As Expected, FCC Passes Modest Privacy Rules For Broadband Providers, ISPs Act Like World Has Ended
from the just-be-a-little-transparent-dammit dept
Over the past week, we've been talking a lot about the need for more transparency and user control for privacy on the internet, so it's only fitting that the FCC has officially adopted its new privacy rules for ISPs that will require broadband providers to be much more explicit concerning what information it collects and shares with others, and provide (mostly) clear "opt-in" requirements on some of that data collection. This isn't a surprise. It was pretty clear that the FCC was going to approve these rules that it announced earlier this year. And, of course, the big broadband providers threw a giant hissy fit over these rules that just ask them to be more transparent and give users at least a little bit of control over what data is collected.Comcast has caused these proposals "irrational" and various think tankers paid for by the broadband providers tried to tell the world that poor people benefit from a lack of privacy. And magically new studies came out claiming that broadband providers are cuddly and lovable, rather than snarfing up everyone's data.
And, of course, the various broadband providers want to blame Google for the rules, because everyone wants to blame Google for everything. The issue here is that the broadband access providers have these rules, while online service providers, like Google and Facebook do not. There are, of course, a few responses to this. The first, is that the FCC doesn't have authority over those sites, like it does have over the access providers under the Telecom Act. The second is that users are much more locked in to their broadband access provider, and there is much less competition. Switching is much more difficult. The third argument is, basically, that Google and Facebook don't have nearly the same history as the broadband access providers of really nasty privacy violations. Hell, just as these new rules were coming, Verizon was being fined for stealth zombie cookies. Finally, the simple fact is that broadband access providers have the power to spy on a lot more internet activity than Google or Facebook. Yes, those other services are in more and more places, but it's not difficult to block them. With your ISP everything goes through their pipes, and unless you carefully encrypt your traffic via a VPN, they get to see everything.
Frankly, the new rules are not that crazy and shouldn't be controversial at all. Here's how the FCC explains them:
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, fcc, information sharing, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I can see it coming now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can see it coming now...
I too can see ISP's doing this.
Thing is, this is all a symptom of a bigger issue, that ADVERTISERS have access to any information on private citizens at all. What constitution amendment did I miss that stated ADVERTISERS had a right to our information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can see it coming now...
Three words: 'Third Party Doctrine'.
If the government can get away with arguing that it's not your data once you hand it to a company(knowingly or not, willingly or not), then you can be sure that those same companies would have a 'strong' case to argue that they're just selling their data to the advertisers to 'better serve their customers with more focused and relevant service'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can see it coming now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can see it coming now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically companies and their marketing/ad divisions are ran by humans so why aren't they asking themselves the simple "would I be ok being snooped like that?". Most likely the answer is no and yet they are pushing more and more monitoring out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Likely method?
That or do the even more Evil "Click this link to read changes to how we handle your data" without telling what the changes are and then have the checkbox directly below that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I correctly understand what Google and telecos were opposing and if I understand the rules that were passed, it seems that the FCC commissioner that was waffling astonishingly ended up supporting consumers and the public.
Outside of the growing zero-rating problem, the FCC has been doing an incredible job. It's very unusual to see a government entity being anything other than a bullying strong-arm for anti-consumer commercial and/or dehumanizing mass surveillance interests. It's nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they are going ape about
Because telecoms loose all the time in court, but when it goes to arbitration, it's decided 96% of the time in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
did they go all the way
Every comment, every transaction, every contact, everything they traveled across their networks from targeted individuals (they got it before they sold selections to the government, illegal selections and that's a fact).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These rules are irrelevant.
ISP's have been violating peoples civil rights for years. Instead taking a position and going to court, the FCC hereby chooses to codify habitual tyranny. These rules are completely irrelevant because the rights they presume regulate are already clearly and unequivocally reserved.
Wheeler has positioned himself at the feet of his baronial masters, instead of before the Constitution he's sworn to defend. While he may concede his rights, me and my fellow citizens, make no such concession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]