
Comcast says it will not sell customer browsing histories - jgrahamc
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-data-idUSKBN1722D6?il=0
======
salesguy222
Which is why they lobbied for the bill to be passed, right!

It'll be just like the FBI v Apple saga. "We need the courts and Congress to
give us some very specific powers."

"Wow, thanks for doing that! We see people are pretty mad for legitimate
reasons. Don't worry, we are not going to use those powers we asked for. We're
only going to use it to go after BAD GUYS. Trust us!"

~~~
Spooky23
It was weasel worded. "Individual data" won't be sold.

~~~
HenryBemis
And perhaps they will not "sell it".

They will probably buy out an ad-company (if they don't own a couple already)
and the will keep the data for themselves ;)

~~~
simcop2387
Or the third party ad company will sell it. either way it's not going to be
pleasant.

------
joshuaheard
It seems to me that my internet connection is the same as a telephone
connection. The telephone company cannot listen in on my calls to see if I
mention "aspirin" then try to sell me aspirin. The same should go for my
internet connection. The content should be completely private, including the
metadata such as browsing history.

~~~
alasdair_
Even with that analogy, the telephone company can see which numbers you dial,
and when. It can make inferences based on that. Did you call an escort service
at night and an STD clinic in the morning? Do you regularly call televangelist
donation hotline numbers? Do you get a lot of calls from recruiters? The phone
company knows all of that stuff - it's one of the issues with the NSA's
collection of "just metadata".

~~~
wmf
This is one reason phone companies are regulated; are they allowed to make
such inferences? Are they allowed to do anything with such inferences?

~~~
GauntletWizard
The answers should be yes and yes, for simple reasons - It's utterly
unenforcible otherwise, and corporations need a significant amount of those
inferences for normal operation. People in town A are calling people in town B
a lot? Maybe they need a direct line or to upgrade their infrastructure to
handle it.

Obviously, there's caveats; but for the most part those should be covered by
other antidiscrimination laws, not telecom specific legislation. Telling that
you call your rabbi once a week might give them clear signal that you're
jewish, but they should be prevented from discriminating against you because
you're jewish, and that should be enough reason to prevent them from fishing
through their records to see who's a jew.

~~~
bb88
> It's utterly unenforcible otherwise...

and

> ...but they should be prevented from discriminating against you because
> you're jewish

You can't have it both ways. Either a business can be regulated or it can't.

And why does it have to be the business itself only must be prevented from
discrimination? It's certainly possible for a single employee to send likely
names of Jews to hate groups, even if the business doesn't condone his
behavior.

~~~
GauntletWizard
I'll admit; I am trying to have it both ways. The way I see it is - These
things are very, very hard to find and prosecute. Therefore, we should spend
the time finding and prosecuting only the most egregious offenses - And accept
that since we'll never prosecute more minor offenses, they might as well be
legal.

~~~
bb88
Or, you can just make the data private by default and assume any violations
are by default "irregular".

We do this already with health care providers, attorneys, crediting agencies,
banks, etc.

------
WheelsAtLarge
I'm I the only person that thinks that Comcast is saying this as a way to calm
people down now. Why did they not speak up before the vote. I suspect that
within a few years, once the noise quiets, they'll have a thriving business
doing just what they said they would not do.

~~~
thr0waway1239
Apparently, Thomas Jefferson once said, "Once a generation or so, we need a
rebellion and the folks who participate should be punished, but not too
harshly". I think he was getting at the point of how easily people take their
freedoms for granted, and this apathy in turn takes away all the freedoms
which were earned with great difficulty in the first place.

Maybe we have reached a point where we need to permit folks (immunity against
legal action) to release internal data/documents of BigTech, provided it
unequivocally proves that such public statements the companies make are false.

~~~
maneesh
do you mean 'the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots and tyrants'

------
dvdhnt
They do specifically say "individual" browser history. Perhaps, they do sell
aggregate data which I personally am not for or against.

As long as they stick to this policy, I will appreciate it given their history
of not showing compassion for individual customers.

Update: it does specifically mention aggregate data.

~~~
munchbunny
Nobody in the advertising space at least _literally_ sells browsing histories.
They usually sell inferred tags of which interest groups or demographics you
fit into, selected from massive proprietary taxonomies. So in the literal
sense of the word, Comcast can be both technically right and still do exactly
what they always intended to do.

~~~
a3n
With respect, this sounds a little like when Snowden broke, and the NSA said
"besides, it's just metadata."

Before I blocked ads, ads would follow me around. The information to do that
was collected, and possibly sold, probably not by my ISP. It wasn't "my
browser history," but it was as a result of my browsing activity.

This news has thrown around "your browsing history," which is at once
sensationalist (because, as you point out, no one is selling _that_ ) and
obfuscating, because someone _is_ collecting and selling data that comes from
browsing activity.

~~~
ryanworl
Ads following you around (retargeting) can sometimes be creepy, but no one had
to buy and sell your browsing history to get there.

It is entirely a by-product of the fact that ad slots are auctioned off while
a page loads, and when someone wins that auction, they can run JavaScript in
your browser.

So if they cookie you on their website, then they get to run JavaScript from
winning an ad auction on a different site, they can still see their cookies
and know it is "you".

Not trying to downplay any privacy implications here, but ad networks and
sites where ads are placed don't actually need any of your browsing history to
make this work.

(I simplified this somewhat by ignoring the relationship between the actual
advertisers and retargeting providers, but that is just more of an economies
of scale/arbitrage thing.)

~~~
scott00
Not an adtech guy... do they actually buy ad slots just hoping that they
manage to get someone they can retarget? Or do they know who you are pre-
auction so they can bid higher? Just shooting from the hip I would guess the
latter is more likely, which means the ad networks would have to have a list
of user id, page/product pairs, which sounds a lot like your web history to
me.

~~~
munchbunny
They know when they bid. The easiest way to think of it is that they check
your cookies and have a few milliseconds to decide how much to bid. Whoever
wins pays and gets the slot.

They aren't using your web history specifically, because it's actually pretty
hard to do a good job inferring things about you in the few milliseconds you
have to make a bid. Instead, there are multi-billion dollar companies
including Google and Facebook who do the intetpreting for you and sort of
offer a taxonomy of audience groups for you to choose from.

So the cookie check at bid time is usually asking one of these middlemen data
processing companies for their read on you, which is derived from your
browsing history or your Facebook post contents or even what you write in
Gmail.

Only thing I'd add is that there are many heuristics for deciding how valuable
you are as a pair of eyes. Retargeting is about getting an ad to follow you
around the internet. But there's also geographical and demographic targeting,
which depends on the advertiser having a hypothesis about which target
audience is worth engaging.

~~~
cormacrelf
Where can I read more about this? I'm writing a paper.

~~~
munchbunny
There is plenty of material online explaining how all of this works, but you
will have a lot of trouble finding primary sources from the companies
themselves because they hide it behind "contact us for more information"
gateways.

That said, here are a few terms to search as a starting point:

* Ad exchange

* Real time bidding

* Search retargeting

* Data management platform

* Demand side platform

Here are some product names:

* Doubleclick Bid Manager

* Google tag manager

* Google AdX

* Adobe Media Optimizer

And some companies to look up:

* AppNexus

* Bluekai

* Excelate

* Celtra

Finally, I'd set up your own AdWords and Facebook advertiser accounts to play
around.

------
suprgeek
Why do they need to sell browsing histories? There are numerous way to profit
without actually selling history:

1) Come buy our trueTarget analytic service - add a keyword search and out
comes the name of every one interested in say "Evening college" (Comcast also
has the address on file obviously)

2) Political observers - This Zipcode has the most mentions for "Climate
change hoax"

3) Porn/Medical/<other potentially embarrassing stuff> : Too many services
here -

None of this sells individual browsing history yet which of these would be
certainly illegal? This is a complete red herring to distract from the
Republicans completely disgraceful sell out to big business.

If not illegal which of these would be ok under "we do not see your browsing
history"?

~~~
shuntress
"Por que no los dos?"

They can do all of those things and in addition sell your history to make more
money.

------
UnoriginalGuy
So Comcast spent over $1m[0] in donations and more on lobbying for this
specific piece of legislation only to turn around and say they won't take
advantage of it?

They've just released this statement today because everyone is so upset,
they're going bide their time, wait for this to blow over and then quietly
start selling more and more invasive customer information. You don't spend
millions on a law you have no intention of utilising.

They bring up their "targeted ad network" which you can "opt out" of in the
same blog post. I wonder what "nonsensitive" information they'll be providing
their ad partners about you? And what is stopping Ad Partners from cross-
referencing several ad networks?

[0] [http://resistancereport.com/class-war/comcast-congress-
brows...](http://resistancereport.com/class-war/comcast-congress-browser-
history/)

~~~
ozaark
This. No one seems to be putting these facts together. It's a puff piece to
distract from their intentions, which unfortunately is working very well.

I am astonished that a company can lobby successfully in the name of "consumer
interest" when ranked the worst in customer satisfaction (for years).

~~~
joshjje
Not to mention its a giant monopoly that has very little regulation that
matters when you have no choice but to use them. Theres only a few outcomes
this will play out to in my mind. Either things will get so bad theyll be
split up and/or regulated as a public utility and such, or there will be some
sort of big revolution / revolt / underground market (think tor, mesh
networks, etc.), OR the populace will be made more docile than they are now
big brother style until one of the first two options eventually comes to pass
in the wheel of life.

------
wskemper
I work for a small satellite ISP, ViaSat (d/b/a Exede). Part of my job is data
security specifically for this type of information. We've had it in our
privacy policy since Day 1 back in 2012 that we don't give or sell this data
to anyone who doesn't actually need it, and certainly not to advertisers. One
of the things that makes me proud to work here.

[https://www.exede.com/documents/master/exede-subscriber-
priv...](https://www.exede.com/documents/master/exede-subscriber-privacy-
policy.pdf)

------
mundo
Did they promise not to analyze my browser history to figure out what kind of
consumer I am, how much money I have, whether I have kids, etc, and then rent
access to that information through a targeted ad delivery service?

Gonna guess no. This seems like an empty promise designed to fool people who
just don't understand how "selling browser history" is actually implemented.

~~~
tunap
What they did not say is the _how they will_ monetize the data. There is no
"if", they are a business and they/their ilk just bought the reg/dereg to make
their business more money. Full stop.

------
hermitdev
I want it, in writing, as part of my contract (with spelled out liability and
fiduciary damages), or the claim is not worth the bytes transmitted over the
internet to make this statement.

------
thedevil
"We do not sell our broadband customers’ individual web browsing history. We
did not do it before the FCC’s rules were adopted, and we have no plans to do
so."

He didn't say "we won't". He said "we aren't currently" which means "we're
keeping the option open but we're trying to sound good right now".

~~~
0xfeba
And he qualified it with "individual" browsing history, and "3rd parties". I'm
sure they aggregate it, and they own NBC and Universal.

------
YCode
Shot in the dark: their infrastructure isn't set up for it yet, so they may as
well take the high road for now.

~~~
undersuit
Different shot in the dark: the largest home internet provider in the US finds
it far more profitable to use the data for internal projects.

~~~
qeternity
This. Why sell the raw materials when you can sell the finished product?
That's where the value add is.

~~~
YCode
What prevents them from doing both?

~~~
qeternity
Economics. The have a monopoly on this data. If they sell the raw data, they
are necessarily equipping a competitor. Or they can sell the high level
insights that will presumably have a larger profit margin.

~~~
YCode
What are they doing with the data that requires explicit access?

~~~
zamalek
Targeted advertising. One of them (I forget which) was MITM adverts into
pages.

------
Joeri
... for now.

A promise by a for-profit company is hilariously useless unless they bake it
into a contract. The leadership have an obligation to shareholders to break
promises if it improves profitability.

~~~
paulddraper
> The leadership have an obligation to shareholders to break promises if it
> improves profitability.

Officers of a corporation have a responsibility to act in good faith for the
best interest of its members. But that can include acting in long-term best
interests too.

Contrary to what you may believe, no one will indict Comcast leadership for
not harvest and selling info.

Also, remember "good faith". E.g. MS shareholders can't indict leadership for
Windows 8 ;)

~~~
manquer
Morality has naught to do with it. Economics dictate that shareholders will
dump Comcast for more profitable companies if they feel Comcast is no longer
attractive enough, or if comcast is able to generate additional revenue by
selling ads, then reward by buying more and driving up its price

------
blackaspen
Hah.

They'll sell it one way or another -- it's too good of a revenue stream to
pass up, provided you're legally allowed to pursue it.

~~~
Mendenhall
They will not sell it now! but when the hubub blows over they will then change
"rules" to sell it without saying a word.

~~~
0xfeba
Like their data caps. A while ago I saw a progress bar on my account page. It
had a caption: "For informational purposes only" and was a data usage bar out
of ~300GB.

News picked this up and Comcast said: "No, we aren't doing data caps at this
time".

Months later, they formally rolled out data caps of 300GB.

------
mightykan
... for now. Once the news cycle ends, Comcast will be one of the first
companies to sell this information and make tons of money. Verizon is already
there[1].

[1]: [https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/31/eff-verizon-will-
install...](https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/31/eff-verizon-will-install-
spyware-on-all-its-android-phones/)

------
rajathagasthya
So I'm just supposed to take their word for it? If there's one company which I
absolutely do not trust as a consumer, it's Comcast.

------
pcarolan
After many years of frustration and disgust, Ive been pretty happy with
comcast in the last couple years. Reputation matters. Hopefully they keep it
up.

~~~
jasonkostempski
I'm guessing sometime in the last couple years they got some competition in
your area.

------
knieveltech
Comcast also quotes grossly unrealistic bandwidth ratings on their service
packages, and makes laughable claims about the availability of tech support
and field techs. Comcast says all kinds of stuff.

------
RunawayGalaxy
"But we'll keep that option right here on the table..."

/s

~~~
dvdhnt
Where does it say that?

Maybe those in control of ISPs realize that they have no individual protection
from this practice, unlike other shady practices like inaccurate billing and
poor customer service, and genuinely have no interest in doing so.

Update: I'm not asking sarcastically and my hope is obviously full of
optimism.

~~~
then00b
> Where does it say that?

As long as it remains lawful for them to change their minds, they don't need
to say that.

------
emveeoh
Can someone explain to me why there is no Federal regulation requiring the
ISP, and anyone else collecting data on us, to provide full disclosure to the
customer whose data is being collected? Also, why are there no laws requiring
an audit process on erroneous data?

In America, the credit reporting agencies are required to provide a free
detailed report annually and there is a legally-mandated dispute process in
place for false/erroneous data. Why don't we have the same protections/process
for metadata collection?

Instead of expecting data-collecting companies to police themselves, we must
insist on regulation requiring free, full disclosure of all data collected and
a legal process to have false/erroneous data collection challenged and
removed.

The biggest danger is not that they collect this information, but that there
is no AUDIT PROCESS to correct false information.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Corruption? Lobbying? Regulatory capture? Influence peddling? Crony
capitalism?

I'm not really sure what answer you're looking for here. The basic answer is
that the system is corrupt and the interests of big corporations are heard
much louder than the interests of individual constituents who don't have as
many dollars to throw around capitol hill.

~~~
emveeoh
The reality is: privacy is no longer possible in a connected world. So, rather
than worrying about collection/privacy. Maybe, the best use of our energy is
best-spent trying to pass laws that standardize disclosure to the customer and
the mandating of an audit process...?

~~~
fjdlwlv
Here is your disclosure: Everything you do on the Internet is recorded and
sold.

Satisfied?

------
chrisper
Maybe they will lower the data caps and then ask you if you are willing to
sell your data in exchange for more data...

------
tmaly
Reading through all the comments, it seems they could play with the wording
and sell aggregate data.

The end result of all this is that the data is sold to some company that is
either the end company or some intermediate company.

From that you get some creepy ad emailed, physically mailed, or you get a call
on your cell phone about Solar panels and a trip to the Bahamas.

It would ideal to have a list of the end company that delivers this creep so
consumers as a group to make an informed choice if they wish to do business
with companies taking part in this.

------
dmschulman
This whole debacle is an incredible opportunity for any small ISP upstart.
It's a shame that it's so difficult to build an ISP in the current market due
to federal and state regulations that the big telecoms lobbied for.

If people had alternatives which touted privacy, security, speed, price, and
had the right network backbone there would be a deluge of customers migrating
away from Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc.

~~~
NelsonMinar
You underestimate the cost of the physical infrastructure to be an "ISP
upstart".

~~~
joshjje
Not of its made a public utility or whatever, infrastructure seized or
whatever it is they would need to do to like what was done with telephone
lines. Unless you are referring to the current state of affairs.

~~~
NelsonMinar
I'm referring to the idea of a "small ISP upstart". A public utility approach
is an entirely different thing with different problems. The physical
infrastructure is still expensive.

------
newsat13
In other news, WhatsApp said their mission is about building a company that is
not about ads. We got suckered into it thinking it's pay-for-use app.

------
guelo
What they're going to build is the ultimate undeletable tracking cookie.
That's what this is all about. They want in on that ad money.

~~~
bogomipz
>"What they have been after forever is the ultimate undeletable tracking
cookie"

Can you elaborate? What is this undeletable tracking cookie?

~~~
guelo
The network itself will track everywhere you go so it's like a tracking cookie
you can't delete.

~~~
bogomipz
I see, "The network is _the_ cookie."

------
bisRepetita
If I browse on https only, if websites were to use CDNs IP addresses that are
used by many different sites, what could Comcast track from me?

They could see my DNS requests, which I believe are in clear, even if I use
Google's name servers.

They would know the sites I go to, but not the pages/bookmarks...

If name resolutions were encrypted, we would be good, or ?

~~~
af16090
This is a good visualization of what is shown when using HTTPS:
[https://www.eff.org/pages/tor-and-https](https://www.eff.org/pages/tor-and-
https)

------
banku_brougham
Its too late for talk like that. I've shown my friends and family how to use a
VPN, and explained why it is so important. Eventually I'll roll one myself
that we all use. And maybe, just maybe we can all put an end to this evil if
we each act rationally.

~~~
fjdlwlv
VPN can sell your traffic data too

~~~
daxelrod
And the VPN's ISP.

------
lmkg
Charitable interpretation: Comcast thinks that being the one ISP not to sell
your browser history will be a market differentiator.

Uncharitable interpretation: Comcast is a content provider in addition to an
ISP. Their interest is in using the data themselves rather than selling it.

------
doktrin
I know I should be cynical, but as a Comcast customer I appreciate the
gesture. These days I'll take what I can get, and if private companies are the
only ones to even half heartedly act in the benefit of ordinary people so be
it.

~~~
mtrpcic
This is super pedantic, but it can be confusing to call Comcast a "private
company", which implies they are privately owned (which they are not, they are
NASDAQ:CMCSA). The proper term is a "private sector" company. Minor
nomenclature nitpick, just trying to keep everyone informed and make sure that
the terms "Privately Owned" and "Private Sector" don't get conflated.

------
drenvuk
Assuming every site is using https I'm not sure how they would be able to make
money off of this with web based advertising since you can't inject ads. Does
anyone know how else they could make money?

~~~
roc
Good old fashioned junk mail, background check services, and consumer
research?

Even if they keep their literal word and don't sell your actual history, and
you use SSL so they can't see _specific content_ , they can certainly make
money by identifying traffic _profiles_ by domains/times/frequencies/etc.

------
_RPM
Someone please provide context, what happened in the last week that I missed?

~~~
ryanpcmcquen
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/congress-sides-
cable-a...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/congress-sides-cable-and-
telephone-industry)

------
deelowe
Of course they won't. This is all about changing the model for delivering ads.
Does no one see the link between this, net neutrality, and the boycott?

------
ionwake
April fools

------
adrenalinelol
> said Gerard Lewis, Comcast's chief privacy officer.

I didn't know Chief Privacy Officers were a thing. When did this start?

~~~
AstroJetson
When people started complaining about internet privacy.

But remember, the Chief Human Resources Officer historically isn't on the side
of employees. I'm of the view point that the CPO (*) isn't on the side of
consumers. But it looks good to have one.

(Sorry to all of the Chief Petty Officers)

------
natch
Not sell, just rent / lease / give to partners / share / trade / exploit.

------
joshmn
And Trump will drain the swamp.

~~~
zamalek
We all knew this was coming, but it's somehow still a shock.

~~~
joshmn
I wanted to believe. I really, really did. I thought "he hasn't shut up about
it, let's give him a chance. Maybe _I_ have my blinders on."

I digress. Anyway, lest Comcast be like Trump.

------
bnolsen
uneducated people here. obama pushed the flawed rule in just before leaving
office just to evoke this type hysteria. the way things are now is how they
have been forever.

------
brilliantcode
How many times do we need to be fooled? We've seen enough of corporations
behaving badly and doing the exact opposite of what they claim. What reasons
do we have to believe they are telling the truth?

------
lettergram
Yeah.. I trust you, thats my VPN is already in place.

------
Overtonwindow
Oh yes they will...

------
ouid
Society does not function on the honor system.

------
michaelrhansen
Until they decide to sell it. And tell no one.

------
ryanpcmcquen
This was intended to release tomorrow.

------
MrZongle2
...until they choose otherwise, when there is less attention paid to the
matter.

------
chrisallick
too corrupt didn't read.

burn them all down and bathe in their ashes.

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

------
bjd2385
Because I'm about to believe anything a corporation or company says on the
Internet...

