
Republicans didn’t just strip away Internet privacy rights - czottmann
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-republicans-didnt-just-strip-away-your-internet-privacy-rights/2017/04/04/73e6d500-18ab-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2e22e83989b4
======
rntz
The original title is clearer: "No, Republicans didn't just strip away your
Internet privacy rights".

The leading "No," makes it clear that it's denying that Republicans took away
rights; without it, the "just" suggests it's saying Republicans did _more_
than "just" take away privacy rights.

The underlying problem is, of course, the English language. "just" can mean
either "immediately prior" ( _just_ now) or "merely" ( _just_ a friend).

~~~
Recurecur
Yes, the title should be changed to the original. Thanks for pointing it out!

~~~
toufka
This really should be unflagged, and the title should probably indicate the
FCC Chairman is the author: "FCC Chairmain: 'No, Republicans didn’t just strip
away Internet privacy rights'"

------
shawnee_
Pai's logic is flawed in so many ways.

 _But in 2015, the FCC decided to treat the Internet like a public utility,
taking away the FTC’s ability to police the privacy practices of broadband
providers._

The decision to treat it like a public utility had almost nothing to do with
privacy or "policing the privacy practices of broadband providers" and almost
everything to do with rekindling the war on Net Neutrality.[1].

This move -- like pretty much everything else this administration is doing --
was done to appease and strengthen _oligopoly_ power. It will ultimately hurt
small upstarts in the "ISP /broadband delivery" category[2] (who vehemently
opposed the stripping of this legislation), _and_ it will make it orders of
magnitude harder for small upstarts whose business may only benefit or scale
with "neutral" access to the internet.

In oligopoly situations there are few, if any, choices available to switch to
when said provider oversteps is bounds and decides to just start charging
everybody more based on the kind of traffic they request... "because it can".
Everything to do with everything on the Internet is going to get astoundingly
more expensive very soon.

Pai does not understand small business. And it's worth noting that this is
probably because he worked for Verizon as an attorney. Though despite his
government appointment, he does not seem to have switched his mindset away
from that to the best interests of the American people in mind with his policy
agendas.

[1]
[[https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/2015021...](https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150219/07100630069/fcc-
commissioner-ajit-pai-is-leading-incoherent-facts-optional-last-minute-war-
net-neutralityfor-american-people.shtml) [2] [http://bgr.com/2017/04/03/twc-
charter-merger-fcc-rules-ajit-...](http://bgr.com/2017/04/03/twc-charter-
merger-fcc-rules-ajit-pai/)]

~~~
ams6110
I've got to say that my Comcast home internet is already bordering on "not
worth the money" if it gets any more expensive I will cancel it and just use
the free wifi that is available at almost any cafe or coffee shop.

~~~
josefresco
With a VPN of course ... right?

~~~
ams6110
I probably would not. Anything work related is already done over ssh, so
effectively that's a VPN.

------
josefresco
"Others argue that ISPs should be treated differently because consumers face a
unique lack of choice and competition in the broadband marketplace. But that
claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny either. For example, according to one
industry analysis, Google dominates desktop search with an estimated 81
percent market share (and 96 percent of the mobile search market), whereas
Verizon, the largest mobile broadband provider, holds only an estimated 35
percent of its market."

How hard is it to change your search engine? How hard is it to change your
ISP?

~~~
mirimir
It's easy to add a VPN.

~~~
actsasbuffoon
Easy-ish. I just went through the process of setting up a VPN on all of my
family's devices, and mobile devices were a bit of a pain.

Plus now I'm paying $10 a month for a basic level of privacy that the previous
law made free. I can afford it, but it's still obnoxious.

~~~
mirimir
Sad but true.

Still, there are other advantages. With some work, you can make it very hard
for websites to find out who you are. And you can change personas easily. And
have many of them.

------
AdmiralAsshat
Pai is an unapologetic partisan hack.

 _In short, the Obama administration fractured our nation’s online privacy
law, and it is our job to fix it. We pledge to the American people that we
will do just that._

Gee, I can't help notice you don't have a replacement plan on the table. Kinda
like AHCA. Kinda like every other "repeal and replace" initiative you guys
have put forward only to pull a bait-and-switch and stop after the "repeal"
half.

That the WashingtonPost even gives him a platform to spew this garbage does
more harm than good.

------
tboyd47
I clicked on this expecting to hear the reasoning behind this legislation
explained in layman's terms. Instead I got another rant about the liberal
media. I wish we as a society could find a way past the issue of media bias.
It pollutes every issue and makes public discourse a lost cause.

~~~
barrkel
All media is necessarily biased because it can't show everything. Ideally we'd
weight what we consume by its truth value and build up a multi-dimensional
picture of reality.

We're living with a president who believes that reality is defined by what's
on TV, and that by controlling the narrative, you can control what's perceived
to be true.

In this mindset, truth in media is irrelevant. What matters is the story the
media tells, and if it's in your favour it's good, if it's not it's "biased".
Since all media is biased, it's easy to tell the "bias" story; you just pick
out the bits of the story that are missing, or overly stressed, or the tone,
or whatever.

It's an easy game to play.

------
etchalon
It's starts with an almost reasonable argument that the FTC would be more
competent at enforcing privacy policy violations, only to segue in, what
amounts to "If Facebook can sell your data, Verizon should get to too!"

He rationalizes this by claiming that user-action data (search, post, etc) is
more valuable than browsing data.

Nothing in this article justifies the change in any manner that benefits
consumers. In fact, it explicitly states the change was all about helping ISPs
make money.

------
phkahler
Wow, the article itself is a spin piece like the ones it claims came out
recently. Saying that ISPs should not be regulated because Google or Facebook
isn't is totally disingenuous. Everything HAS to go through your ISP, there is
not choice. They even claim there IS choice in ISPs which is blatantly false
for a lot of people, and very limited for everyone else.

The ISP should provide a way to route and transfer data and nothing more. They
are not a content provider and they are not an ad provider - but they want to
be. What they really want is to implement MITM attacks to gather data and ad-
injection for additional revenue. We shall have to overcome that in the near
future too.

------
payne92
This should not be flagged.

Even if you consider the argument flawed or disagree with it for other
reasons, it's REALLY important to hear viewpoints from those in a position to
set policy.

------
tzs
Interesting YouGov poll on this:
[http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabs_HP_Online_Privacy_...](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabs_HP_Online_Privacy_20170330.pdf)

Particularly interesting is how it breaks down along party lines. There is
almost no difference between Democrats and Republicans on most of the
questions.

83% of Democrats and 84% of Republicans are very or somewhat concerned about
the privacy of their information online.

82% of D and 84% of R say no to ISPs sharing personal information without
permission. 8% of D and 8% of R say yes to it. The rest are not sure.

72% of D and 72% of R say that the FCC's privacy rules should be allowed to go
into effect. 80% of D and 75% of R said that Trump should veto the bill to
overturn the FCC's rules.

The age and race breakdowns were also interesting, with older people more
concerned about privacy than younger people, and whites more concerned than
blacks or hispanics.

------
josefresco
Why was this flagged? It was #3-4 when I commented and now _poof_ it's gone.
What is the point of the flag function if no editors/admins review the
submissions? Wouldn't a downvote suffice and also prevent malicious flagging?

~~~
zzalpha
I'm a little surprised by that, myself.

I'm normally one to push for keeping political stuff off of HN, but that's
when it's not related to the tech industry.

But this would seem like exactly the kind of political topic that should be
discussed here...

------
SubZero
How much validity is there to the FCC's statement that privacy regulation of
the internet should be left to the FTC, and that the FTC had existing privacy
regulations?

~~~
dragonwriter
Close to zero. The FTC privacy regulations were struck down by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals last year in _AT &T Mobility v. FTC_, in which the
court ruled only the FTC had no authority to regulate activities of entities
with common carrier status, even for activities for which they are not common
carriers. So, even leaving aside the Open Internet Order reclassifying
broadband as a common carrier service, ISPs that are telcos and for that
reason have common carrier status are immune to FTC regulation.

That ruling was the _reason_.The outgoing FCC majority adopted the privacy
regulations it did late last year; they were replacements for the FTC orders
that were struck down.

------
goerz
Can't read, seems to be behind a paywall

------
vorotato
This author is trash and should be ashamed of themselves. Downvote it to hell
but at least I'm honest with myself about what's going down. Changing your ISP
is harder than changing insurance, that is to say it's often impossible. Tip
for republicans, you can say you don't care, you can say you didn't want it to
happen, but don't deny the reality of what happened. That just makes you look
stupid.

~~~
toufka
The author is the FCC Chairman.

