Seattle Restored ISP Privacy Rules in the First Local Blow To Trump's Rollback (fastcompany.com) 145
An anonymous reader shares a report: A majority of Americans from both parties objected to a law passed by Congress and signed by President Trump in April that gives internet service providers the go-ahead to collect and sell users' browsing history without users' consent. This week, Seattle became the first municipality in the country to fight that rollback, in effect restoring ISP privacy rules for city residents under municipal code. The city's Cable Customer Bill of Rights, dating back to 1999, gives the city authority to set privacy standards over cable providers. In a new rule added on Wednesday on the urging of Mayor Ed Murray, cable internet providers must obtain opt-in consent from users before collecting their web-browsing history or other internet usage data, including details on a person's health and finances.
Not Trump's rollback (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be called Republican rollback. Trump probably https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org] no idea what an ISP does!
Re: (Score:2)
I would guessed this is Trump himself given his predilection towards petty online fights but your vocabulary is slightly better than Trumps.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets not claim Trump is that aware of what is going on https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]. So apparently according to Trump, Trumpcare is medicare for all, modelled on the Autralia System https://www.humanservices.gov.... [humanservices.gov.au].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Local control" is not a blow! (Score:5, Interesting)
Federalism is now cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't call what SJWs believe in a religion per se, but if you see it that way, you can take it up with them.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, remember when the "SJWs" got that law passed that restricted what you could do in your personal life? What's that? YOU DON'T!? 8-O
Which group is it that keeps trying to tell consenting adults who they can marry and restrict what women can do with their own bodies and wants to bring about the age of Jim Queer? That's the "SJWs" right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep those dastardly jackbooted "SJWs" don't want you calling people by the nastiest racial slurs you can think up, and have even made incitements to violence against ethnicities/religions/sexual orientations illegal in some countries! How can we call ourselves free if we aren't free to call for a lynching!? It's practically 1984 out there!
Hopefully Donald Trump will soon set things straight and totally not alter libel laws to make it illegal to say mean things about him.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you Americans are suddenly cool with British-style libel laws that's up to you, just don't be hypocrites about it. Trump might end up being a major victim of his own laws though. Didn't he make some pretty clear-cut statements about Barack Obama personally authorizing illegal spying on him during the campaign?
Re: (Score:2)
Imbalance of influence (Score:3)
Collectively, ISPs already wield an alarming amount of power in DC. An individual ISP in a single state though probably has even more influence, given the number of local people they employ, the grip on infrastructure they hold, and how much easier it is to grease the palms of local politicians (though they don't seem to have a problem buying congress-critters). And precisely because I may live in one state that protects my privacy, but a company I'm doing business with is headquartered in a state that does
Re: (Score:2)
States already impose their laws on companies operating from different states in a bunch of ways, often using far flimsier pretexts.
But this misses the bigger picture. ISPs can't see shit, even less if you encrypt. That is WAY easier than getting the Eye of Google out of your business.
Re: (Score:2)
IME the states are really unlikely to do anything on a large scale even if it is in their benefit.
Exactly how it should be (Score:3)
We need to roll back the authoritarians at the Fed (on both sides) and instead allow states to determine the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook only tracks website visits that have Facebook buttons/scripts or are clicked via a link from Facebook itself. Google has their own browser, so...maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Run "wireshark" on your PC with no web browsers open. Does your PC try and access Facebook servers? Does it constantly send a stream of data to Microsoft (52.169.64.244)?
"If you want to know who is logging your data, look at whose IP addresses you aren't allowed to block"
10th Ammendment (Score:2)
As it should be, figure out that shit at the state and local levels, don't need title II garbage.
Expect ISPs to take it to court (Score:3)
Re:Expect ISPs to take it to court (Score:4, Insightful)
The ISP argument will be that only the FCC or Congress have the authority to regulate these aspects of their business.
They may argue it, but it will be hard to win since they will no longer be considered Title II utilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only what sibling said, but ISPs will find it extremely uncomfortable with having their services (and thus revenue) suspended in a locality or state while their lawyers fight for their 'right' to sell user data...
Re: (Score:2)
The ISP argument will be that only the FCC or Congress have the authority to regulate these aspects of their business.
I wonder if they'll remember who signs their franchise agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea that's why Illinois (Obama's home state and the birthplace of the democratic machine) is seeing higher rates of people leaving than ever before and Texas is seeing huge growth. Poor argument saying people want to be there because they are "nicer".
Insane taxes to fund a bunch of state regulations is just as stupid as the Federal ones. If you want anonymity on the internet, buy a service that routes you through something that adds anonymity. Everyone here knows that. This is Slashdot not an Apple forum. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Illinois isn't a blue state. Illinois is red with two blue spots on it - that happen to have huge populations. And Chicago is just overpopulated and full of crime - leaving is more to do with urbanization than politics. There are a lot of cheap places to live in Illinois and cost of living is generally low.
Re: (Score:3)
Illinois isn't a blue state. Illinois is red with two blue spots on it - that happen to have huge populations.
In that sense, so is Oregon (Portland, Salem, Bend), California (SanFran Metro, LA Metro, San Diego Metro), Washington (SeaTac and maybe one other metro area), and likely lots of other states just like it. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Missouri (Kansas City, St Louis). Yup, seems to be a common thing.
Re: (Score:2)
certainly the perception of California, Washington, and Oregon as total Commie-Pinko Hippie territory is wrong.
Your 3D map of California you link to shows otherwise. The margin of victory for blue in California is not only high, it's high across much of the state. More so than Oregon and Washington.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Expensive, yes. "nicer places to live"? Maybe not.
Sure, they have all the cultural goodies and conveniences that one may want, but they also have correspondingly higher crime rates, denser living conditions, nastier traffic conditions, more pollution (in general), far more restrictive environments for small business owners, excessive taxation, a more restrictive set of rules/laws on one's personal conduct, etc.
My Brother and me were laughing at this (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
move to a left leaning state. The trouble is, they tend to be nicer places to live (go figure) so they're expensive. And no, it's not all the Taxes and burdensome regulations. It's all the people moving there to escape the crap our crummy two party political system and antiquated Senate & Presidential elections force down their throats. Seriously, only in America can a majority of Americans vote against a guy and he still wins. At least in North Korea they have the courtesy to fix the elections for real.
The system is meant to provide states with less population a more equal-footing in electing the president. That way the President isn't as influenced by the larger States, ignoring the smaller ones.
Re: (Score:2)
However, it means that people in small states have much more voting power in Presidential elections. It also means that most people are disenfranchised. If my state's vote is sufficiently close that my vote might possibly be important, the Republicans have won anyway. The only people whose votes actually matter are the ones in swing states.
Re: (Score:2)
If votes only matter in swing states, start trying to convince people in your state to vote opposite the majority.
Re: (Score:2)
That would either be futile (the most likely case) or it would cause my state to turn into a swing state, in which case I'd have to start trying to convince people to vote as they did.
Please do move to what you like, don't take (Score:2)
We seem to be on near opposite ends of the political spectrum, but on this I agree with you. If you're a leftist, a liberal, a person who can't get enough of Big Brother, you might enjoy living in state like that, and they might enjoy having you. You likely already live in one, so maybe stay there in California instead of moving to Texas. If you lean right, if you're conservative, if you want to make your own decisions, you might like Texas and Texas might like you.
It's a bit silly to argue about which is "
Then why the hell are you moving there? (Score:2)
If you hate Texas, why the hell are you moving there?
You're not moving there? Then why the hell do you care?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe California is using its much higher debt per capita [governing.com] to create the illusion of less poverty and wealth? I mean, you can live high on the hog on credit cards, but if you continuously spend more than you bring in - eventually that plan falls apart. And scholastically, Texas and California are essentially tied [prepscholar.com].
NOTE: I say this as a resident of California (Ventura, CA area). Beautiful place to live, but the State Government is seriously messed up (for example, firearm policy; much more liberal Washingto
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, only in America can a majority of Americans vote against a guy and he still wins.
Well, no shit, Sherlock; where else would you expect to find Americans voting? Oh, yeah, I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's moot. Like it or not, the guy who came in second in the popular vote somehow figured out that it's the Electoral vote that actually decides the winner of the election.
Re: (Score:2)
The rule/law says that providers can't deny service or charge more for not opting in.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a completely pointless law then isn't it? The cable companies will simply add to their ToS that they can do that and either A) you don't get internet or B) they sell your stuff.
Doubtful. That might be possible if the ISP could make more money selling your information than they make selling you internet access. You know how ISP ToSes all have clauses that say they can terminate your service for anything that boils down to being an asshole? Well, they don't make a habit of doing that, because there's more money to be made by tolerating assholes than there is to be made by terminating service.
ISPs have always been in a position legally to sell your information. There is no credible e
It's not a "blow" to Trump's rollback (Score:5, Insightful)
States deciding the issue for themselves is exactly the kind of thing Trump expected would happen, so this isn't any kind of resistance.
As a Californian, I hope Trump stays consistent with the state's rights theme and allows my state to continue setting our own auto emissions standards [nytimes.com] which 13 other states have adopted.
Ah...consent (Score:3)
Opt-in consent = signing a subscriber agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
It is unethical practice of law for legal professionals to create contract, law, or precedent to the contrary.
It is less ethical for the federal government to allow it without consent. Whatever could be used to defeat this could be used to defeat the current federal status quo.
It wasn't a rollback (Score:2)
The rule hadn't yet taken effect. Interesting how stuff like this apparently was of no importance to Seattle until they saw an opportunity to "oppose" Trump.
A dog without teeth (Score:2)
It's nice they passed this for those living in Seattle, although I doubt it will do much good.
How I see it playing out:
Option 1: 1TB usage cap, 150Mb/s speeds and we don't sell your online habits for just $99.00 / month.
Option 2: 1TB usage cap, 150Mb/s speeds and we can* sell your online data for just $79.99 / month.
* = bundling your data with others data and selling in bulk since they can't legally sell individual data. Still trivial to determine what data belongs to who when cross-referenced with other
The Dark Erosion of Rights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like when states decided to legalize marijuana, Obama just said it's still illegal under federal law then conduct raids on dispensaries.
OK, so states decide to restrict ISPs from selling user info, and in response the feds conduct raids on [nope, I got nothing]
Everyone start using Tor for everything (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we are the ISP's customers and Facebook, Google, and Twitter's products. If ISPs start giving out free internet in while using our data to advertise to us, then you might have an argument.
Blow? (Score:2)
I'm no Trump fan or supporter of any kind, but isn't calling this a "blow" to the rollback wrong? I thought this was exactly what they stated the rollback was for, to put the power to regulate this in the hands of the states.
A good move, but symbolic (Score:2)
Let's see this tried in a city that has Internet service.
CA seems the place I ought to be... (Score:1)
it appears that CA has it's shit together far better than the rest of the idiot American population!
That is to say that I cannot believe that the rest of the country is okay enough with the totally un-serving crap that this Trump administration is allowing!
CA seems the place I ought to be!
So I am loading up the truck and moving to Beverly! Hills, that is!
Oh! Wait! I mea
Re: Trump should tell Seattle too bad (Score:2, Informative)
Nope, states have jurisdiction over themselves not the federal government.
You should obey the law of the state you are in and stop trying to act like the US is one state.
There's no legal pot in Texas for instance, but Colorado? It's legal, and no I don't mean medicinal.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, states have jurisdiction over themselves not the federal government.
This is an FCC matter. Right or wrong this will probably get killed in court.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt it... the FCC generally has no problems with a locality being more restrictive on an ISPs conduct than federal rules, since there's no violation of what the FCC is trying to accomplish.
By way of example, I direct you to Coho [coho.net] - a local wireless ISP in Oregon (so, not just an ISP, but one that rents radio spectrum). Coho specifically blocks all peer-to-peer (read: BitTorrent) traffic. They proudly say so on that link I posted.
Now one would think that, under your theory, the FCC would get mad at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, I think it's actually the FTC now that regulates internet service matters, or soon will be. Still, federal supremacy applies if Seattle law conflicts with federal law.
Of course, it won't be as simple as that. There will be endless stays and other procedural and legal roadblocks thrown up because applying and enforcing the straightforward letter of the law as written is for when dealing with the 'deplorables' in flyover country, n
Re:Trump should tell Seattle too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you need to talk about the specific issue and make your case as to the best approach. It would be more productive.
Re: (Score:1)
Because... That's what the constitution of the United States says it should be? Been like that for over 200 years, but some Washington bozos overstep their bounds all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
The people are the ultimate limit.
Re:Trump should tell Seattle too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
"States can" isn't necessarily a good motto for why federal shouldn't
That's cute, A complete opposite of what the Constitution actually says in the 10th Amendment. It says (basically) that unless it is specifically authorized by the Constitution, it is reserved to the States and People. The real reason for the Civil War wasn't slavery (and white supremacy), it was Federal supremacy. We won the battle (slavery), but lost the war (tyranny) in the process. We're just discovering how costly that loss really was.
re: rights reserved for the States and People (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I could have modded this up!
Exactly the point, though.... Federal govt. really shouldn't be passing blanket laws over small details on how business is done. It has a role to play when it comes to regulating interstate commerce, since that pits state against state otherwise, trying to determine if some transaction is allowed and who is in the wrong, if not.
But when I pay for broadband internet access, I do so from a company doing business in my own town, subject to a lot of local regulation. Federal govt. really shouldn't have to intervene with any of this stuff.
I think in many ways, we got lost in the whole concept of Federally regulated monopolies. (Essentially, we made the leap of logic that because it was Federal govt. who had to grant a company monopoly status, that automatically meant it was Federal who got to give it rules on how it should operate.) When you think about it, the realities of the marketplace help illustrate why that's rather flawed. (We still have local and state governments placing rules and restrictions on monopolies all the time. There's no way Federal govt. is even capable of micro-managing things at the level needed for your power companies, water and gas companies, or cable companies.) May as well just let the states and cities dictate ALL of the terms and conditions of service since they've been dictating quite a bit of them anyway, all along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it does not say that states have rights, only that the constitution was a limit on federal rights.
The 10th Amendment, in its entirety: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]
Dumbass.
Yes, you are, indeed! Powers not delegated BY THE CONSTITUTION to the Federal Government are reserved to the States OR TO THE people. If it's not called out in the Constitution - it's for the States OR the people. Meaning the power can be for the States OR the people. Kind of hard to twist those words in t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is a perfect motto. Just like how the feds, state, or local government should not regulate when your kid brushes his teeth because you are capable of doing that.
One interesting thing to note is that this concept was Bernie Sander's most prominent and strong political stance. He did not even agree with Gay marriage legislation because the states themselves were capable of legislating that themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I am just saying that the Republicans And the Bernie supporters would disagree with you. Probably not an actual majority of the nation, but a mega majority of the politically active part of the nation.
Re: (Score:3)
This, right here.
Not everything has to be ruled-over by the federal government (see also the whole Federalism thing itself). Personally, de-centralization is a *good* thing in this case, as it will force ISPs (well, those who operate in multiple states) to unify their rules under a 'most-restrictive' policy, if only to prevent excess expense in having to maintain/keep up separate policies for separate states/municipalities.
Re: (Score:2)
Article Ten.
Re: (Score:1)
There literally is a federal case being tried - right now - on Russian hackers stealing from Seattle businesses.
keep up, this is 2017 not 1967.