
FCC ushers in a troublesome new world for online privacy - tanto259
https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/07/fcc-ushers-in-a-troublesome-new-world-for-online-privacy/
======
blakesterz
"...onerous limitations on Internet service providers’ use of web browsing
information without regard to whether the information is sensitive or not,
which differs greatly from the guidelines governing all other online
companies, like search engines and mobile apps."

They're trying to spin this hard, I get that, we all have our spin on things.
I know that paragraph is supposed to make me think "oh no, those poor ISPs,
that's not fair they have onerous limitations and others don't." But all I can
think is GOOD, they should have onerous limitations on this stuff. It should
be unfair. We (we being end users in this case) ALWAYS lose when companies
start to "innovate" with our personal information. I totally get that there's
been a ton of innovation, I totally agree with them on many points, but we're
already paying for access with our money and we shouldn't pay a second time
with our privacy.

~~~
M_Grey
This is only going to stop when we legislate a value associated with our
privacy.

~~~
tunap
Considering the current and former casts of the DHS Data Privacy & Integrity
Advisory Panel[0], those who 'recommend' and write the laws, that will be a
cold day in hell.

[0]

[https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-advisory-committee](https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-
advisory-committee)

~~~
M_Grey
It's true, and why the only solution is widespread education of voters; making
this a "big issue". Then again, it's hard to imagine that happening with some
large-scale disasters regarding personal privacy.

------
pavel_lishin
Looks like the editor missed a big set of repetitions in the middle of the
article:

> _But at the same time, consumers who enjoy access to Internet services are
> concerned about protecting their privacy. As a result, the best way to give
> consumers what they want is to strike an appropriate balance between which
> uses of personal information to permit and which ones to restrict._

> _The FCC’s approach abandons this nuanced perspective in favor of an
> approach that prohibits practices on which online companies frequently rely,
> such as making product recommendations based on past browsing and purchase
> history._

> _As a result, the best way to give consumers what they want is to strike an
> appropriate balance between which uses of personal information to permit and
> which ones to restrict. The FCC’s approach abandons this nuanced perspective
> in favor of an approach that prohibits practices on which online companies
> frequently rely, such as making product recommendations based on past
> browsing and purchase history._

To me, this suggests that this is "native advertising", effectively, that was
emailed over and rushed out.

~~~
eric_h
I agree, this absolutely reeks of a press-release-turned-article.

------
guptaneil
I clicked on this link expecting to see another case of government failure
when it comes to understanding technology, but was pleasantly surprised to see
the government doing EXACTLY what it's supposed to be doing... Shame on
TechCrunch for peddling this kind of misinformation.

------
Flimm
I upvoted this story because it helpfully made me understand a lot more about
TechCrunch than I have in the past. This read like a PR statement from an ISP,
not like an article from any type of news source.

------
natch
Odd article, seems like the authors are upset that ISPs are being curtailed
from partaking in the same kind of tracking that web sites can conduct. I
wonder where the author's academic research institute gets its funding from...
Comcst maybe?

------
anotherboffin
>The approach taken by the FCC will lead to a world in which technological
progress is dictated by the actions of regulators [...] instead of by
innovators experimenting with ways to provide users with groundbreaking new
services.

It's interesting how the author seems oblivious to the fact that the
"groundbreaking new services" in general seem to care very little about user
privacy.

~~~
wmf
More specifically, I think the authors assume that groundbreaking new services
care very much about _violating_ privacy, since that's their business model.
So any pro-privacy regulations are "destroying the future".

------
mtgx
Onerous? Or modest?

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161027/11361035900/as-
ex...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161027/11361035900/as-expected-fcc-
passes-modest-privacy-rules-broadband-providers-isps-act-like-world-has-
ended.shtml)

Those poor, poor ISPs. How could they ever abuse our info again? Oh wait,
they'll still be able to, because for one, they can still COLLECT all of our
info, they just may get more slaps on the wrists and "huge" record-breaking $2
million fines, when they misuse that data and break these new rules.

[http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/10/11/comcast-fine-
mischargi...](http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/10/11/comcast-fine-mischarging-
fcc-million/)

Also FCC's new rules exempt law enforcement, so AT&T can still make money
selling all of that _collected_ data to law enforcement and the NSA for
profit, just as they have in the past.

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/at-t-is-
spy...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/at-t-is-spying-on-
americans-for-profit.html)

But yeah, other than that, what will the ISPs ever do to not go bankrupt? (I
mean other than charging for their basic services at monopoly prices).

------
maxmax
Well, the author is a pro telcom lawyer and law professor at UPenn. Here's an
amicus brief he filed asking the court of appeals to reconsider their order
classifying ISPs as telecom services (net neutrality):

[https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/15-1...](https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/15-1063%20Christopher%20S.%20Yoo%20Amicus%20Brief%20080615.pdf)

His foundation is supported by telecom money:

[https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/ctic/about-
ctic.php](https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/ctic/about-ctic.php)

Techcrunch should reclassify this story as an opinion piece, or delete it.

------
quickben
So in a summary: FCC tries to stand up for users. Paid article tries to go
against FCC.

------
mattnewton
Troublesome for large ISP's, a bit less troublesome for people who already pay
their monopoly prices and care about privacy.

------
daveloyall
In case you missed the By-line!

By David J. Farber & Christopher S. Yoo

    
    
        > David J. Farber is Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunications
        > Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Adjunct Professor of
        > Internet Studies at Carnegie Mellon University and former Chief
        > Technologist of the Federal Communications Commission.
    

...and...

    
    
        > Christopher S. Yoo is the John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, 
        > Communication, and Computer & Information Science and the Founding
        > Director of the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition at
        > the University of Pennsylvania.

~~~
Animats
I was amazed to see Dave Farber's name on that. He used to be a good guy and
involved with the EFF. But he's 82 now.

Carriers are in a uniquely privileged position. In many areas, you don't have
a choice of cable carrier or phone carrier. So they have stronger privacy
responsibilities than online services, where you get to pick which ones to
use.

------
M_Grey
This is weak product from what would appear to be a shill source.

------
Meph504
poorly edited, blindingly biased, puff piece. If nothing else this is a smear
on techcruch.

------
some1else
Haha. This needs to trend, so I will add to the list of comments my opinion
that this is a paid piece. Something a PR firm would churn out for an Internet
Service Prov... AOL.

------
shmerl
What's troublesome in it? They are doing the right thing.

------
dwheeler
I read the article, and left convinced that the FCC is doing the right thing.
You cannot avoid using an ISP in the first mile, so it is appropriate to limit
what that monopoly can do. Most people cannot reasonably switch ISPs, after
all. Good job FCC.

------
danielpatrick
Exhibit (A): Conflict of interest inherent when the content deliverers own the
content creators.

~~~
daveloyall
So far everyone in this thread agrees with you in principle, so I'm not sure
why your comment was dead. Perhaps they disagree with some specific point
about exactly who owns techcrunch?

------
daveloyall
I think everyone posting comments here is already familiar with the story via
other sources...

Could someone who doesn't already know the story describe what they think this
article is about? Thanks...

------
forgottenpass
This is what (a form of) propaganda looks like. Use it to learn to recognize
propaganda on topics you're less versed in.

