
We Have 24 Hours to Save Online Privacy Rules - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/we-have-24-hours-save-online-privacy-rules
======
mgreg
These rules are/were certainly a step in the right direction for the
protection of consumer privacy and should be saved; the attention on consumer
privacy is welcome.

What's fascinating is that other online privacy areas that I would argue are
much more invasive and threatening to consumer privacy are completely ignored.
I'm referring, of course, to the ecosystems of Google, Facebook, the new
Verizon (AOL, Yahoo), and the many other companies looking to amass as much
consumer data as possible for profit.

These FCC rules feel a bit like the FCC was patting themselves on the back for
fixing a drip in the bathroom faucet while ignoring the broken pipe to the
water main.

From a business perspective I can also see why ISPs would be so upset about
their businesses having to abide by these rules while their competitors
(again, Facebook, Google, et al) are left to collect data unbridled. The all
sell ads after all.

~~~
wolfgang42
The EFF discusses this on one of the linked pages[1]:

> Myth 3: The FCC’s privacy rules put Internet service providers at an unfair
> disadvantage when compared to Internet companies like Google who can profit
> off of consumers’ data.

> Fact: Google doesn’t see everything you do on the Internet (neither does
> Facebook, for that matter, or any other online platform)—they only see the
> traffic you send to them. And you can always choose to use a different
> website if you want to avoid Google’s tracking. None of that is true about
> your ISP. You probably only have one, maybe two options when it comes to
> ISPs offering high-speed Internet, and your ISP sees everything—they have
> to, in order to send your traffic to the right place. That’s why we need the
> FCC’s privacy rules: ISPs are in a position of power, and they’ve shown
> they’re willing to abuse that power.

> Plus, if you’re worried about creepy third-party tracking online, you can
> use free tools to protect yourself; the only way to protect your privacy
> from your ISP is to pay for a VPN.

> Extended Version: > To begin with, it’s worth remembering that ISPs and
> companies like Google or Facebook see entirely different parts of your
> Internet activity; namely that Google or Facebook only see the traffic you
> send to their servers, while ISPs see all your traffic. Even when you take
> into account the fact that Google and Facebook have creepy third-party
> trackers spread across the web, they still only see a fraction of what your
> ISP sees. Being able to see all of your traffic gives your ISP an
> unprecedented view into your life (everything from what you’re shopping for,
> to who you talk to, to what your politics are, to what you read), which not
> even Google or Facebook can achieve.

> There’s also another big difference between Comcast and Google: choice.
> While Internet users can choose between numerous online services for search,
> email, and more—including services that feature built-in privacy protections
> as a selling point—most consumers have few if any options when it comes to
> choosing an ISP. According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 51
> percent of households have access to only one high-speed broadband provider.
> If that provider decides to sell their data, they can’t vote with their
> wallets and choose another ISP.

> There’s one last difference: Internet users can prevent companies like
> Google from spying on them as they surf the web. If you want to do something
> online without being tracked, you can use a variety of free tools that even
> powerful companies like Google cannot overcome. But nothing short of paying
> to use a virtual private network—essentially having to pay a fee to protect
> your online privacy—will protect you from your ISP.

[1]: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-
in...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-industry-
using-convince-congress-repeal-fccs-privacy-rules#myth3)

~~~
mgreg
I'm familiar with these arguments but find them wanting. Trying to avoid
Google and Facebook online is very difficult even for a knowledgeable, tech
literate consumer. These companies collect data nearly relentlessly from non
google/facebook sites through "like" buttons, analytics tools, advertising
placed on 3rd party sites etc. Trying to say that one willingly and with
knowledge gives up privacy to google/facebook is naive at best and deceptive
if said with integrity.

One could apply the same logic to ISPs, after all. If you don't like Verizon's
privacy policy you're free to switch to Comcast, or ATT. Oh - they all have
the same privacy sapping policy? Too bad.

Certainly it should not be too much to ask that a "normal" non-technical
internet user should feel free to roam the open internet without every click
and view being tracked. I cannot expect to train my grandmother avoid
google/facebook, use privacy badger and/or ublock and know what to do when her
video doesn't load or play because privacy badger has blocked some adobe
tracker....

This is hacker news. Let's not accept cringeworthy arguments that could have
been proudly published by lobbyists for Facebook here. If this audience cannot
scale higher what hope do we have for society at large? So yes, we should have
regulations to limit what ISPs can track. And yes, those policies should apply
to extremely large internet ecosystems as well.

~~~
jniles
It might be difficult to avoid google and others for tech illiterate users,
but in some areas, there isn't the choice to use a different ISP.

~~~
mgreg
Absolutely agree that there is not fierce competition in ISPs and that when
they do compete it is more on price and speed than privacy so really no market
driven factors to protect privacy. Of course I could offer a specious argument
that there are satellite providers and dial-up so of course there's
competition wink-wink.

The argument is essentially the same for Google/Facebook et al. Try telling
someone who has used gmail for the last 10 years before Google altered their
privacy policy for Google's benefit that if they want to keep their email
private they're free to switch to Yahoo or Outlook. And that's a case where
consumers have a choice. Consumers have no voice in web sites use of Google
Analytics or Doubleclick. Or Facebook's like button. Or Adbobe's audience
tracking....

------
levi_n
[https://resistbot.io/](https://resistbot.io/) makes it real easy to contact
your representatives in a manner they are more likely to see.

~~~
sparky_z
This service seems short-sighted to me. It might trick a few representatives
the first time around, but if it actually succeeds in bringing in a high
volume of low-effort responses it will only devalue itself the way email is
currently devalued (possibly along with some collateral damage to the
credibility of the class of high-effort correspondants it is disguising its
users as).

The way to improve politics isn't to make political engagement as casual and
low effort as possible.

~~~
therealdrag0
It seems like to SOME extent it is. Seems like part of lobbyist influence
comes from planting seeds in legislators minds, as their full-time job. Most
people have an opinion but can't be bothered to lobby for their own interests
because they have their own full time job. We need transparent ways for
representatives to poll what constituents want. Really there should be a state
sponsored electronic voting system for stuff like this.

#ArmChairPhilosophy

------
tfussell
What I've been curious to learn and haven't heard discussed is how this data
will become available. Will I be able to call up Comcast and pay $X for a
particular user's browsing history after this passes?

~~~
wolfgang42
_You_ (J. Random Person) may not be able to, but advertising companies
probably will be able to. For example, from
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-
you...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-
could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections) :

> According to Ad Age, SAP sells a service called Consumer Insights 365, which
> “ingests regularly updated data representing as many as 300 cellphone events
> per day for each of the 20 million to 25 million mobile subscribers.” What
> type of data does Consumer Insights 365 “ingest?” Again, according to Ad
> Age, “The service also combines data from telcos with other information,
> telling businesses whether shoppers are checking out competitor prices… It
> can tell them the age ranges and genders of people who visited a store
> location between 10 a.m. and noon, and link location and demographic data
> with shoppers' web browsing history.”

~~~
tfussell
That's what I figured. I wonder if a request from a sole proprietorship would
be sufficient to get an ISP to respond to such requests.

~~~
Chaebixi
My guess is they'd just use price as a gatekeeper, rather than spending time
to do a background check of their customers. I doubt any of these data feeds
are cheap.

~~~
1001101
I'd love to see this process get hacked - What's the CEO of
{your_favorite_ISP} been perusing on the web? Sounds like a good opportunity
for a crowdfund.

------
Spivak
Is there anything practical I can do if I already know my representative is
going to vote against the bill?

~~~
Chaebixi
Contact your state reps. Even if the federal rules go, state-level rules can
help mitigate the damage locally, and perhaps even nationally [1].

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/technology/internet-
priva...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/technology/internet-privacy-
state-legislation-illinois.html?emc=edit_nn_20170327&nl=morning-
briefing&nlid=78869192&te=1)

------
jessaustin
One wonders if this asinine legislation might also be supported by VPN
providers?

~~~
SparkyMcUnicorn
PIA took out a full-page NYT ad indicating strong opposition:
[https://i.imgur.com/GJYYNle.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GJYYNle.jpg)

I'm sure there are VPN providers that support it, though.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
This form of protest is of course very good marketing as well.

------
exabrial
Unpopular comment alert: This is a good thing.

Guys, I don't think the "Federal Communication Commission" should be passing
consumer protection regulations. What's to stop Amazon, Netflix, etc from
selling a service where an advertiser sends them an IP and they get back your
name and interests? These regulations need to be passed at a much broader
level. I think the FCC should focus on anti-competitive behavior on ISPs right
now, and leave these sorts of matters to another regulatory body.

And besides, with TLS (and DNSCurve if you're paranoid), I'm not sure this
regulation means much anyway.

~~~
devindotcom
The FCC has no authority over media and retail companies - they DO have
authority over ISPs in some aspects. They have passed consumer protection
regulations relating to the transmission and storage of data before.

The practices you describe (with Amazon etc) are none of the FCC's business.
Anti-competitive behavior and privacy violations by non-telecoms businesses
falls under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission.

It means something, because the idea is to protect the vulnerable from
predatory practices, not to prevent the technically proficient from what they
see as easily avoided practices.

------
ReedJessen
The "Calling you now" widget to contact my congress person doesn't seem to
work for me. Is this just my problem of is it down for everyone?

------
jumpkickhit
I'm assuming this will pass.

Will we ever be able to remove it one it's in effect? Or is that likely to
never be an option.

------
paxcoder
The title and the article are missing "United States" somewhere.

~~~
verandaguys_alt
Speaking as a non-American, this is partially-valid point, and a very
frustrating one.

While the only people who can affect the decision are Americans (members of
congress won't, and fundamentally shouldn't listen to calls and emails sent by
foreign nationals), this is an issue that affects much of the internet-using
world by virtue of such a large volume of international internet traffic going
through lines on US soil.

In this case, it would make sense for there to be a framework whereby
international citizens can provide input, but I doubt there's a way to do this
without setting a precedent which could seriously compromise the integrity of
their federal decision-making bodies (any further).

~~~
herbst
To to my understanding they can not legally sell information about me as I
have local laws protecting me from that. Sure I doubt they really care but
this seems to be a us thing to me

