Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Government The Internet United States Politics Your Rights Online

Seattle Restored ISP Privacy Rules in the First Local Blow To Trump's Rollback ( 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seattle Restored ISP Privacy Rules in the First Local Blow To Trump's Rollback

Comments Filter:
  • by parallel_prankster ( 1455313 ) on Friday May 05, 2017 @03:05PM (#54362937)

    It should be called Republican rollback. Trump probably [] no idea what an ISP does!

  • by Fringe ( 6096 ) on Friday May 05, 2017 @03:08PM (#54362951)
    This is exactly what "states rights", etc. are all about. The creeping definition of "interstate commerce" has resulted in too much centralized bureaucracy that doesn't understand the real impact.
    • by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Friday May 05, 2017 @03:34PM (#54363149) Journal
      Yea, States rights were EVIL before Trump was elected, now all sorts of people have had whiplash change of mind or are "rediscovering" Federalism. Bottom line...many people LOVE Federal power when their people are in charge and LOVE states rights and decentralized power when their people are NOT in power. It's hypocritical, but then why should that surprise me?
      • by Luthair ( 847766 )
        Well, there is one particular side which attempts to tell others how to live based on their own personal religions...
        • by Anonymous Coward

          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.

          • 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?

        • And then the other side loves to pass laws and regulations to force compliance with their personal beliefs... I'll take proselytizing and speech over regulations and laws any day, thank you.
    • 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

      • 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.

  • by poet ( 8021 ) on Friday May 05, 2017 @03:08PM (#54362953) Homepage

    We need to roll back the authoritarians at the Fed (on both sides) and instead allow states to determine the rules.

  • As it should be, figure out that shit at the state and local levels, don't need title II garbage.

  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Friday May 05, 2017 @03:13PM (#54362983)
    The ISP argument will be that only the FCC or Congress have the authority to regulate these aspects of their business.
    • by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Friday May 05, 2017 @03:18PM (#54363033)

      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.

    • 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...

    • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      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.

    • Simple enough to get around this by giving "tax incentives" to ISPs who are interested in following their paradigms. The companies that choose not to, can pay a local ISP tax at 75%.
      • The internet should be a publicly owned utility, like roads. Privately owned internet gives private industry the ability to buy and sell people as a commodity.
    • Hopefully, someone who actually knows the law will post, but... One big point of contention between the FCC and phone/cable ISPs is whether they are common carriers. If they are common carriers then the FCC has explicit, full and detailed regulatory authority. The Obama FCC declared them common carriers and subject to full regulation. As trump's FCC is pushing to roll them out of common carrier status they no longer have the "protection" of federal control. The details are in the "source code" (laws), b
  • by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Friday May 05, 2017 @03:31PM (#54363119) Journal

    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 [] which 13 other states have adopted.

  • by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Friday May 05, 2017 @03:36PM (#54363163) Homepage

    Opt-in consent = signing a subscriber agreement.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • If ISP's are allowed to sell your data, the government no longer has to go through legal channels for warrants -- they can just "buy" what they want.
  • Also stop using your ISP-provided email and use something like Proton Mail. Let's see how much they can monetize ZERO data.
  • 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.

  • Let's see this tried in a city that has Internet service.

  • Based on the recent political environ and positive legislation, and the generally higher awareness and intelligence of CA residents,
    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

Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.