
Congress Is Trying to Roll Back Internet Privacy Protections - dwaxe
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/congress-trying-roll-back-internet-privacy-protections-you-read
======
alehul
> Worse yet, it forbids the agency from passing any “substantially similar”
> regulations in the future, so the FCC would be forbidden from ever trying to
> regulate ISP privacy practices.

This part really stood out to me and I don't fully understand how it can
occur.

Would the government (or rather its citizens) be better off if permanently
banning future legislation wasn't allowed? Is there any case in which a
permanent ban on future legislation would be, or has been, productive or
reasonable?

edit: distinguishing between constitutionally-enacted and simply legislator-
enacted bans on future legislation.. If this ban is supposed to be based on
unconstitutionality, how would it be spun in such a way?

~~~
intopieces
>Is there any case in which a permanent ban on future legislation would be, or
has been, productive or reasonable?

Not to be pedantic, but the US Constitution contains a few pretty big
permanent bans on future legislation. Government limiting governments power is
a hallmark of the American system.

~~~
alehul
Interesting! I didn't know that actually.

It seems like those bans on future legislation can be traced back to
fundamental parts of the Constitution, though, right? Parts that aim to
protect the citizenry.

The constitution is also supposed to be the highest power in the land, however
these are simply legislators banning future legislators.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, they are legislators banning _regulators_. Regulators are executive branch
officials whose rulemaking power comes from legislative grants of power and
can be removed or limited by the legislative branch.

This is, of course, aside from the question of whether a particular
legislative limit on rulemaking is desirable or not.

------
routelastresort
If you're a company that supports the EFF (even through individual donations,
corporate matching, etc.), I'd love to hear about you, and consider supporting
you as well!

~~~
dannyobrien
As would I!

Mostly, I'm EFF's International Director, but as of yesterday, I've taken a
temporary secondment to work for six months with our development (read:
fundraising) team.

We're facing a number of challenges on many fronts, and like many of our
colleagues in the non-profit world right now, we're having to ramp up quickly
to face them.

We get a huge amount of expert advice and moral support from technologists
here on Hacker News, but we only really ever chip in with the occasional
technical comment.

For the next six months at least I'd be delighted to talk with anyone who is
as interested in supporting us financially, or understanding better how that
works. You can mail me on danny@eff.org or comment here.

This is a bit of an experiment for me (I'm more comfortable talking about
global censorship and surveillance than asking people for a few bitcoins), as
well as for EFF. To keep with the mod rules here, it's probably worth trying
to keep on-topic to this post, but happy to chat offline or arrange or more
general conversation.

~~~
chasb
Hi, I'd be happy to chat. We (Aptible) have donated as a company in the past
and will in the future. Chas at aptible.com

~~~
dannyobrien
Hey chasb, email sent!

------
arca_vorago
Big picture here is this:

The oligarchy has taken over every form of media communication throughout
history. The printing press, the telegraph, the radio, the television. The
internet by design was resistent to centralization, the main method used on
the other mediums, but the oligarchy fought a small fight in the form of the
90's cryptowars and then sorta let up. They recognize now though, that the
last bastion of true, anarchistic freedom of thought is the internet, and
globally will begin to attack it through many means, not just legislative.

Decentralization avoiding targeting in an age of mass surveillance is
difficult, and this move towards centralization undermines the entire original
purpose of the internet as a form of communication that could survive
targeting. If we remember this, and build open source, encrypted,
decentralized systems, we still might have a chance to keep the internet us
older geeks remember.

I also have a theory that it is the technology of the internet that has
artificially accelerated the oligarchy's attack time frame, because they are
desperate to not let the cat out of the bag. Once the world gets a taste of
intellectual freedom, they won't want to go back, and the cat is out of the
bag so to speak. This is forcing their hand early and is a weakness.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I want to propose a strictly simpler theory: there isn't any organized
Oligarchy assaulting the Internet. There's just lots and lots of people with
various interests trying to exploit the Internet for their own gains. Tons of
companies, big and small, that don't think twice about fucking up the Internet
in pursuit of profit. Politicians who want more power. Law enforcement people
that want to make their jobs easier. None of them wanting to destroy the
Internet, because the very thought doesn't cross their minds. They don't think
in that large of a scale.

I.e. the usual tragedy of the commons. Things were all fun when they were
irrelevant. Then the Internet started to matter, and the exploiters came,
fucking everything up.

~~~
gr3yh47
there is absolutely an oligarchy. See 1, 2, and 3.

if you think they arent organizing to protect their interests and expand their
political influence, that honestly comes across as naive with the information
available today.

[1] [http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--
Tb_z5Fcz...](http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--
Tb_z5Fcz--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/lckoza8wfctpe7k9k1de.jpg)

[2]
[http://cds.y5f6s2q6.hwcdn.net/25541/sx2xsdjns30fwy0557v4.jpe...](http://cds.y5f6s2q6.hwcdn.net/25541/sx2xsdjns30fwy0557v4.jpeg)

[3] [http://www.yellowstonepartners.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/0...](http://www.yellowstonepartners.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/bank_chart.jpg)

~~~
newswriter99
You uploaded a few random pictures (also Gawker? Seriously?) of the different
divisions of companies, and you think this in irrefutable proof of an
organized conspiracy to go all "1984" on the internet?

Real life isn't a movie. Move on.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
Ad hominem and straw man attacks are very weak forms of counterargument.

~~~
maxerickson
Are you calling the claim that big brands are an oligopoly a straw man?

~~~
wu-ikkyu
No, I think you may have mistaken which comment was the parent to my comment.

Straw man:

>irrefutable proof of an organized conspiracy to go all "1984" on the
internet? Real life isn't a movie.

------
ikeboy
Here's the other side if anyone is interested.
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrydowne...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/30/industry-
groups-beg-congress-fcc-to-restore-scrambled-internet-privacy-framework/amp/)

See also
[https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/3.7.16-_multi-...](https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/3.7.16-_multi-
association_letter_to_senate_commerce_supporting_cra_resolution_disapproving_the_fcc_broadband_privacy_rule.pdf)

~~~
thebaer
> The FCC provided no evidence to substantiate the proposition that broadband
> providers respected consumer privacy any less than other members of the
> internet ecosystem.

Without knowing entirely what they're referencing, I would say that we need to
_make sure_ broadband providers respect consumer privacy, regardless of what
"other members of the internet ecosystem" are doing.

> Consumers enjoy the advertising-supported internet and innovation...

Uhh... no.

~~~
a3n
Actually yes, yes we do. We enjoy the internet that we have, that is partially
enabled by ads. Even those of us that block ads (freeloaders, if you will),
enjoy the internet that's supported by ads that other people don't block.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
Actually, no, now I don't. I despise ads for reasons not least of which is
that they are a form of insidious psychological conditioning.

I'd much rather have the predominant funding model be similar to services like
patreon. Netflix has shown that you don't need ads, ads everywhere to produce
quality media in this age, just as premium cable did in the past. I'd rather
have a few channels or sites of quality than hundreds of pieces of crap

~~~
SophosQ
If such a model is to be protected from the dynamics of a free market economy
(Higher demand driving prices higher) it requires significant government
intervention, at the very least, analogous to the metro system in certain
cities, to ensure that the different strata of society have access to it
without breaking their backs. However, as with most non-essential consumables,
the model is susceptible to privatisation whose motivation is often, solely
the maximisation of profit. Perhaps a lobbying group analogous to the NRA
could help counter such overtures for privatisation by the industry.

------
hackuser
This NY Times article covers the rollback of those rules in a much larger
context of a mass reduction in public protections:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-
deregul...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-deregulation-
guns-wall-st-climate.html)

------
dpatac
Does it matter with the release of all the CIA Hacking information just
released?

~~~
maxerickson
Sure. Limiting what records ISPs keep and sell is good for individuals
regardless of what the CIA is doing.

------
coldcode
I wonder when ISPs will begin to uniformly inject ads into all website
content, in some way (such as hijacking DNS to show ads before the website
appears).

