Yakoob on 29/3/2017 at 16:59
Yesterday, (
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/technology/congress-votes-to-overturn-obama-era-online-privacy-rules.html?_r=0) Congress voted to repeal the Internet Privacy rules which, in a nutshell, banned ISPs from mining and giving personal browsing data to 3rd parties without explicit user consent. This has sparked a lot of InternetOutrage™ but reading more into it... I think I agree with the ruling.
From what I understand, originally the net was governed by the FTC. Then FCC deemed it a public utility, thus preventing FTC from regulating it, and added the privacy act as a safeguard. The new repeal removes the FCC control which, in an of itself... is fair.
Right now, people fear 3rd parties spying, but that has already been happening. Google, Facebook, MS, to name a few. They have the right to mine and sell your data. So what difference does it make if other sectors now do as well? Is FB really less "evil" than other 3rd parties? This is effectively making the law simpler and fairer.
What we need is not an act that protects privacy in one sector (ISPs) while opening the floodgates in another. What we need is an act that protects privacy regardless of the sector, across the board.
One caveat is that, currently, the data mining is "restricted" to the services you use. If you don't want to be spied on by FB you can opt out of FB*, while still reading your Melville Twilight slash-fiction blogs to your hearts content. ISPs, on the other hand, see everything regardless of where you go. You can't opt out from the mining unless you opt out of using the net altogether.
Secondly, under current privacy act, the ISPs are in fact allowed to collect data - IF the user consents. I can't think of a good argument why unrestricted data mining would be ethically better than opt-in data mining. It would be far more accurate and representative of society, which leads to...
A friend on FB brought up a good point, however - the data can be used for much, much social good. Social and health research, improving traffic safety, locating at-risk communities/regions (poverty, health, crime, etc.) and helping, more accurate governance based on people's actual (not erroneously self-reported) behavior, etc. etc.
It is a double-edged sword. In an ideal world and with proper annonymization of data, 3rd party access could be a huge boon to us. But it's hardly an ideal world, and evil people (or corporations) exist. And if there is a way to exploit someone, they sure as heck will. Especially in competitive, profit-driven economy.
Thoughts?
* technically not true. You'd be surprised how much FB and Google track outside of their own service. Ever see those "targeted ads" based on waht websites you've been recently browsing? Yep you can log out from all your social or email accounts, and they'd still know.
Pyrian on 29/3/2017 at 17:12
ISP tracking is significantly more difficult to defeat than browser-based tracking.
nickie on 29/3/2017 at 17:28
When I read about it, I just thought that this administration was rolling back anything and everything Obama did regardless of whether it was good or bad, wanted or unwanted.
This does not, on the surface, affect me. But my opinion is that I pay money for a service and I do not expect my service provider to sell my details or pass them on. Most sites I sign up to here have very specific privacy terms and conditions which include not passing details on. They take great pains to point that out.
My use of google, fb or anything else is free, therefore I accept my browsing habits will be monitored and I think there's a certain price to pay for the 'free'. That's a different thing to me from my ISP selling my details. I'd be flipping mad if our laws changed.
Sulphur on 29/3/2017 at 17:49
I wrote a little snippet in response to this news today for a story I've been wanting to get out of my head for a while. Someday, that'll see the light of day. Meanwhile, this is definitely an interesting topic, but I know what my stance on it is, and that is: enough with the slippery slope.
It's not a new idea, this stripping back of privacy in the technology domain, but I'm more irritated by it being regarded as something of a fait accompli, and no offence, 'Koob, but you seem to be presenting it as a transparent piece of accelerationism - 'It's already pretty bad, so let it get worse!' I don't think that bland acceptance of the way things are should dictate the way things will be. If it's important enough to enough people, legal recourse to privacy on paid services like an ISP should not be optional.
Realistically, I don't mind that Google and FB know my browsing trends because the opt-in still exists as a legal mandate that can only be overridden by the government, and I don't think I have that exciting a browsing history anyway; take away that safety blanket, though, and monetise my URL history to the highest bidder? What if the third party is someone you know who wants to cyber-stalk you? I wouldn't much care for that eventuality, and I don't think other people would either.
As for the advantages of having a society with truly open data like the utopia your friend speaks of, that'd be a grand thing for all of them if they were likely to say, 'Yup, go ahead and profile me, I don't mind that you know where I am and what our risk probabilities for certain things are.'
But, you know, I don't think many people think that way.
Yakoob on 29/3/2017 at 18:20
Quote Posted by Sulphur
'Koob, but you seem to be presenting it as a transparent piece of accelerationism - 'It's already pretty bad, so let it get worse!'
Oh sorry if I came off that way, I rather meant "it's pretty bad so we need a proper solution not a feel-good bandaid:"
Quote:
What we need is not an act that protects privacy in one sector (ISPs) while opening the floodgates in another. What we need is an act that protects privacy regardless of the sector, across the board.
heywood on 29/3/2017 at 19:40
It’s going to get worse.
From what I’ve been reading this is just an exercise of the Congressional Review Act to rescind the pending regulations that were announced in October. For now, the ISPs are still regulated by the FCC as common carriers. But the Republicans in Congress and the FCC are planning to change that and undo net neutrality.
I don’t think this is fair. There’s a big difference between an ISP, who provides users with a pipe to the internet, and a company like Facebook, who provides users with content and services using the internet. People can choose not to use Facebook, or Gmail, but can’t realistically choose to not use the internet. Your ISP sees all of your traffic. And in many locations, you really don’t have a choice of ISP. In my area, Comcast effectively has a monopoly.
I think I’m even more concerned about the potential for the new FCC to de-classify ISPs as common carriers. For the last 15-20 years we’ve been in a period of telecommunications convergence. Services that used to be independent of each other and separately provided by different companies with different infrastructure are now just different data types riding on the same networks. I can browse the web on my TV, and I can watch TV shows in a web browser. I can get phone service over cable TV, and I can watch TV shows on my phone. Etc., Etc. My ISP, which is Comcast, blurs the line between their cable TV service and their internet service. So it makes no sense to have their cable TV service regulated like a public utility, and not their internet service. If they can provide the same media content to you as an unregulated ISP vs. a regulated cable company, you can guess which direction they will be going. And without net neutrality, I see this heading in the direction of AOL-like walled garden experiences where the ISP who has monopoly access to your data pipe gets to decide what services and media sources to hook you up with based on the deals they have cut, and will offer you packages of services. You want to use your Apple TV? Sorry, you’ll have to subscribe to the Video Plus ™ package. Why not use our video on demand service instead?
icemann on 30/3/2017 at 02:24
What it does is legalize what the government was busted for several years ago, which was monitoring what everyone was doing on the internet. That is just not on, in a democracy. Take away our privacy, and then what is the point of using the internet?
What people choose to spend their time doing is their own business and should be left that way. I totally understand with stuff like child porn etc, but the rest is none of anyone's business. The right to privacy should remain as it is. If anything, Facebook, Google etc should get in trouble for what they've been doing.
Taking away these freedoms, will see a MASSIVE rise in arrests for internet piracy which is the real heart of much of this I'm betting.
Someone needs to go make a new second internet (yes I know the internet is really a series of internets) free of this one, if that is where the government wants to take it.
The right to one's own privacy has always been one of the core values trumped of democracies over Communism and other government types. Take that away, and what advantage do we really have over the others?
256 colors on 30/3/2017 at 04:38
If you want privacy you need to go back to an era of no telecommunications
zombe on 30/3/2017 at 04:56
That is a deepity you dumbass.
icemann on 30/3/2017 at 08:52
And I thought that was a fake word, and google tells me it's:
A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial.
Which makes no sense when applied to 256's post.
