon et al cannot possibly violate the 1st Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Opt out, isn't informed consent.
Agency of state. If a party excercises authority in a fashion that deprives others of their liberties, and does so in a way that is sanctioned, formally or informally by the government, they are acting as an agent of state. In which case they are obliged to operate within the applicable constraints of Constitutional law.
Ubiquitous surveillance does constrain liberty. The state is aware of it, and has defended it in court. It then follows that the telecom, in this capacity is functioning as an agent of state, even though the right to conduct these invasive practices has never been granted in any formal way.
If a Sherriff looks on as a lynching progresses and does nothing, the parties committing the lynching are operating as agents of the Sherriff, because he is compelled to act in service of the law. He has given consent by neglect.
In such a case the Sherriff can be charged with conspiracy and is liable. The same logic applies to Telecoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Companies that made a business out of doing shady shit are upset that they can't get away with doing shady shit in the darkness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New premiums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wolves
You get Foghorn Leghorn on the case, that's how. No, that won't work, Wiley Coyote? That sheep dog with the hair in his eyes? Damn, we're screwed ain't we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments should NOT be in the business of regulating!
Imposing regulations upon Comcast to protect consumer privacy would be like regulating big chemical plants to prevent water pollution. Or the silly idea of regulating plants to prevent air polution! This would impose unwarranted burdensome requirements upon business that would diminish profits from huge to merely large.
Comcast shouldn't be regulated any more than other poor struggling ISPs. Imagine if Verizon had to actually build out the landline infrastructure they promised? Or if AT&T had to let customers use all the bandwidth they actually paid for? This could destroy the global economy!
Shouldn't TechDirt be a 'pro business' site?
This message brought to you by Big Lobbyist from Big Mega Corp which personally approved this message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Governments should NOT be in the business of regulating!
Capitalism has given us plenty evidence it does not work if left alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Governments should NOT be in the business of regulating!
Regulations generally hurt overall economic growth, (though in certain cases, regulations can protect long-term growth by mitigating profitable but dangerous short-term practices, i.e., preventing bubbles) but the reason they exist is that the public values certain things over economic growth. Such as the health and safety of its citizens. No one wants to live in an anarcho-capitalist society.
So, when certain public values, such as the right to privacy, conflict with the bottom line in a market with little reactivity (e.g., monopolies), the public exercises its will through external controls, such as regulatory agencies.
The fact remains, however, that regulation has a cost, often a substantial one. Often that cost is necessary, or worth paying. Sometimes it's not. That's why serious consideration is necessary before implementing any regulation.
And, after serious consideration, the FCC, myself, and just about every consumer in the country have determined that ISPs require additional regulation in order to maintain fair and ethical behavior in their gatekeeper positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Governments should NOT be in the business of regulating!
However much there is, typically is the result of regulation introduced to curb some kind of abuse. If they didn't want regulation, they shouldn't have brought it on.
If the business people could somehow manage to put themselves into other people's shoes and emphasize, regulation might never be a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, governments need to be the adult in the room.
Sometimes "having some skin in the game" will help. Although that will ultimately be engineered out of equation (countrywide + fannie mae).
When bankers cease to be "the adult in the room", government has to step up.
Still should be the least bit that you can get away with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Governments should NOT be in the business of regulating!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Governments should NOT be in the business of regulating!
"Regulations generally hurt overall economic growth"
This point is arguable in this day and age. Classical economists would typically agree with you. More modern views that account for natural capital would move the cluster quite a bit, and may eventually challenge that premise. If anything the difference becomes more marginal as legislative transparency increases.
Economic growth is something measured over very long time periods. For example, you can repeal Glass Steagall and watch record breaking growth. Of course if you account for the whole following decade, that would include the 2008 stock market crash. So the numbers for "deregulation" get decidedly less plush over the long term.
I understand what your saying. But I think that premise needs to be challenged these days. It isn't regulation per se' that constrains growth, but economic capture. And that is a much smaller problem.
GAAP needs to get fixed to allow for aggregating numbers on costs which are externalized at the public expense. This being broken means that the Fed doesn't properly account for expenses, and that results in inflated GDP figures. Which is great for international pissing matches, but terrible for actually doing work.
Nobody really knows what is broken because the numbers are bogus. What we DO know is that the numbers are bogus intentionally. Fixing that requires an accountable legislature. And that is achieved by:
Overturn Citizens United. Reinstate Glass Steagall. Bust the Trusts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Governments should NOT be in the business of regulating!
Still, kinda proves my point that this shit is complicated and actions or inactions can have ripple effects that are felt decades down the line. We often legislate reactively, usually when something goes wrong, and we have a tendency to over-legislate in those responses. I'm in favor of incremental regulation, small steady changes until the problem is under control.
All I'm really saying, though, is think before you legislate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Governments should NOT be in the business of regulating!
Usually protecting health and safety is a net economic benefit. Taking care of sick and injured people is expensive. The reason we need those regulations is not so much because we consider it's worth taking an economic hit in order to protect health, it's because without them companies will save money by allowing workers and others to get sick or injured, and let the individuals or the government pay the costs. The regulations are (at least in part) to prevent negative externalities.
There are some other areas where we need to prevent negative externalities too, such as carbon emissions. If you think curbing carbon is expensive, wait till you see how expensive the alternative is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Governments should NOT be in the business of regulating!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it's incorrectly simplistic to apply the word "basic" to one opinion making it seemingly unquestionably correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no protection
http://www.neowin.net/news/comcast-begin-man-in-the-middle-attacks-to-show-copyright-notices-on -websites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A suggestion
Maybe they feel it's demeaning calling 'just' a lobbyist, perhaps if you called him, 'David Cohen: Super Lobbyist' they'd be mollified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Cohen
The difference is banking reporting laws have SAR lobbying laws do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: David Cohen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
should?
Lawyers look at "should" and laugh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]