Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 242 posts

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#111

Post by fosco »

dfar1 wrote: post #107
edraferi wrote: post #68

I 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.

An app that enables you to use your home router as a gateway could solve this problem.

I had an idea called 'Home Gateway' awhile back, but i do not have the business acumen and lack part of the technical know-how to complete such a task.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#112

Post by Delmania »

greedyliberal wrote: post #91

Just because you call it a right, doesn't make it a right. For instance: I have a right to only be upvoted! Should I call the ACLU on everyone who downvotes this? Recognizing the costs of providing internet service, and then making a suggestion to pay a higher premium for additional service (i.e. privacy) is the logical way to resolve this.

Well, I was going to respond to this, but it's an account that less than an hour old. Seems the trolls are picking up on tactics from Reddit.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#113

Post by unlikelymordant »

xienze wrote: post #74
Latty wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get your point, even if no one does do it, why repeal the protection? It's effort and time wasted just to create a potential for something bad to happen. Even if you think this will never be abused, I don't see how it's being blown out of proportion, this is still bad.

> I don't see how it's being blown out of proportion Really? Where was all the hyperventilating about the status quo on HN prior to when the protection was put in place? That's all I'm getting at, the reaction to being back in the dark ages of late 2016 seems a bit overblown in my opinion.

The ftc was the protection prior to the fcc. Now there is no protection. This is a regression.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#114

Post by programmarchy »

xienze wrote: post #40

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. 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…

Here is a less editorialized summary of the bill:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202

It repealed 73 pages [1] of regulation on ISPs.

Personally, I'd like to see more competition in the ISP space. This bill may help by reducing barrier to entry, but the central problem remains that national carriers have lobbied the state to prevent competition at the municipal level.

Furthermore, this bill seems like a minor nuisance compared to the data collected by Facebook, Google, and the NSA.

So yes, I'd say this is being blown out of proportion. The Republicans aren't being evil, but they have much more to do before I'd consider them being good.

[1] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.p...

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#115

Post by snowpanda »

pragone wrote: post #95

Since this isn't posted in this thread yet, here it is: https://github.com/jlund/streisand Unless someone can point out why it's not what it's cracked up to be? Seems like a rather easy-to-setup solution, somewhere between straight up paying a service and rolling everything yourself (I do pay PIA, but I've found that, not infrequently, my speeds are drastically throttled. I'll be actively downloading a file while con…

My concern is that if you connect to a VPN server in the US that your traffic will still be sold because the VPN provider technically also an ISP. I could be wrong though.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#116

Post by tzs »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #85
dragonwriter wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They believe the FTC, not the FCC, should be the main privacy regulator as it has in the past. If they believed that, they would pass legislation to correct the law on which the court relied striking down FTC regulatory authority in this area and allow the FTC to actually do that; not doing that when reversing the FCC rules which mirrored the FTC rules which were struck down demonstrates that that is a pretext, not…

> they would pass legislation to correct the law on which the court relied striking down FTC regulatory authority in this area The FCC rule is being struck down using the Congressional Review Act [1]. CRA provides "an expedited legislative process" [2]. Giving the FTC authority in this area would require passing a real law. (That said, I agree with you regrind the explanation of motive.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/…

It's not clear to me how the CRA actually makes anything faster in this case. The "real law" approach would only need a simple law, which surely could be drafted quickly. Both a "real law" and a CRA action require the same simple majority in the House and Senate, which they have.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#117

Post by Brendinooo »

peregrine wrote: post #102

The 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. dan…

The headline isn't true. Congress voted to remove regulations, they didn't complete a financial transaction with ISPs.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#118

Post by Delmania »

xienze wrote: post #55
Operyl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because why the push to undo something if they weren't planning to do it, or weren't already? I know Verizon has an opt in program for it where they gave you deals and free data.

Can't argue with that, but again, the status quo for many, many years was that your ISP could have done this, but didn't. And the next time there's a changing of the guard the protections will be put back in place, so I can't see how ISPs are going to bet on selling this information as a viable long-term business strategy.

> And the next time there's a changing of the guard the protections will be put back in place, so I can't see how ISPs are going to bet on selling this information as a viable long-term business strategy.

I wouldn't bet on it. All the discussion about politics and policy leave out the fact that the GOP now controls 33 state assemblies. 1 more power grab, they will be able it invoke it. They won't have the 38 needed to ram through changes without opposition, but there's a good chance they will attempt to put in legal guards against the Democrats from undoing their policies.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#119

Post by soundwave106 »

xienze wrote: post #78
Latty wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We shouldn't blame the Republican's for repealing this protection pointlessly, because the Democrats will put it back when they get in power." Seriously? Free pass to do bad stuff because "it won't last". Come on.

I'm not giving them a free pass, I'd prefer the protections to be in place. But I'm just putting the situation in perspective. My observation is just that I'm perplexed about the amount of "sky is falling" reactions here when you couldn't find a peep about "which VPN do I use to keep my ISP from selling my data" on HN say, a year ago.

I would argue that the full impact of what is possible wasn't very visible until certain companies got caught doing MITM advertising injections and other questionable tactics (eg Verizon; Googling suggests HN started noticing them and others circa 2014 or so).

As far as "simply blowing the situation out of proportion because Republicans did it", it has been pretty obvious that Republicans have been aligned with the telco / big cable companies (as opposed to content companies) for a while. Maybe some are surprised and shocked, but personally I have no problem with this action highlighting that there are differences between current political parties beyond the usual social politics and political memes.

Re: Disapproval of FCC regulations a significant blow against privacy protection

#120

Post by tzs »

dfar1 wrote: post #101

What is the name of the bill? And where can I read it? Thanks.

Here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...

Here's the full text:

> Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”.

> Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services” (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

Post reply on HN