What is the name of the bill? And where can I read it? Thanks.
Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection
101–110 of 242 posts
Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection
#102The Hacker News mods should comment why this post has been 'bumped' from the top spot and why it's title is no longer the original title of the article.
From the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.
The title is the original, it wasn't misleading and it isn't 'linkbait'. Its the premise of the article and it's the truth.
dang please help me out here.
Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection
#103This is basically like having your mailman/postoffice sell the list of your to/from addresses. Isn't it possible to challenge this on constitutional grounds?
I really doubt it. First, the Constitution places limits on the government; not so much on contractual agreements between private parties. What you and Comcast agree to just has to avoid depriving you of basic human rights (i.e., you can't sell yourself into slavery).
Even ignoring that, you give up most constitutional privacy claims if you start disclosing the information to third parties. The ISP is a permanent and necessary third party here. If you tell your ISP that you want to go to ihaveherpes.com or whatever (by asking them to route your traffic there), then I'm not sure you have any claim to privacy as it pertains to a conversation between you and the herpes people. You willingly gave the ISP the information.
That's why we need legal protections like the prior FCC rules. Because by necessity, you need something above any bare constitutional protection.
Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection
#104Does anyone have a good VPN that they would recommend? This bill is totally fucked.
I use PIA (https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/) and don't have any complaints. They have apps for every OS, servers all over the place, and don't log anything. If you search around you can find a deal for 2 years for $60.
Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection
#105I'm curious if this will result in ISPs requiring the installation of an SSL root CA on customers' devices -- they can't track SSL traffic without it.
They know where you connect to. That's still plenty of information.
Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm confident the maintenance hassle will eventually outweigh my desire for privacy. Nothing should outweigh your right for privacy.
Sure, but there's a cost to exercise that right. Right now, the cost of protecting myself from my ISP is quite high. I need to maintain DNS and VPN settings for every device in my home... many of which are personal devices of other family members with little patience for such techno-babble. I want a product that reduces the cost of exercising my right to privacy, and allows me to pay that cost with money instead of t…
There are commercially-available routers which support running all traffic through a VPN. That should handle all the devices in your house.
Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection
#107I want a privacy first router. Does such a product exist? Key features: - I pay a subscription for maintenance (so I'm not the product) say $10/mo - Automatically routes all traffic over a VPN. - Smart VPN bypass for performance-sensitive traffic like streaming video and gaming - Provides non-logging DNS service - Automatic advertisement blocking For VPN, DNS, and adblock I want the option to use servers & block list…
A router only helps you at home. We need a service that protects you anywhere.
Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection
#108Why was the title of this post changed retroactively on HN ? The article is an op-ed with the title "How the Republicans Sold Your Privacy to Internet Providers".
Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection
#109I'm curious, does this mean that an ISP can sell non-anonymized data collected between last October and now?
Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection
#110So the only thing I don't understand as far as the fuss about this is concerned -- everything I've read indicates that this is undoing a protection put in place late last year. So essentially we've gone back in time six months ago or so. If ISPs weren't selling our info then when they could have, why does it logically follow that we're now in some uncharted territory of ISPs selling personal info? Or is this simply b…
> So the only thing I don't understand as far as the fuss about this is concerned -- everything I've read indicates that this is undoing a protection put in place late last year. So essentially we've gone back in time six months ago or so.
Sort of, but you've missed a key aspect. Yes, six months ago (or whenever) there was (possibly) no protection. However, that was a fairly recent development. Earlier, ISPs had been regulated by the FTC when it came to privacy.
As part of the implementation of its net neutrality order, the FCC changed its classification of ISPs from information services to common carriers. Last year a court ruled that the FTC did not have the authority to regulate common carriers.
The FCC's privacy rule was meant to step into the void left by the FTC losing jurisdiction.