201–210 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The bill provides other exceptions under which a provider may use, disclose, sell or permit access to customer personal information. There's probably a "as necessary to provide the service" exception more than large enough to encompass internal logging.
It is section 4
https://mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_129th/billtex...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...so it was happening before 2018. And therefore has nothing to do with that bill because it was never law?
...so if Congress had not taken that 2018 vote this Maine legislation would not be necessary. Just like I said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is exactly it. The reason tech companies are so big on supporting regulations against ISPs is because those rules are narrowly carved out to not apply to them, eliminating a large chunk of their competition. Imagine if this law also applied to Google and Facebook, and they couldn't charge more when you opt out of their data collection?
To use a physical analogy, ISPs are like roads. Google and Facebook are like places you can drive to on the roads. You argument is essentially that it is not right to ban persuasive surveillance on the roads if it is possible for people to use those roads to reach destinations where surveillance is allowed.
In your analogy, perhaps the ISPs are the highways, and tech companies are the neighborhood streets, but they're both roads. Because you're not trying to get to Facebook, you're trying to get to your grandma's photo album, that unfortunately you can only get to through Facebook.
I look forward to the day when selling user's data requires the user's opt-in every single time a third party wants to access that data. No more "yes to all" or allowing blanket usage in TOS/EULAs. People who use apps that sell their data should be bombarded with requests to use that data each and every single time, until they either decide the app isn't worth it or the app decides they should try a different busines…
I really don't understand the extreme hostility to data collection and data markets. No one likes ads, but no one wants to have to pay a subscription fee to every single site on the internet. If I'm going to see ads, I'd rather them be something I might potentially find useful than something irrelevant. If I end up buying their product, the exchange is mutually beneficial and both parties walk away with value from th…
It's not a problem with ads. It's a problem with tracking and data collection.
I do not want any company can follow my habits and have a list of my preferences, at least without my consent.
I like general ads (with moderation), not customized based on my past purchases, where I can find out something new and interesting. Like it is on magazines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bill explicitly prevents that behavior. "The 'opt-in' nature...would set it apart from other state internet privacy laws... the proposed Maine law also would prohibit any [ISP] from making the sale of customer data part of its mandatory [TOS]. It also could not charge higher fees to customers who refuse to opt in" https://www.pressherald.com/2019/05/29/maine-on-track-to-pas...
They can't charge more for refusing to opt in, so nobody will opt in. The only alternative seems to be a hike in rates for everybody. Which isn't necessarily bad, it's arguably better that people actually know what cost they're paying. It's just naive to assume that this is ISPs getting some "extra money" on the side. This is factored into the revenue from the service. Now they'll have to adjust their models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't convinced me that the data they collect can harm you as an individual. How is your life actually negatively impacted? How is this a more rational concern than conspiracy theorists thinking the government is monitoring their private phone calls?
Dude, it's not a conspiracy. https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying
I couldn't find links to the actual bill anywhere so I tracked it down: http://legislature.maine.gov/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=2800... The summary: "This bill prohibits a provider of broadband Internet access service from using, disclosing, selling or permitting access to customer personal information unless the customer expressly consents to that use, disclosure, sale or access. The bill provides other exceptions u…
This law sound like it was written by data brokers. It does nothing at best and legitimizes corrupt practices at worst. WTF is "consent" doing here? Why would ISP ever need to sell someone's data in order to operate? Do they also plan to explicitly prohibit ISPs from torturing customers and selling their organs? From selling illegal drugs to minors? Dear state of Maine, I too would like to waive all my legal liabilit…
Won't the law only help then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no one wants to have to pay a subscription fee to every single site on the internet. If we had a reasonable micropayments system so I could spend a few cents per article I read online from non-subscription sites, I'd be thrilled. I do not want to see ads, ever. I do not want companies collecting or selling my activity patterns. If I've signed up for something, I don't want my personal details sold to someone else i…
Right? This is always the false dichotomy that gets put to us. "Either accept the ads or pay me 5 bucks a month" 5 bucks a month??!?! You were making 5 bucks a month off JUST ME WITH ADS?!!!! But it's not that at all. It's simply that credit cards are so heinously inefficient and unreliable and costly to manage that they need to charge that amount of money to not lose money on average. Dealing with fraud and charge b…
Therefore, to offset this, subscription fees needs to be much higher than the average ad revenue per user.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no one wants to have to pay a subscription fee to every single site on the internet. If we had a reasonable micropayments system so I could spend a few cents per article I read online from non-subscription sites, I'd be thrilled. I do not want to see ads, ever. I do not want companies collecting or selling my activity patterns. If I've signed up for something, I don't want my personal details sold to someone else i…
Legislating such a micropayments system would centralize the monetization of internet services in a way unprecedented since the advent of the internet. If you're worried a lack of Net Neutrality would suppress free speech, this would strangle it. You'd create two internets: a bourgeoisie sphere of corporate sites with enough influence to be included in the micropayment system, and the unwashed masses, the sites deeme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the following is my opinion only. > I really don't understand the extreme hostility to data collection and data markets. I can easily explain my extreme hostility to this: that it happens without my consent and that companies put so much work into actively evading the defenses I put up against it. > No one likes ads This isn't about ads. This is about data collection. If ads existed without the spying, I would…
You haven't convinced me that the data they collect can harm you as an individual. How is your life actually negatively impacted? How is this a more rational concern than conspiracy theorists thinking the government is monitoring their private phone calls?
data about you is private. The same as your business behind the bathroom door is private. Revealing it creates the "same" harm.