• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Senate votes to let internet providers share your browsing history without permission

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catapult37

Member
So I thought, who introduces a bill like this, and why??* The answer is Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, who penned this lovely op-ed for the Wall Street Journal when he wrote the bill.

He casts this incredibly anti-consumer bill as pro-privacy and even finds time to throw shade at net neutrality. The doublespeak is amazing. I've highlighted some of the more egregious parts, along with particularly weaselly GOP phrasing:

When you shop online from your tablet or browse the internet on your smartphones, you expect your personal data to be secure. Technology companies invest billions of dollars on data security to protect consumer privacy.

Privacy is also a cornerstone of consumer protection, with federal enforcement agencies striking an appropriate balance between innovation and security in their regulations. But just as a flawed line of code can render a new firewall program useless, the new privacy rules that were rushed through in the waning days of the Obama administration risk crashing our longstanding privacy-protection regime.

For two decades, the Federal Trade Commission has been America's sole online privacy regulator. Under the FTC's watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the world. The agency's evidence-based approach calibrates privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of information collected, used or shared online, and applies protections in a consistent and evenhanded way across business sectors. Consumer behavior demonstrates the success of the FTC's regulatory approach: Each day people spend more time engaging in online activities.

But in 2015, in a bid to expand its own power, the Federal Communications Commission short-circuited the effectiveness of the FTC's approach by reclassifying internet service providers as common carriers, subject to Title II of the Communications Act.

In taking that unprecedented action, the FCC unilaterally stripped the FTC of its traditional jurisdiction over ISPs. The FTC can no longer police the privacy practices of providers, leaving us with a two-track system under which the FCC applies its own set of rules for ISPs while the FTC monitors the rest of the internet ecosystem.

Even after the 2015 power grab, the FCC could have simply adopted as its own the FTC's successful sensitivity-based model of privacy regulation. Instead—after last year's election—the FCC finalized privacy regulations that deviate extensively from the FTC framework in several key respects.

The FCC rules subject all web browsing and app usage data to the same restrictive requirements as sensitive personal information. That means that information generated from looking up the latest Cardinals score or checking the weather in Scottsdale is treated the same as personal health and financial data.

The new rules also restrict an ISP's ability to inform customers about innovative and cost-saving product offerings. So much for consumer choice.

The FCC's overreach is a dangerous deviation from successful regulation and common-sense industry practices. But don't just take my word for it. The FTC concluded that the FCC's decision to treat ISPs differently from the rest of the internet ecosystem was ”not optimal"—agency-speak for ”a really bad idea."

Outside of the FTC's well-founded concerns, the new rules are also a departure from bipartisan agreement on the need for consistent online privacy rules. President Obama noted in 2012 that ”companies should present choices about data sharing, collection, use, and disclosure that are appropriate for the scale, scope, and sensitivity of personal data in question at the time of collection." In other words, privacy rules should be based on the data itself.

But that's not how the FCC sees it. The commission's rules suffocate industry and harm consumers by creating two completely different sets of requirements for different parts of the internet.

To protect consumers from these harmful new regulations, I will soon introduce a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to repeal the FCC's flawed privacy rules. While the resolution would eliminate those rules, it would not change the current statutory classification of broadband service or bring ISPs back under FTC jurisdiction. Instead, the resolution would scrap the FCC's newly imposed privacy rules in the hope that it would follow the FTC's successful sensitivity-based framework.

This CRA resolution does nothing to change the privacy protections consumers currently enjoy. I hope Congress and the FCC will continue working together to address issues of concern down the road. However, it is imperative for rule-making entities to stay in their jurisdictional lanes. We need to reject these harmful midnight privacy regulations that serve only to empower bureaucrats and hurt consumers.
Click to expand...

If you live in Arizona, give Mr Flake a call at 520-575-8633 to thank him personally.

*his name is in the OP. sell my data to advertisers if old
 
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
It's long past due date for pervasive encryption of the Internet to become a reality. All websites you visit should encrypt your traffic by default.

I know GAF tried to encrypt all connections last year and technical problems resulted in it needing to be rolled back, but it's something that should probably be attempted again soonish.
 
Mistake

Mistake

Member
fixedpoint said:
Since it's now legal, and in the interest of creating jobs, maybe we should crowdfund an effort to share with everyone the browsing history and habits of the Senators who voted "Yea" on this:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Strange (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)
Click to expand...
I'm on board with this. Don't let these bastards sleep. They can reap what they sow. There are very real consequences for making your habits public, and they won't realize it until they get a slap in the face and it affects them personally.
 
K

Kthulhu

Member
Unknown Soldier said:
It's long past due date for pervasive encryption of the Internet to become a reality. All websites you visit should encrypt your traffic by default.

I know GAF tried to encrypt all connections last year and technical problems resulted in it needing to be rolled back, but it's something that should probably be attempted again soonish.
Click to expand...

To their credit, Google is starting to push this with Chrome. Hopefully they can use their market share to push as many sites as possible to use HTTPS.
 
A

aaaaa0

Member
Kthulhu said:
To their credit, Google is starting to push this with Chrome. Hopefully they can use their market share to push as many sites as possible to use HTTPS.
Click to expand...

The problem is HTTPS still doesn't stop people from knowing you visited a particular website. You need a VPN to obfuscate that.
 
A

aaaaa0

Member
MidgarBlowedUp said:
Can you make your own VPN and use it? Or is that not how any of this works?
Click to expand...

Normally your web browsing looks like this:
Code: 
[your computer] =====> [your ISP] =====> [web site]
Since all of your traffic goes through your ISP, they know wherever you go on the internet, even if you encrypt all your traffic (HTTPS) so they can't see what exactly you're doing.

A VPN works like this:
Code: 
[your computer] =====> [your ISP] =====> [VPN server] =====> [web site]
Now, your ISP can tell that you connected to a VPN, but it can't know where the traffic went after that, so they can't know what web sites you visited.

In reality, since lots of people (usually hundreds or thousands) share one VPN server, it looks like this:

Code: 
[computer] =====> [ISP] =====> [          ] =====> [web site]
[computer] =====> [ISP] =====> [          ] =====> [web site]
[computer] =====> [ISP] =====> [VPN server] =====> [web site]
[computer] =====> [ISP] =====> [          ] =====> [web site]
[computer] =====> [ISP] =====> [          ] =====> [web site]

And now even someone who can see *all* the traffic (like the government) can't easily tell who went to what web site, because the VPN obfuscates who connected to what.

Now you're still not completely safe, because in order to function, the VPN server itself needs to know who went where, and if it keeps logs, the company running the VPN can be subpoenaed or coerced into providing that information. Or the VPN server itself could be compromised by hackers or authorities in order to unmask the users on it.

But the hope is that the company that provides the VPN has less interest in selling your browsing history than your ISP, has reasonably competent security, and furthermore, if you select a VPN provider which is not located in your country, it may have more ability to resist any of your government's attempts to pry into your privacy.

Also, don't forget that there are lots of ways you can accidentally unmask yourself by transmitting any personally identifiable information to a website while you're using the VPN. For example, by logging into the same account through the VPN AND through your regular ISP connection, or submitting the same email address or other identifiable piece of data for a site you visit via VPN and your regular ISP connection, etc.)
 
Oppo

Oppo

Member
Kreios said:
I'm on board with this. Don't let these bastards sleep. They can reap what they sow. There are very real consequences for making your habits public, and they won't realize it until they get a slap in the face and it affects them personally.
Click to expand...

seriously

i am in Canada so this doesn't directly affect me yet (indirectly definitely)... but it is so outrageous. i can't believe people aren't completely freaking out. or enough people anyways.

like ... some folks get mad if they see a camera pointed at them in public. this is so much worse.
 
K

Kthulhu

Member
Nerfgun said:
seriously

i am in Canada so this doesn't directly affect me yet (indirectly definitely)... but it is so outrageous. i can't believe people aren't completely freaking out. or enough people anyways.

like ... some folks get mad if they see a camera pointed at them in public. this is so much worse.
Click to expand...

Most people don't know. Those that do probably don't care, as they've been conditioned by the government and corporations to accept surveillance.

Plus, most MSM outlets in America are owned by ISPs, you think they're gonna shit on their own parade?
 
D

Dali

Member
These fucks are elected to represent the interests and desires of their constituents. Does a single one of these pieces of shit think the answer to the question "is it ok for me to sell your browsing history to other people?" is "yeah sure." They are supposed to limit the power of corporations and protect the general populace not empower them to take advantage.
 
P

pelicansurf

Needs a Holiday on Gallifrey
jellies_two said:
The problem with VPNs is you are adding the latency to the vpn provider to the latency for everything you access.
Click to expand...
This is why everyone saying that they're going full vpn puzzles me, even though I want to do the same thing. It's mind boggling that I pay for the fastest internet, but am going to have to basically throttle myself because my government is full of assholes.
 
NiiloPielinen

NiiloPielinen

Member
catapult37 said:
If you live in Arizona, give Mr Flake a call at 520-575-8633 to thank him personally.
Click to expand...

The best way to show them the error of their ways would be to purchase their browsing history, print it and send it to them (and the press).

I bet they didn't even understand that google searches would show up in browsing history.
 
R

Red

Member
Kyzer said:
Got extremely mad and then immediately disappointed in myself because I have willingly given permission several times across accounts like Google and Facebook

This is on another level though. Even incognito...? Better not start seeing ads that are too relevant...
Click to expand...
Giving users the choice to share information is acceptable. Completely revoking their privacy is not.
 
D

DrROBschiz

Member
This is so gross

we dont need more abusive solicitors entering the online ad space

the current war between websites and adblockers is bad enough

I dont want ISP level intrusions
 
J

Josh378

Member
VPN companies in the next couple of years are going to BANK from users everywhere once the mass population understands what our government voted for and how a VPN can bypass this newly passed legislation BS. I expect the war on VPN's from our government/companies to start in about a year or two to figure out a way to get this info before it hits your VPN. Let the games begin....
 
F

FlyinJ

Douchebag. Yes, me.
Josh378 said:
VPN companies in the next couple of years are going to BANK from users everywhere once the mass population understands what our government voted for and how a VPN can bypass this newly passed legislation BS. I expect the war on VPN's from our government/companies to start in about a year or two to figure out a way to get this info before it hits your VPN. Let the games begin....
Click to expand...

Do we know if VPN companies lobbied for this?
 
S

Skyball Paint

Member
My fantasy is that someone will get a hold of Mitch McConnell's browsing history...such a humiliation would be fitting payback for his decades of being a complete motherfucker.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Josh378 said:
VPN companies in the next couple of years are going to BANK from users everywhere once the mass population understands what our government voted for and how a VPN can bypass this newly passed legislation BS. I expect the war on VPN's from our government/companies to start in about a year or two to figure out a way to get this info before it hits your VPN. Let the games begin....
Click to expand...
Which means my data is still in the hands of the privately owned VPN and is now tied directly to whatever account name I have set up with them
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I guarantee the very moment some group buys and publishes the Internet history of these republican Congressmen, they'll write a bill changing the law.
 
R

Ragnar Blackmane

Member
Phobophile said:
I've been using Private Internet Access for a few years.

Bad ones are free ones. If it's free, ask yourself why...
Click to expand...
This. Bought a 1 year subscription back in August, works like a charm and with $30 a year is reasonably priced.

Also I did some research before I decided to use PIA, found several FBI inquiries (made public) to the PIA provider to make them hand out browsing history data of users which were turned down because PIA doesn't record any histories and activities that go through their VPN. If they don't have any logs then they can't by subpoenaed to hand them in. HideMyAss on the other hand complied with several FBI requests and handed them user activity logs, I would absolutely recommend against using them.

KUON.0101 said:
Just wow. I hope this stuff doesn''t get to Europe.
Click to expand...
It won't because the EU court of law blocks this sort of shit. One of the reasons why I am glad to live in an EU country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
The Verge: Congress just cleared the way for ISPs to sell your browser history
21
3K
ModBot replied
Goodbye, Chrome: Google’s web browser has become spy software
47
4K
timeflais replied
  • Locked
Comcast and AT&T say you shouldn’t worry about gutting of internet privacy rules
2
50
6K
FantasticMrFoxdie replied
  • Locked
Trump has officially ended federal online privacy rules
2 3 4
164
29K
NJDEN replied
  • Locked
USA ISPs: Web browsing and app usage history isn’t “sensitive”.
12
4K
Agent Gibbs replied
Top Bottom