
Forcing consent before selling browser histories violates our free speech - kmod
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/20/maine_isp_lawsuit/
======
AnimalMuppet
_All_ privacy constraints violate free speech. HIPAA? Free speech violation.
Banking privacy/secrecy regulations? Free speech violation. Protecting the
identity of crime victims? Free speech violation.

For that matter, laws against slander? Free speech violation. Laws against
false accusation? Free speech violation. Laws against false advertising? Free
speech violation. Laws against filing false tax returns? Free speech
violation. Laws against perjury? Free speech violation.

So, if free speech is your only lens through which you view the legal system,
there are a _lot_ of free speech violations that are currently (and correctly)
encoded into law. Privacy violations are one major area. So this violates the
ISPs free speech, in order to protect their customers' privacy? Sounds
perfectly fine (and normal) to me...

------
nullc
The real headline should be that government agencies in the US are too
addicted to getting easy data from ISPs via nearly due-processless
administrative subpoena (or just by asking) to prosecute their unlawful
wiretaps for what they are (e.g. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 federally, various laws
at state level), so instead are wasting time and money twiddling around the
edges and trying to restrict the selling instead of doing anything that would
endanger the collection.

------
hodgesrm
I am not a lawyer but the argument in the lawsuit does not look compelling,
insofar as the Register describes it. This seems like a tactic to tie up
enforcement while the plaintiffs lobby for more favorable laws in Maine and
elsewhere.

------
mirimir
Although I am not at all sympathetic to these ISPs, I do agree that privacy
protections ought to apply uniformly to all sellers and service providers.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Although I am not at all sympathetic to these ISPs, I do agree that privacy
> protections ought to apply uniformly to all sellers and service providers.

ISPs are different because of the lack of competition. If you don't like
Google you can use Duck Duck Go. If you don't like WhatsApp you can use
Signal. If you don't like Windows 10 you can use Ubuntu (or, if you want to
argue Windows is still a monopoly, Microsoft should move to the "monopolists"
column and be subject to the stricter rules).

In particular, in those cases the competitors actually do have meaningfully
more respect for privacy. In markets where every reasonably available provider
snoops and the market has high barriers to entry, that's a different
situation.

~~~
MadWombat
> ISPs are different because of the lack of competition. If you don't like
> Google you can use Duck Duck Go.

This is very much not the case both ways. Yes, you could use DuckDuckGo
instead of Google. But by the same logic you can always use some local DSL
provider for your ISP. That is still a thing in most places. Of course, you
will get 1.5Mbps instead of 50Mbps via Comcast, but it is not like DDG
provides the same range of service as Google either.

~~~
smichel17
This is a bad comparison for 2 reasons:

1\. [Opinion] As someone who uses DDG for 95%+ of my queries, the sacrifice is
orders of magnitude less than using the local DSL provider in your example.

2\. [Fact] Switching ISPs has a much higher cost. Switching back to Google for
a few minutes if DDG isn't getting the job done is three keystrokes: " !g".

~~~
AnthonyMouse
There is also a third reason. Having the option of DSL doesn't do any good if
the DSL provider doesn't respect privacy either.

The question isn't whether a viable competitor exists, it's whether a viable
competitor that respects privacy exists.

~~~
penumbra2000
Further to this, in Canada at least, all DSLs are subleasing lines in bulk
from one single backbone provider (Bell). Competition is legislatively
required but de facto questionably existent; in addition I would be surprised
that Bell doesn't have all the aggregate data on traffic through subleasing
ISPs as well.

------
pmoriarty
This data shouldn't even be collected in the first place.

~~~
miguelrochefort
Why not? It's simply too valuable not to be collected.

~~~
pmoriarty
Because collecting it leads to using it, and using it leads to the
surveillance dystopia we're just starting to get a taste of.

------
bryanrasmussen
the other thread on this subject
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22375269](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22375269)

------
charliepark
A bit of a clickbaity HN link. Full article headline: "Forcing us to get
consent before selling browser histories violates our free speech, US ISPs
claim". And subhead: "That ain't the way life should be, Maine responds".

~~~
kmod
HN has a 80-character title limit and it's not always clear how to paraphrase
a longer title.

~~~
saagarjha
How about "Forcing consent before selling browser histories violates free
speech, say ISPs"?

~~~
jfengel
Or perhaps "ISPs say selling browser histories without consent is free
speech".

The difference is small, but it eliminates the tangles of who is doing what in
the verbs "forcing" and "violates".

