Congress Votes to Allow IP's to Collect Data Without Your Permission

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

Did the House not vote on this? I'm surprised it passed either way. There's a few Republicans that I can't believe voted yes. Part of me thinks this is all political theater and just setting up Donnie to be the good guy and veto.

The House voted. And according to the White House website, Trump is planning to sign.

I still am unclear on what the ramifications of this are. As far as I understand all they did was revoke some privacy act that wasn't even introduced until last December. I don't even know if it went into effect yet. They did NOT vote on whether to shift responsibilities of ISPs to the FTC from the FCC (though I know they're aiming to do that). Assuming I'm correct, then the FCC still has time to change the status of ISPs back from utilities/common carriers to whatever they were before, so that ISPs would no longer be exempt from the FTC Act's Section 5.

[plastroncafe]

Friends in IT have been suggesting VPN programs for computers and mobile devices alike, as well as encouraging others to use https:// whenever possible.

I'm a little sad I didn't make it in here before the, "both parties are the same!!!" folks, but...such is life.

Really the only good out of all of this, is going to be watching the frothing mess of impotent rage coming from the Alt-reich.

[The Deadman]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

What's the problem here? As long as you're not doing any illegal activity, you should have nothing to fear. I'm sure nobody in Congress cares what your favorite porn site is.

Thats not the point and you know it...

[ToTheNines]

I'm looking further into this, hoping it's not all that it seems. (The CNN article didn't do a great job with citation).

An excerpt from Jeff Flake's Senate website:

Flake’s resolution, S.J.Res. 34, would not change or lessen existing consumer privacy regulations. It is designed to block an attempt by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to expand its regulatory jurisdiction and impose prescriptive data restrictions on internet service providers. These restrictions have the potential to negatively impact consumers and the future of internet innovation.

S.J.Res. 34 would provide for congressional disapproval of the FCC rule under the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that empowers Congress to repeal federal regulations. The resolution would also prevent the FCC from issuing similarly harmful regulations in the future.

https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/...B-4E62CA992DB4

So according to the Rs, it does not affect privacy rules, but simply limits the FCC's jurisdiction. Gonna have to keep digging on this one.

[plastroncafe]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...-resolution/34

Passed House without amendment (03/28/2017)

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

This joint resolution nullifies the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission entitled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services." The rule published on December 2, 2016: (1) applies the customer privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet access service and other telecommunications services, (2) requires telecommunications carriers to inform customers about rights to opt in or opt out of the use or the sharing of their confidential information, (3) adopts data security and breach notification requirements, (4) prohibits broadband service offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights, and (5) requires disclosures and affirmative consent when a broadband provider offers customers financial incentives in exchange for the provider's right to use a customer's confidential information.

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...tions-services

[TheSkeletonMan939]

"The rule published on December 2, 2016"

It's nothing. Nothing has changed.

[plastroncafe]

Except that it should have.
The internet, and access to it, should be treated like a utility.
And now it's not.

[ToTheNines]

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

"Let's see here, Mr. Cubed... thank you for coming to this job interview. Let's take a look at your Internet history... boy, you sure spend a lot of time on that Technodrome site... that's nice... wait... w-what is this??? 'A Day Inside May'? Why... I don't understand..."

Lol, missed this earlier. They'd probably call the cops upon reading the anal sex chapter.

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

"The rule published on December 2, 2016"

It's nothing. Nothing has changed.

FAKE NEWS.

But for real, these rules were never in effect and it seems the Federal Trade Commission is just gonna keep doing what they've been doing, rather than the FCC taking over.

But still, I wouldn't have been opposed to those new regulations. They all seemed pretty sane to me. Bummer.

[ProactiveMan]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Friends in IT have been suggesting VPN programs for computers and mobile devices alike, as well as encouraging others to use https:// whenever possible.

That's probably good advice. The problem is VPNs can hide what you're looking at, but you can't hide the fact that you're using a VPN from your ISP. That probably doesn't matter much to you guys, but my Government is under a lot of pressure to stop people using VPNs; mostly from the entertainment industry.

HTTPS is OK, but I think your ISP can still see the URLs. The way HTTPS works is a little bit crap too, so it's more or less pwned.

EDIT: Your ISP should only be able to see the domain in the case of HTTPS, not the URLs, unless they are a certificate authority.

[John Pannozzi]

And then there's the FCC's plans to gut Net Neutrality.

Here's what John Oliver has to say about that:

[Mayhem]

If you're still left in any doubt, here are some examples of what providers were getting away with BEFORE the bill was passed in 2015...

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/...-brief-history