SENATE REPUBLICANS ALLOWED ISPS TO SELL YOUR DATA

nordic.businessinsider.com/republicans-kill-fcc-broadband-privacy-rules-2017-3/

So about that VPN

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0rp1W8KDjaY&t=0s
americanactionforum.org/insight/proposed-fcc-privacy-rules-harm-innovation/
forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/
forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2016/11/15/the-true-fate-of-net-neutrality-in-a-trump-fcc/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

In a victory for internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T, the US Senate on Thursday voted to kill a set of Obama-era privacy regulations passed by the Federal Communication Commission last October.

The rules would have required ISPs to get explicit consent before sharing consumers' web browsing data and other personal info with advertisers.

The vote passed 50 to 48, with most Republicans in favor of the repeal and most Democrats against.

They were voting on a resolution proposed earlier this month by Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and co-sponsored by 24 other Republicans that broadly calls for the FCC's rules to "have no force or effect."

The resolution was proposed via the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a seldom-used law that the GOP is more widely applying to repeal federal regulations they contested late in the Obama administration with a simple majority vote. Republicans have a majority in both chambers of Congress.

The resolution will now need to pass in the House of Representatives - where Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) proposed a similar resolution earlier this month - then be signed by President Donald Trump before going into effect.

Because the resolution uses the CRA, the FCC would be outlawed from creating similar privacy regulations if the repeal is passed.

The FCC's privacy rules were passed in a party-line vote last October after months of contention between Democrats and Republicans at the agency.

The rules were something of a follow-up to the 2015 Open Internet Order, which famously classified the internet as a public utility. That set in place the current net-neutrality rules - which forbid ISPs from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing sites as they see fit - but also left the FCC in charge of ISPs' privacy regulations.

The privacy rules apply a set of guidelines to ISPs about how they treat consumer data, but the most notable bit would force them to obtain explicit consent before they're able to share "sensitive" consumer information with advertisers.

In other words, ISPs would need you to opt-in to their data collection policies before they're able to take that data and use it for targeted ads, instead of selling it by default and requiring you to manually opt-out. When people are given the explicit option, they are typically less likely to accept it. That means less potential revenue for ISPs.

Much of what the FCC deemed "sensitive" fell in line with looser, pre-net-neutrality privacy guidelines from the Federal Trade Commission - things like financial, health, and geo-location info - but the agency notably added Web browsing and app usage data to the list as well.

That specific provision is not scheduled to go into effect until later this December, however.

Even under these would-be privacy rules, which now appear doomed, ISPs would not be required to get opt-in consent for other bits of personal information like email addresses.

Current FCC chairman Ajit Pai has strongly opposed those privacy rules, and voted against them as a commissioner last October. Last month, he halted one part of the privacy rules that would've broadly required ISPs to "engage in reasonable data security practices." Pai and GOP commissioner Michael O'Rielly currently have a 2-1 majority at the agency.

Pai feels the privacy rules unfairly target ISPs and give internet companies like Google and Facebook the ability to harvest more consumer data and dominate digital advertising. Google and Facebook are by far the two biggest players in the digital ad industry today.

Websites like Google and Facebook are still regulated by the FTC's looser guidelines, and thus are not forced to obtain opt-in consent before they collect and sell your Web browsing and app usage data. This is partly why you may see ads personalized to your browsing history when you browse the Web.

ISPs aren't happy about this discrepancy, and have petitioned the FCC to roll back the rules entirely. Telecom industry groups have said keeping the rules could limit ISPs' ability to provide otherwise free or low-cost services. Wireless industry trade group CTIA also argued in a note to the FCC last week that Web browsing and app usage history are not "sensitive" information.

The debate comes at a time when ISPs like Verizon are increasingly interested in boosting their own digital advertising presence.

Despite the fact that internet companies are not covered here, they have also opposed the regulations, mainly because they do not want a precedent to be set that may apply to their data collection policies in the future. Groups representing Google, Facebook, and the like, urged Congress to repeal the privacy rules using the CRA this past January.

Like many issues in Washington today, this is a heated debate drawn squarely along party lines.

Democrats and consumer advocacy groups argue that it is fair to apply more stringent privacy rules to ISPs because it is generally more difficult to switch internet providers than use different websites - particularly in rural and low-income areas with less choices between ISPs - and because ISPs are more easily capable of seeing everything you do over the internet connections they sell. (Though it's worth noting that behemoths like Google and Facebook are able to reach beyond their own sites.)

They also note that many websites provide free services in exchange for their targeted ads, whereas ISPs still charge relatively high fees for access to internet service.

Republicans and other conservatives, meanwhile, call the privacy regulations an overreach of federal agency power.

"In reality, this is just yet another avenue designed to give the FCC more control over the Internet that should be open," said David Williams, president of the right-leaning Taxpayers Protection Alliance, in a statement in favor of the act on Tuesday.

Pai wants to create a single framework for both ISPs and internet companies that allows them all to be regulated under guidelines similar to those from the FTC.

"All actors in the online space should be subject to the same rules, enforced by the same agency," said Pai and acting FTC chairwoman Maureen Ohlhausen in a joint statement upon the FCC's data security stay last month. "Until that happens, however, we will work together on harmonizing the FCC's privacy rules for broadband providers with the FTC's standards for other companies in the digital economy."

Yeah but I can't oppose this without being called a "libtard cuck"

If privacy enforcement of ISPs is eventually removed from the FCC, there are doubts over whether or not the FTC has the authority to regulate ISPs' privacy practices at all. Apart from the restrictions set by the CRA, an appeals court decision last year said AT&T was exempt from FTC oversight because it was a "common carrier" - a title that was set for all internet providers through the 2015 net-neutrality order.

Pai says that, if the privacy rules are reversed, the FCC will still be able to regulate ISPs' privacy policies using Title II, Section 222 of the Communications Act. Those regulations are less stringent than the Obama-era regulations, however, and do not cover Web browsing or app usage data.


Title II is the linchpin of the 2015 net-neutrality order, and the thing that gives the FCC much of its regulatory power over ISPs. But it's also the thing Pai and other Republicans most wish to dismantle as part of a larger rollback of the net-neutrality rules. If that happens, as anticipated, it could further reduce any privacy-related oversight of ISPs.

Even if the net-neutrality order is undone, ISPs like Verizon and AT&T would retain "common carrier" status because they offer telephone services. Further action would be needed to expand FTC authority. That appears unlikely with deregulatory-minded Republicans in charge.

Democrats blasted Thursday's vote as taking too much control of personal data out of consumers' hands. "This is yet another repeal without a replace," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), likening the vote to the ongoing healthcare debate.

"Let me be clear: This is the single biggest step back in online privacy in many years," he continued.

A final rollback of the rules appears all-but-certain at this point, be it through the Congressional action here or an eventual FCC move. ISPs, advertisers, and internet companies can breathe a sigh of relief, but privacy advocates can consider it a missed opportunity.

Who cares, both parties are shit.

>"In reality, this is just yet another avenue designed to give the FCC more control over the Internet that should be open," said David Williams, president of the right-leaning Taxpayers Protection Alliance, in a statement in favor of the act on Tuesday.

absolute giga kek reverse gaslighting tactic here guys.

I don't understand, do you realize all of the bad press is politically motivated?
Where is the outrage about major social media websites selling your data?
What about the NSA?
The CIA?
Five eyes?
No? They don't fucking care.

In many cases, when you sign up to an ISP, they require that you sign a consent as part of their initial ts&cs so now I suppose they just won't require that clause.
But as it stands not a fuck of a lot will change, since every new customer has signed away their privacy anyway!

>literally whataboutism

So it's not at all politically motivated and all of these people are just as outraged about everything else?

Spam tweets at Trump and convince him to veto it. Say that we the people want and deserve a better deal

>vote to remove taco
>get my lolicon habits being sold instead

>Businesses will now have better advertising towards my interests.
CIA, NSA, FBI and the Coast Guard already have everything I did, am doing and will do forseeable to around 2 years. If there were legal repercussions I would have seen them already. Let me know if they make malicious adware legal and then we can talk about outrage

Just another spying tool.

I could easily block Google's swarm of cookies. I CAN'T easily change providers, and it costs money for a VPN. Shame our representatives so easily sign our rights away at every turn.

Nice. So everybody with moniez can buy data about online activity of GOP and DEM members? Cool.

b-but i d-didn't vote for this

Pay attention to which parties actually voted for this. Spoiler: None were democrats.

Uh yes have you been paying attention? Don't bother answering that question.

>Uh yes have you been paying attention?
Where is the mass exodus from social media?
People don't fucking care.
We care, normal people don't.
Most of those things I listen have bi-partisan support.

>Sup Forums refuses to engage because it's something legitimately and objectively terrible that Republicans did, rather than obongo

It's not about who does it but what they do.

And how is this a bad thing? Checkm8 shill.

>senate republicans

You do know Trump supports this and is going to sign the bill?


ARE YOU TIRED OF WINNING YET?

i'm waiting for the
>retard attempts to defend police state
subplot of this episode

>Establishment Republicans make a bill giving corporate access to something the government has had for years

If you gave a single shit before today you would know this is nothing compared to what happened for the last 15 years. Anyone with a facebook is already submitting to this right now.

Thanks rambo

>Yeah but I can't oppose this without being called a "libtard cuck"
Your privacy is being sold the highest bidder. They are even sharing your social security number in an age when identity theft is rampant.

I left the GOP in January after I found out they'd rather worship the Kremlin and suck Putin's cock than stand up to defend our country from Russia's firehose of lies and constant cyberwarfare attacks.

The liberals are the only true patriots left in America.

genuine question: Has this not been happening since 2010? Like, facebook still has ads based on my google searches, and its been like this for years

>and it costs money for a VPN.

Really newfag?

>Shareblue

It will be sold to recruiter companies that will black mail you if you want to ever get a job.

Also, credit bureaus and financial companies, sorry goys.

>Kremlin and suck Putin's cock than stand up to defend our country from Russia's firehose of lies and constant cyberwarfare


Lmfao, can you explain how the leader of Russia decided to launch the biggest cyber attack in history based off the notion that a reality star decided to run for president in 2015 with virtually no shot of making it?

Doesn't matter. Trump will veto.

>the Obama rules would have required ISPs to get explicit consent before sharing data

So, this whole issue is literally nothing? Under the old rules, they could just throw a clause in the 6 gorrilion page Terms of Service and sold your data.

This is the free market libertardians jerk off to

>>Shareblue
Sure I'll fucking join share blue, too. It's much better than whatever it is the fuck you're doing, betraying you country, learning Russian and goosestepping around in jackboots while America is under attack. Fuck you, you miserable piece of shit traitor. The day of the rope is for you and the rest of your treason bros.

this is all just a big misunderstanding. you'll see. tune in to fox to see this all get cleared up.

This.

Libertarian Party best party anyway.

Explain to me how it's functionally different than the Obama rules, which only required "consent" (i.e. a clause in the ToS that nobody reads).

>Yes, goyim, open borders and no government restraints on business, a wonderful idea.

Both parties are owned by kikes and want to screw over the average pleb.

You fucking shills will soon know how it feels like to hang from a lamppost by the neck..... liberals are patriots lmfao.... this statement gives me nausea

Libertardian ideas have failed us over the past few years, this is why Sup Forums is a fascist board now

"There is only one type of libertarianism'

Step outside nerd virgin. Russia isn't attacking you.

There is only one good libertarian, a dead one.

is someone gonna shoop that board on the right?

goyim getting mercilessly raped by the foreskinless cock and he smiles as he takes it


as usual.

Can confirm. I think everyone who started out here was a libertarian at the beginning. Somehow you cunts have turned me into a Nazi.

For a decent VPN that is.

if i understand it right:

the "privacy" rules that were created, and are being recommended for repeal, are FCC rules that distinguish sensitive vs. non-sensitive personal information, and require opt-in 3rd party sharing for sensitive, and opt-out for non-sensitive. thus under the guise of "privacy" the democrats enshrined in law the already-existing practice of opt-out sharing (not having to get your consent first).

repealing the law puts data sharing practices back under the FTC's control, who already had laws for it, that were somewhat lax, because data sharing isn't that big a deal. never has been.

Republicans are the ultimate Jew cucks their entire thing is keeping us goyim under the jews control financially
Dems keep us under the Jews control socially they're both selling out this country hopefully Trump will blow up the damn swamp so that this shit is reduced
Though I'm curious does this mean that the companies are at least now liable if our data gets stolen? or if the advertising company harasses us?

Sup Forums is so cucked by Trump that they will defend this

>if you want to ever get a job
Thank god, everybody here is safe

It makes more sense for them to be under the FTC anyway, right? There's nothing inherently different between the data sharing policies of Facebook and Walmart. The medium in which their company operates shouldn't effect the FTC's jurisdiction.

>Won't fight back cuz I am not man enough

That's why burgers are the fucking cucks and absolutely best goyim.

youtube.com/watch?v=0rp1W8KDjaY&t=0s

Inrange usually knows.

The GOP and Democrats are equally as corrupt.
This is why I'm happy to be a Nationalist.

>implying

They didn't think this through.

Now people can buy the Congressmens' history and use it against them. Even if they use a VPN for all their Internet. That will just make it look like they are trying to hide something.

I can't wait to see some politician's Internet habits being brought up in an election. We truly will be living in a cyberpunk dystopia then.

the difference was you had to sign up for facebook for this to apply
now it doesnt matter if you go to facebook or not
soon as you connect to internet you are being sold to the highest bidder

Truuu

It doesn't really apply across the pond, m8.

In any case the ISPs here gave Terms of Service that are at least a dozen pages long. It would be trivial for them to throw a clause in that would have satisfied the old rule.

South Park is fucking clairvoyant. Troll trace is real.

>implying VPNs aren't selling your data already
>implying some VPNs aren't being run by NSA

Thos board will still defend the GOP and Trump. This is the most 1984 and Brave New World I have seen yet. The Dems are shit,yes, but the GOP is just flat out evil.

Holy shit hahahahahahahaha what a fucking loser. Enjoy the 7.50 an hour from shariablue faggot

>"h-ha d-dumb fucks....s-shillary would've been w-worrrrrrrse.......*blows brains out*

XD

Trump gets elected on the back of manchildren hiding in their basement posting anonymously their support for him every day.

Now plans to sign a bill that won't make them anonymous.

What did he mean by this?

Trump is an idiot. He has no idea about what he is doing. I supported him, and still support him for the memes, and because he isn't the president of my country, but if you are an American and voted for him, you are a part of the most cucked persons in America.

Aren't they already doing this before?

No

It's something Sup Forums can't face. Trump is selling them out.

That's why this thread will disappear before long. They would rather have all their privacy sold out than to have to admit trump is fucking them on something.

yeah! who needs freedom!? who needs an honest government!? being able to call SJWs faggots is the only freedom I need.

Wtf I love assault trucks now

Actually yes, they were. How do you think you've been getting tailored ads to your needs, you fucking goofy shill.

I don't know, but it's pretty fucking funny

Im 100% sure it was going on beforehand. Either way its shit and shouldn't have happened

see how in denial this one is

How is it denial if he is accepting that your information was already being sold?

It never was TIDF

The previous rules required only a clause included in the ToS. ISPs were already selling info.

Thats ad tracking based on your browsing habits on your local machine, not people specifically targeting your account based on search history they bought. Learn2adblock/antitracking BTW newfag

I wasn't on the Trump Train before, but now I think I'm a believer

Making you pay for your border wall, gutting your environmental stewardship, healthcare, and general quality of life just to funnel more money into an already overkill military, petty Twitter drama every day, and now this.

You goys just keep on WINNING

So what? Internet is a free market. Stay butthurt commies

Somebody make Chuck and Chad Blackburn's browser history public.

lol capitalism gone insane.

thank god Trump got elected.

We can at least see comedy gold everyday.

Will this affect us europoors?

so nothing changes for most of us. it sounds bad but all it really does is make ads more focused. perhaps we can scare tactic it all the way into not letting companies gather info at all.

funny how all these companies collect info on us but we have to do a captcha every post because we might be bots

This bullshit about losing internet privacy being peddled by the scare-mongering MSM to make Republicans and Trump look bad is once again a bunch of total BS. It is an FCC rule that never actually took effect that is being overturned. Here is more rational information about it, from when it was first put on the table last year:

americanactionforum.org/insight/proposed-fcc-privacy-rules-harm-innovation/

In short, nothing changes, and you are not less secure in your internet privacy than you were before. If this rule had actually taken effect, it really wouldn't have increased your privacy, it would have just put undue burden on ISPs to follow it. Keep in mind that the rule wouldn't have applied to businesses like Facebook, Google, and Apple, which are still regulated under the FTC. ISPs used to be successfully regulated under FTC until the FCC made a power grab and reclassified them as common carriers. Because more government regulation of internet is a good thing, right? Right?

Some more slightly older information on the subject:
forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/
forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2016/11/15/the-true-fate-of-net-neutrality-in-a-trump-fcc/

Republicans and Democrats both participate in this shady shit. Today it is Republicans tomorrow it will be Democrats. The government in general likes to accept money from companies and work against the favor of the people. At times like this you don't support the establishment, but you also do not give up on it.

...

...

It shouldn't be a partisan issue. Fuck republicans, they love selling out the very own people they claim to represent.

>Who proposed the law?