The new FCC privacy rules are here, and nobody is happy

The FCC has formally approved its new rules for internet service providers on the handling of customer data, and it seems few people on either side are particularly happy. The rules, adopted Thursday [PDF] by the commission after months of debate, call on any company currently providing broadband service to obtain opt-in …

[Jeffrey Nonken]

Whine whine, not screwing over our customers will destroy the internet, whine whine.

[ecofeco]

...and you beat to it. Have an upvote.

I'd also add "fuck em.'

[Ole Juul]

economically beneficial uses?

Doug Brake, . . . "it would create a rigid regulatory regime that would limit the use of virtually all data that can be put to economically beneficial uses."

Whoa boy. You might want to hold back a little on the sense of entitlement there.

[Aedile]

Re: economically beneficial uses?

To get an idea of their mindset; these are the same people who think SOPA would have been great.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160822/11124435306/think-tank-that-first-proposed-sopa-now-claims-proof-that-sopa-would-have-been-great.shtml

[bombastic bob]

Re: economically beneficial uses?

"Instead, it would create a rigid regulatory regime that would limit the use of virtually all data that can be put to economically beneficial uses."

wasn't that the whole point? Because 'economically beneficial' to the ISP or its "partners" means "privacy violation" to end-users. OPT IN if you *WANT* that. Makes sense to ME.

I had to renew my MSDN today. I did it as 'guest' so I don't have to be tracked by "the store". There was a pre-checked checkbox to "receive other offers" which I _DELIBERATELY_ un-checked.

(I almost didn't renew MSDN. I had to REALLY justify in my mind why I actually NEED to continue to feed Micro-shaft $799 per year for something that's difficult to use effectively with my intarweb connection, and that THEY BROKE 2 years ago, and *REFUSED* to fix properly last year, though they DID fix their server to comply with the RFCs, so that I can hack it with 'wget' to get files bigger than 1G...).

Anyway - FCC gets "at least some of it" correct. A step in the right direction. 'Wait and see' mode for what comes next. I don't trust gummint to do ANYTHING except "gum things up" and pay off political favors in exchange for money.

[Sirius Lee]

ISP Turkeys disappointed Christmas finally arrived.

[Robert Carnegie]

I may not fully understand, but I propose a simple rule

If the FBI wants to see the data, then it's sensitive data.

Does that help?

PS: If American Business is reading this paragraph, then please stop showing me advertisements for personal luggage, because I bought a sports bag last month.

[Wade Burchette]

...

"Instead, it would create a rigid regulatory regime that would limit the use of virtually all data that can be put to economically beneficial uses."

And that is bad for consumers because, um ... why again?

[[e-mail]]

Partisan lines?

For you Brits that means 3-2 Democrat vs. Republican. Republicans once again almost cartoonishly evil.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Partisan lines?

those would have been Republo-CRATS (i.e. 'establishment' country-club types) if they're not siding with INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. Demo-Rats "for freedom" (quotes because they rarely ARE) might be ACLU types, though... in which case they'll PRETEND to side with individuals because it's what the ACLU wants them to do.

Question: did the Republo-Crats vote against it because it DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH to protect individual rights?

On a related note, 'Tea Party' Republicans are ALL ABOUT individual rights. The 'establishment' Republo-Crats hate them. yeah, the R party is fracturing. let's see what a Trump win will do.

(and NOW I expect the howlers to send me downvote-shytestorm, thank you)

[usbac]

Re: Partisan lines?

It's really simple:

BOTH parties are power crazed, bought-and-paid-for sleezebags that don't give a flying fuck about ANY of the people that elected them!

The republicans would sell us all out to big business, and watch cheerfully while we are being anally-raped by the mega-corps, all the while sending our jobs overseas.

And, the democrats would take most (or better yet, all) of our income and hand it out to people that don't want to work. After all, someone has to pay for the free housing, free groceries, free health care, free internet, free cell phone, etc.

Neither party has the best interests of working middle class people in mind. We desperately need a viable third party. But, the one thing both the republican party, and democratic party can agree on, is that they can't allow a third party to get established. And, they both work very hard to keep it that way. Notice that none of the other parties were allowed into the debates!

[Alan Brown]

Re: Partisan lines?

> 'Tea Party' Republicans are ALL ABOUT individual rights.

Except when it suits them not to be (ie, it's about individual rights for the "correct kind of american" and everyone else can get stuffed, especially if there's oil or gold involved)

America has the best politicians money can buy. They're all representatives of the Money Party regardless of the surface political variations.

The amazing thing in this climate is that outfits like the FCC have been able to make any headway at all. In some areas they haven't, which is why Ma Bell has managed to reassemble itself without that pesky "Universal service" obligation and local loop competition is effectively non-existant (by law) in most states. (Hint: If this kind of law was down to the individual states, ISPs would be encouraged to actively mine and sell off personal data for profit by PUCs taking enormous bribes to look the other way - and probably passing laws requiring consumers hand over the data)