11–20 of 118 posts
I'm sure this will lead to radical alterations on paragraph 117 of the typical EULA, where everyone will notice it immediately and have a serious think about the economic value of their personal identifiable information. I have not looked at the actual motion yet but I suspect that companies will only have to answer consumer inquiries in general terms rather than giving them detailed statement. Oh well I've given up…
What world are we living in where the post service is allowed to rip open mail and deface it.
This is completely pointless. They'll just add some form you have to sign before giving you service and that's about it. After all, do you read and act on the privacy notifications other providers give you? Does this at least require them to provider service irregardless of your consent to share data? If not, this is a pointless law that just makes it look like they did something.
Well, thanks to sites like HN and Reddit, as soon as they drop some dumb stuff in the contract, it will be brought to the surface and informed people will at least KNOW... tahts a big thing
I'm more concerned about getting this fixed in healthcare. Recently had to get lawyers involved over a debt dispute for a bill that was never sent to insurance and that the hospital couldn't even verify because it came from a "partner" no one could contact. The chief argument against us: an agreement signed by my wife while in labor that placed all the responsibility for any bills, correct or not, on us with no recourse. I remember disputing it at the time but they insisted it was just a CYA form and they couldn't admit us without it.
This is completely pointless. They'll just add some form you have to sign before giving you service and that's about it. After all, do you read and act on the privacy notifications other providers give you? Does this at least require them to provider service irregardless of your consent to share data? If not, this is a pointless law that just makes it look like they did something.
The regulators and legislators pursue and get credit for incremental actions, but there is no agent or body with accountability for overall impact. When regulators impose a new disclosure requirement, they often show that if a consumer reads the document, the individual will learn something; the problem is that when this document is page 53 of a 200 page disclosure, almost nobody reads it.
This issue was pointed out by Chief Justice Roberts when he said that he never read any of the prescription drug warnings that drug-producers have been required to provide (by courts and regulators).
This is completely pointless. They'll just add some form you have to sign before giving you service and that's about it. After all, do you read and act on the privacy notifications other providers give you? Does this at least require them to provider service irregardless of your consent to share data? If not, this is a pointless law that just makes it look like they did something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I'm also glad they specified "opt-in" consent and not "opt-out." They can't start collecting your data without your prior knowledge and authorization. This is a good thing. Next step would be to disallow hijacking and data insertion into your stream of data. It would be a step towards cementing ISPs role as a dumb carrier of data.
Does this also preclude ISPs from not allowing you access to higher tiers of service without consenting to data collection? That is that in addition to requiring an opt-in they can't incentivize it at all by giving users who don't opt-in a degraded experience.
> The Order prohibits “take-it-or-leave-it” offers, meaning that an ISP can’t refuse to serve customers who don’t consent to the use and sharing of their information for commercial purposes.
So at least they can't cut you off entirely if you don't consent/opt-in.
[0] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...
Edit: source
This is completely pointless. They'll just add some form you have to sign before giving you service and that's about it. After all, do you read and act on the privacy notifications other providers give you? Does this at least require them to provider service irregardless of your consent to share data? If not, this is a pointless law that just makes it look like they did something.
Maybe they can now regulate that ISPs can not modify IP payload? What world are we living in where the post service is allowed to rip open mail and deface it.