Facebook Working With Comcast To Scuttle California Broadband Privacy Protections

from the watch-what-we-do,-not-what-we-say dept

Last year you might recall that the GOP and Trump administration rushed to not only kill net neutrality at ISP lobbyist behest, but also some pretty basic but important consumer privacy rules. The protections, which would have taken effect in March of 2017, simply required that ISPs be transparent about what personal data is collected and sold, while mandating that ISPs provide consumers with the ability to opt of said collection. But because informed and empowered consumers damper ad revenues, ISPs moved quickly to have the rules scuttled with the help of cash-compromised lawmakers.

When California lawmakers stepped in to then try and pass their own copy of those rules, ISPs worked in concert with Google and Facebook to scuttle those rules as well. As the EFF documented at the time, Google, Facebook, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast all collectively and repeatedly lied to state lawmakers, claiming the planned rules would harm children, increase internet popups, and somehow "embolden extremism" on the internet. The misleading lobbying effort was successful, and the proposal was quietly scuttled without too much fanfare in the tech press.

Obviously this behavior has some broader implications in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Especially given Facebook's insistence this week that it's open to being regulated on privacy, and is "outraged" by "deception" as it tries (poorly) to mount a sensible PR response to the entire kerfuffle:

But last year's joint ISP and Silicon Valley assault on consumer privacy protections wasn't a one off.

California privacy advocates are again pushing a new privacy proposal, this time dubbed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. Much like last year's effort the bill would require that companies be fully transparent about what data is being collected and sold (and to who), as well as mandating mandatory opt-out tools. And this proposal goes further than the FCC's discarded rules, in that it would ban ISPs from trying to charge consumers more for privacy, something that has already been implemented by AT&T (temporarily suspended as it chases merger approval) and considered by Comcast.

But privacy groups note that Facebook and Google are again working with major ISPs to kill the proposal, collectively funneling $1 million into a PAC custom built for that purpose:

Privacy advocates at Californians for Consumer Privacy also wrote a letter to Facebook this week expressing their lack of amusement at the effort in the wake of the Cambridge scandal:

"Something’s not adding up here,” Mactaggart writes. “It is time to be honest with Facebook users and shareholders about what information was collected, sold or breached in the Cambridge Analytica debacle; and to come clean about the true basis for your opposition to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018."

As we recently noted, however bad Facebook's mistakes have been on the privacy front, they're just a faint shadow of the anti-consumer behavior we've seen from the telecom sector on this front, suggesting that a disregard for privacy is a cross-industry norm, not an exemption. That said, while Google and Facebook love to portray themselves as the same kind of consumer allies they were a decade ago, their refusal to seriously protect net neutrality -- and their eagerness to work with loathed companies like Comcast to undermine consumer privacy -- consistently paints a decidedly different picture.

Filed Under: broadband, california, lobbying, privacy, transparency
Companies: at&t, cambridge analytica, comcast, facebook, google

Wireless Carriers, Hardware Companies Use Flimsy IOT Security To Justify Attacks On Right To Repair Laws

from the lobbyists-within-lobbyists dept

A few years ago, anger at John Deere's draconian tractor DRM birthed a grassroots tech movement. The company's lockdown on "unauthorized repairs" turned countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists, after DRM and the company's EULA prohibited the lion-share of repair or modification of tractors customers thought they owned. These restrictions only worked to drive up costs for owners, who faced either paying significantly more money for "authorized" repair, or toying around with pirated firmware just to ensure the products they owned actually worked.

The John Deere fiasco resulted in the push for a new "right to repair" law in Nebraska. This push then quickly spread to multiple other states, driven in part by consumer repair monopolization efforts by other companies including Apple, Sony and Microsoft. Lobbyists for these companies quickly got to work trying to claim that by allowing consumers to repair products they own (or take them to third-party repair shops) they were endangering public safety. Apple went so far as to argue that if Nebraska passed such a law, it would become a dangerous "mecca for hackers" and other ne'er do wells.

Wary of public backlash, many of these companies refuse to speak on the record regarding their attacks on consumer rights and repair competition. But they continue to lobby intensely behind the scenes all the same. The latest example comes courtesy of the "The Security Innovation Center," a new lobbying and policy vehicle backed by hardware vendors and wireless carriers. The group issued a new "study" this week that tries to use the understandable concerns over flimsy IOT security to fuel their attacks on right to repair laws.

The study starts out innocuously enough, noting how they hired Zogby to run a poll of 1015 users on consumer privacy and security concerns in the internet of broken things era:

"Almost two-in-three American consumers said that the explosive growth of Internet-connected products makes them more concerned about their privacy and security, the survey of 1,015 Americans found. And only 1 in 3 Americans expressed confidence that people they know would not be affected if one of their devices was hacked."

Which is understandable. Especially in an era where countless IOT companies value gee whizzery over privacy or security. But it doesn't take long for the real purpose of this study to reveal itself--demonizing efforts to break the monopoly over repair:

"These concerns have placed a focus on security when getting Internet-enabled products fixed: 84 percent value the security of their data over convenience/speed of service....More than 80 percent expect repair professionals to both provide a warranty for their repairs and demonstrate that they are trained or certified to fix their specific product. Further, 75 percent value warranty protections over convenience and 70 percent feel most comfortable having their products fixed by a manufacturer or authorized repair shop. Yet, only 18 percent can determine if an electronics repair shop is protecting their security and privacy."

In other words, the not so subtle message being sent by hardware vendors and wireless carriers is this: don't allow third-party or user self repair because you'll wind up hacked, or worse. That matches the same message being sent by Verizon, Apple, Microsoft and others as they try to convince the public that being able to access less expensive third-party repair vendors (or repair your own devices yourself) will result in reduced security and privacy, dogs and cats living together and the world being ripped off its axis.

Again, the "Security Innovation Center" isn't much of a center at all. It's basically just a lobbying and policy vessel created by a New York PR firm (Vrge), backed by other, existing lobbying and policy vessels (CTIA, CompTIA, NetChoice). It's such a thin veneer, the Center's press release lists its "executive director" as Josh Zecher, the guy who founded the PR outfit running the campaign. It's basically just the Russian nesting doll equivalent of lobbying and policy, all to obfuscate Apple's, Verizon's and other companies' blatant disdain for repair competition and consumer rights.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, drm, iot, lobbying, ownership, right to repair, security

Copyright Maximalists Throw In The Towel On Term Extension; Admit That Maybe Copyright Is Too Long

from the about-fucking-time dept

Last week, in writing about how this should be the last year (for forty straight years) that no old works have moved into the public domain in the US due to repeated copyright term extensions, I noted that there did not appear to be much appetite among the usual folks to push for term extension. Part of this is because the RIAAs and MPAAs of the world know that the fight they'd face this time would be significantly more difficult than when they pushed through the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act 20 plus years ago. Not only do they know it would be more difficult, they know that they'd lose. Unlike last time, this time the public is paying attention and can mobilize on the internet.

Indeed, we were surprised a few years back when then Copyright Office boss, Maria Pallante -- who has long pushed for copyright maximalism in many different areas -- suggested one tiny aspect of potential copyright reform could be to make the last twenty years (the life plus 50 to life plus 70 years) sort of optional. Even this very, very minor step back from the idea of automatic life plus 70 years (or more!) was fairly astounding for what it represented. Copyright interests have never been willing to budge -- even an inch, and here was a tiny inch that they indicated they were willing to give up.

Tim Lee, over at Ars Technica, has now (incredibly) got three of the biggest copyright maximalist organizations on the record to say that they will not lobby for copyright term extension, and (even more incredibly) got the Authors Guild (the perpetually pushing for crazy new expansions of copyright law freaking Authors Guild!) to even say that they think maybe we should scale back to life plus 50 again:

The Author's Guild, for example, "does not support extending the copyright term, especially since many of our members benefit from having access to a thriving and substantial public domain of older works," a Guild spokeswoman told Ars in an email. "If anything, we would likely support a rollback to a term of life-plus-50 if it were politically feasible."

The RIAA and MPAA were slightly more muted, basically saying they "are not aware" of any efforts or proposals and it's not something they're pushing:

"We are not aware of any such efforts, and it's not something we are pursuing," an RIAA spokesman told us when we asked about legislation to retroactively extend copyright terms.

"While copyright term has been a longstanding topic of conversation in policy circles, we are not aware of any legislative proposals to address the issue," the MPAA told us.

Of course, those statements are kind of funny, because they both know damn well that the only way such proposals would even be a topic for discussion is if they were pushing for them. That won't mean some nutty copyright holder won't push for an extension, but the RIAA and MPAA's recognition that they would lose (and lose spectacularly and embarrassingly) means that no such proposal is going to go anywhere.

Now, let's see what it will take to get them on board with the Authors Guild plan to start to move copyright terms in the other direction.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright term, copyright term extension, lobbying
Companies: authors guild, mpaa, riaa

Gab Drops Its Lawsuit Against Google; Considers Trying Its Hand At Lobbying

from the trading-pressure-from-below-for-pressure-from-above dept

It seems like barely enough time has passed for the filing fee check to clear, but Twitter-alternative Gab's lawsuit against Google has already been dropped. (h/t SophisticatedJaneDoe)

The dismissal [PDF] -- only the second item on the docket -- is as brief as the complaint (which alleged anti-trust violations by Google) was long.

Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff GAB AI, INC. and or their counsel, hereby give notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice against the defendant.

Gab alleged Google's booting of its app from the Play store amounted to a anti-competitive action in service of its "partnership" with Twitter. Twitter had given Google access to its fire hose for its search engine. Google's booting of Gab, however, appeared to amount to little more than an inconsistent application of Play Store standards. This made Google look bad, but didn't seem to back up claims of a Google-Twitter conspiracy to keep Gab's app out of the public's hands. (Adding to this lack of evidence was the fact Twitter was never listed as a defendant.)

There's nothing to be gleaned from the voluntary dismissal -- one that would allow Gab to refile in the future if it again feels this is the best route to take. Gab has released a statement shedding some light on the subject, however. The platform's reps feel Gab's time and energy may be better spent pursuing other options.

In light of antitrust attorney Joseph Simons being nominated to lead the FTC, Gab has decided to withdraw our antitrust case against Google. Gab has been in productive back-channel talks with Google since our initial filing of the case. We were encouraged to resubmit our app before the Android store, as opposed to going forth with continued expensive litigation, of which would have cost the company a great fortune in both time and resources. Google has instead offered Gab an opportunity to resubmit our application for an appeal to be reviewed for placement on their Google Play Store, which we are in the process of doing as we speak.

Gab also appears to be getting into the lobbying business. The post notes it will be focusing its efforts on pushing Congress towards taking action against "monopolized tech giants." Gab is also considering filing a complaint with the FTC and, apparently, expanding its tech business CV by "building a… decentralized internet."

While none of these efforts would prevent Gab from suing Google over its ejection of the Gab app, it at least appears the platform's principals have decided there are better ways to be the change they want to see in the tech world.

Filed Under: antitrust, cda 230, lobbying, section 230
Companies: gab.ai, google, twitter

Is Hollywood 'Exploiting' Anti-Trafficking Organization To Support SESTA?

from the not-a-good-look-guys dept

We've been a bit perplexed about how much momentum SESTA has. As explained, it's a bill that is called the "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act" but it has many serious problems that could impact just about any online service, even if they have no idea that they're being used to support sex trafficking. Also, there's some aspect of moral panic to all of this, as the actual statistics suggest that the size of the sex trafficking problem is not nearly as big as many politicians and organizations claim. That's not to say it's not a problem -- because clearly it is a problem, and an important one. But it does suggest that broad-brush solutions with massive consequences to the entire internet should be reviewed a bit more carefully.

Indeed, as we've suggested, the way SESTA is currently structured, there appears to be a high likelihood that it would make the sex trafficking problem worse, by making it prohibitively risky for internet platforms to seek out and report to the authorities evidence of trafficking on their platforms. This is why a whole bunch of experts and organizations focused on stopping sex trafficking have all spoken out against SESTA, saying it's the wrong solution. Freedom Network USA, which works to reduce trafficking around the US made this point clearly:

It is important to note that responsible website administration can make trafficking more visible—which can lead to increased identification. There are many cases of victims being identified online—and little doubt that without this platform, they would have not been identified. Internet sites provide a digital footprint that law enforcement can use to investigate trafficking into the sex trade, and to locate trafficking victims. When websites are shut down, the sex trade is pushed underground and sex trafficking victims are forced into even more dangerous circumstances.

Similarly, the Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP) has spoke out against SESTA, calling it a "disguised internet censorship" bill.

The Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act or SESTA, S. 1963, however cleverly titled, is not at all what it claims to be. It boasts of being the answer to uncovering and punishing those engaged in sex trafficking online but what it actually is about is internet censorship. It is an attempt to remove the protection websites are currently offered under Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act. Section 230 is in place to uphold freedom of expression on the internet and protects websites from being liable for what a third party might post outside of their knowledge. If this bill passes, any person or business online could be subject to civil or state penalties if the authorities “believe” there is any trafficking or condoning of trafficking on your site. How is that determined? What activities will they consider illegal online? What about consenting adults engaging in sexual online courtship? What about our favorite fetish and cruising sites? What about individuals who enjoy posting nude or nude implied photos of themselves online? Would we then have to be worried about our naked photos being considered illegal solicitation?

But what about the groups supporting the bill? Well, we already looked at one group, that saw SESTA as a stepping stone to banning all porn. But I also wanted to look a little more closely at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children -- NCMEC. NCMEC has a very good reputation, and the organization has done a lot of really amazing work. While it's a private non-profit, it was created by Congress and gets a ton of government funding. NCMEC has, at times, succumbed to moral panics and exaggerated threats around "stranger danger" and such -- but for the most part, it's a pretty respectable organization.

I was a bit surprised, then, to see its General Counsel, Yiota Souras, as one of the people testifying before Congress about SESTA recently, insisting that the bill is narrowly tailored (it's not) and that it was unlikely to negatively impact most companies online (it would).

But, then another story caught my eye. Recently, the powerhouse DC lobbying firm, American Continental Group, announced that it had signed up a bunch of new clients, including News Corporation, the owner of 20th Century Fox.

American Continental Group has signed another five clients: Cognizant Technology Solutions, Diebold Nixdorf, News Corporation, the Onex Corporation and Textron. The firm has signed more than 30 new clients this year, helped by the reputation of David Urban, a lobbyist there who’s seen as close to Trump’s administration after serving as a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign and helping him win Pennsylvania. (Urban’s name was mentioned as a potential replacement for Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff earlier this year.)

Manus Cooney, Chris Israel and Urban will lobby for News Corporation on intellectual property issues, according to the filing.

The name Manus Cooney stood out to me, because it turns out... he's Chairman of the Board of NCMEC:

And, first of all, good for him. It's good to see that he's on the board of non-profits and helping make the world a better place. But, it at least makes me wonder if there isn't something of a conflict here -- and perhaps one that explains NCMEC's over-enthusiastic support of such a bad bill. Yes, Cooney just took on News Corp as a client, but the firm also basically lists every other big Hollywood/legacy copyright player as a client. Viacom, Time Warner, the Authors Guild, Comcast (owners of NBC Universal), the Copyright Alliance, the Music First Coalition (an RIAA front group), Random House, Reed Elsevier, SoundExchange (an RIAA spinoff), Songwriters Guild of America, and others.

And it's no secret that many of those organizations are supporters of SESTA, some more vocally than others. News Corp's 21st Century Fox has directly come out in support, for example.

Hollywood really wants SESTA to pass for a variety of reasons, nearly all of them focused on its weird visceral hatred of one company: Google. You'll recall, of course, how the Sony Pictures hack a few years back revealed the existence of Project Goliath -- in which the various Hollywood studios colluded to try to support doing anything to harm Google. The key part of the Project Goliath strategy was to convinced state Attorneys' General to target Google for basically anything bad found on the internet. Its first "success" story was getting Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood to subpoena Google and claim it was responsible for all the bad stuff people found on Google -- including counterfeit pharmaceuticals, sex trafficking and, of course, copyright infringement.

It was, of course, later revealed that the letter that Hood sent to Google had actually been authored by the MPAA's outside lawyers. Google pushed back against all of this, and a judge told Hood that nearly all of his attack was barred by CDA 230 (it also noted that the subpoena appeared to have been done in "bad faith.")

Now, let's pull all of this together: a big part of Hollywood's plan to handicap Google was to allow state Attorneys General to attack Google for bad stuff that people could find via Google. That flopped, in large part because of CDA 230, which protects sites from the actions of third parties. Now, along comes SESTA, whose entire point is to punch a giant hole in CDA 230, such that if a site is used to "facilitate" trafficking, the site suddenly loses its immunity. Another key point in SESTA: saying that claims brought by states Attorneys General are no longer immune from action under CDA 230. Hmmmmmm...

And, then, suddenly we have NCMEC step up to make clearly misleading to downright false statements in support of SESTA at the very same time that NCMEC's chairman of the board is pushing to get a lobbying deal with News Corp. -- one of the leaders of the anti-Google effort, and it raises at least some questions about whether NCMEC's support of SESTA is really about saving children... or helping Hollywood attack the internet.

Filed Under: cda 230, intermediary liability, jim hood, lobbying, manus cooney, sesta, yiota souras
Companies: american continental group, google, ncmec, news corp.

Florida Utilities Lobbied To Make It Illegal For Solar Users To Use Panels In Wake Of Hurricanes, Outages

from the sorry,-progress-is-illegal dept

You may have noticed that the shift to solar is happening whether traditional utilities like it or not, and attempting to stop solar's forward momentum is akin to believing you can thwart the Mississippi with a fork and a few copies of Mad Magazine. Said futility clearly hasn't discouraged Florida utilities, who have gone to numerous, highly-creative lengths to try and hinder or curtail solar use. When last we checked in with legacy Florida utilities, they were busy using entirely fake consumer groups to push a law that professed to help the solar industry while actually undermining it.

Fortunately Florida consumers ultimately saw through this effort, though this was just one of a steady stream of similar bills aimed at stalling progress. Many Florida Power and Light customers obviously lost power in the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Irma, despite promises by the company that endless rate hikes would help harden the utilities' lines. But customers thinking they could use the solar panels on their roofs to help keep themselves afloat until traditional power was restored were in for a rude awakening.

Thanks to the fact that Florida utility lobbyists are being allowed to quite literally write the state's energy laws, many locals discovered they weren't able to use their solar panels in the wake of the storm lest they violate state law:

"FPL's lobbying wing has fought hard against letting Floridians power their own homes with solar panels. Thanks to power-company rules, it's impossible across Florida to simply buy a solar panel and power your individual home with it. You are instead legally mandated to connect your panels to your local electric grid. More egregious, FPL mandates that if the power goes out, your solar-power system must power down along with the rest of the grid, robbing potentially needy people of power during major outages.

In the broadband industry, we consistently let giant incumbents like Comcast and AT&T write shitty protectionist state laws -- then stand around with a dumb look on our collective faces wondering why U.S. broadband is shitty and expensive. The same problem plagues the utility sector across countless states. In Florida, the average household spends $1,900 a year on power, 40% higher than the national average. Yet incentives or other measures designed to spur solar power adoption are either absent or illegal, in large part thanks to utility lobbying.

Needless to say, Irma appears to be acting as a wake up call to Florida utility customers unfamiliar with how the American lobbying and political system actually works:

The problem, again, is that legacy companies across numerous sectors are very effective at using partisan patty cake to convince consumers to root against their own best self interests. That's why Florida, a state perfectly suited to take advantage of solar power, remains well behind the curve when it comes to solar adoption. And again, that's courtesy of folks like State Representative Ray Rodrigues, who takes notable campaign contributions from utilities like FPL, then consistently fields bills that profess to aid the solar revolution while covertly sabotaging what should be the obvious path forward.

Filed Under: florida, hurricane, lobbying, net metering, power grid, solar

Chris Dodd 'Stepping Down' From MPAA

from the good-riddance dept

It appears that Chris Dodd's reign atop the MPAA is coming to an end. As you may recall, he took the job in 2011 to become the head of the MPAA -- directly contrasting a statement he'd made just months earlier that he'd never become a lobbyist. Dodd's first move was to preside over the MPAA's first legislative Titanic. After years of easily passing every copyright law it wanted, Dodd helped turn a slam dunk, easy-to-pass SOPA/PIPA into a huge disaster that has consistently scared Congress away from making any substantial copyright law changes. And, yes, it was Dodd's failed leadership that was a big part of the problem.

Other "highlights" from the Chris Dodd era include near complete silence after the Sony hack, a leaked plan on how the MPAA would help pay for lawyers to do the legwork for elected officials to attack Google, and even leading the movie studios to begin to question why they send many millions of dollars to the MPAA each year for very little return.

With that as backdrop, it's been announced that Dodd is stepping down from the MPAA and will be replaced by Charles Rivkin, who has worked in both government and in the entertainment industry. Dodd's contract ran through 2018, and news reports say he'll "transition" out of his role between now and September of this year. Hopefully Rivkin will be more forward-looking, and will recognize that (1) the public and (2) the internet are not enemies of the movie industry. That would go a long way towards improving the MPAA's approach to things, but we'll see.

Filed Under: charles rivkin, chris dodd, copyright, lobbying
Companies: mpaa

Australia's Copyright Agency Keeps $11 Million Meant For Authors, Uses It To Fight Introduction Of Fair Use

from the not-very-fair dept

Even though stories of copyright collecting societies failing to distribute the monies that they collect to artists abound -- we wrote about one just a few weeks ago -- this doesn't seem to discourage others from continuing to bend the rules somewhat. Here, for example, is a story from Australia, where there is a major battle to switch to a US-style fair use approach to copyright. Naturally, the affected industries there hate the idea of allowing the public a little more leeway in the use of copyright materials. So Australia's copyright collection agency decided to build up a war-chest to lobby against such changes. The Sydney Morning Herald explains where the money for that fighting fund is coming from:

Australia's government-mandated copyright collection agency has been diverting payments intended for journalists and authors to a [$11 million] "future fund" to fight changes to the law.

Specifically, the monies come from payments made by educational establishments in order to use orphan works. That's a major change of the agency's policy that was not disclosed to the Australian government's Productivity Commission that oversees this area:

[The Copyright Agency] has been criticised in a Productivity Commission review that is before the government over the transparency of its accounts and its practice of retaining, rather than returning, millions of dollars collected from schools and universities on behalf of the owners of "orphan works" who can't be traced.

An examination of accounts shows that in a change not disclosed to the commission or to its members in annual reports, since 2013 it has been channelling that income into a fund set up to campaign against changes to the copyright law.

Between 2013 and 2016 the fund amassed [$11 million].

In other words, schools and universities have effectively been paying to lobby against changes to Australian copyright laws that would be very much in the interest of themselves, the public, and writers, who could use copyright materials more freely under a fair use system. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article, the top three executives at Australia's Copyright Agency are all paid around $200,000 a year to come up with these kinds of ideas. It would be interesting to know whether Australian authors consider that $600,000 well spent.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: australia, collection society, copyright, fair use, lobbying, orphan works

Comcast Paid Civil Rights Groups To Support Killing Broadband Privacy Rules

from the with-friends-like-these... dept

For years, one of the greasier lobbying and PR tactics by the telecom industry has been the use of minority groups to parrot awful policy positions. Historically, such groups are happy to take financing from a company like Comcast, in exchange for repeating whatever talking point memos are thrust in their general direction, even if the policy being supported may dramatically hurt their constituents. This strategy has played a starring role in supporting anti-consumer mega-mergers, killing attempts to make the cable box market more competitive, and efforts to eliminate net neutrality.

The goal is to provide an artificial wave of "support" for bad policies, used to then justify bad policy votes. And despite this being something the press has highlighted for the better part of several decades, the practice continues to work wonders. Hell, pretending to serve minority communities while effectively undermining them with bad internet policy is part of the reason Comcast now calls top lobbyist David Cohen the company's Chief Diversity Officer (something the folks at Comcast hate when I point it out, by the way).

Last week, we noted how Congress voted to kill relatively modest but necessary FCC privacy protections. You'd be hard pressed to find a single, financially-objective group or person that supports such a move. Even Donald Trump's most obnoxious supporters were relatively disgusted by the vote. Yet The Intercept notes that groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens and the OCA (Asian Pacific American Advocates) breathlessly urged the FCC to kill the rules, arguing that snoopvertising and data collection would be a great boon to low income families:

"The League of United Latin American Citizens and OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates, two self-described civil rights organizations, told the FCC that “many consumers, especially households with limited incomes, appreciate receiving relevant advertising that is keyed to their interests and provides them with discounts on the products and services they use."

Of course, folks like Senator Ted Cruz then used this entirely-farmed support to insist there were "strenuous objections from throughout the internet community" at the creation of the rules, which simply wasn't true. Most people understood that the rules were a direct response to some reckless and irresponsible privacy practices at major ISPs -- ranging from charging consumers more to keep their data private, or using customer credit data to provide even worse customer support than they usually do. Yes, what consumer (minority or otherwise) doesn't want to pay significantly more money for absolutely no coherent reason?

It took only a little bit of digging for The Intercept to highlight what the real motivation for this support of anti-consumer policies was:

"OCA has long relied on telecom industry cash. Verizon and Comcast are listed as business advisory council members to OCA, and provide funding along with “corporate guidance to the organization.” Last year, both companies sponsored the OCA annual gala.

AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications and Verizon serve as part of the LULAC “corporate alliance,” providing “advice and assistance” to the group. Comcast gave $240,000 to LULAC between 2004 and 2012.

When a reporter asks these groups why they're supporting internet policies that run in stark contrast to their constituents, you'll usually be met with either breathless indignance at the idea that these groups are being used as marionettes, or no comment whatsoever (which was the case in the Intercept's latest report). This kind of co-opting still somehow doesn't get much attention in the technology press or policy circles, so it continues to work wonders. And it will continue to work wonders as the administration shifts its gaze from gutting privacy protections to killing net neutrality.

Filed Under: broadband, civil rights groups, lobbying, privacy, sock puppets
Companies: comcast, lulac, oca