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

FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 118 posts

Re: FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data

#101

Post by DanieI »

joering2 wrote: post #57
wmf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC that's what AT&T did; I guess it was too complex to feed an opt-out blacklist to their DPI boxes. ISPs are still in denial that this data is toxic waste. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_tox... If the FCC allows ISPs to collect data as long as they swear it will never be used, the ISPs can then sell it to law enforcement with a contract that says they will also "never use it". https://www…

I don't think that would fly if they are being sued? How would LE defend money being spent on something that they cannot use? I mean any judge will see it, no?

parallel construction

Re: FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data

#103

Post by gergles »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #90
btown wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From christianmunoz's comment: Copied this from another comment of [his] on this post, but it answers part of your question. From the FCC fact sheet[0] on the decision: > 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 con…

But can they charge a lot more if you don't consent?

As AT&T already did until right before the FCC started talking about this decision (and I'm sure they'll go right back to now that it's OK), charging $30 to opt out of their spying program, plus a bevy of one-time fees that are "waived" if you let them spy.

Re: FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data

#104

Post by eonw »

shostack wrote: post #100
bitJericho wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds complex but it can be had for around 5 dollars a month and a good setup guide if you don't know Linux well.

Why do you need a good setup guide though? Is there no solution of similar efficacy that I can have my mom, who still uses AOL, install?

just google VPN providers, read the reviews though, some are much better then others.

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/ is one that i use, its decent.

Re: FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data

#105

Post by adrianratnapala »

Drakim wrote: post #92
twblalock wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interestingly there seems to be a loophole in that they can collect the data regardless of consent, but can't use or share it without consent. So chances are this sensitive data will be recorded and put in a database anyway, even if they're not lawfully allowed to look at it without anonymizing first - but a future law could also add an exception, keeping things for law enforcement for instance. I'm not all that wo…

Or it will be sold without permission in secret, and when it comes to light, the ISP will get a slap on the wrist much smaller than what they gained from selling the data.

Or simply the stakeholders in the ISP who suffer from the fine and bad publicity are not the decision makers who benefited from the sale.

Re: FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data

#107

Post by dragonwriter »

joering2 wrote: post #57
wmf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC that's what AT&T did; I guess it was too complex to feed an opt-out blacklist to their DPI boxes. ISPs are still in denial that this data is toxic waste. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_tox... If the FCC allows ISPs to collect data as long as they swear it will never be used, the ISPs can then sell it to law enforcement with a contract that says they will also "never use it". https://www…

I don't think that would fly if they are being sued? How would LE defend money being spent on something that they cannot use? I mean any judge will see it, no?

A contract violation by LE is not a constitutional violation that triggers the exclusionary rule, it's a matter between LE and the party they have a contract with. Even if enforcement of the contract happens at all, the result is likely a damage award for the breach.

Re: FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data

#108

Post by debraaa »

I really don’t know much about this scam thing and at the same time , no one wants to be on the losing side . But i just came across a good hacker who helped me hack my boyfriends text messages, whatsap, Facebook , Instagram messages remotely..You don’t have to touch his phone while you have access to his conversations through the software he bought and install remotely on my phone , i dont know how he did this but i think he's perfect at it.....contact him at hotcyberclown@gmail.com..Tell him Debra referred you, then you can thank me later. God Bless.

Re: FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data

#109

Post by GrinningFool »

revelation wrote: post #47
wmf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC has spent years fighting for net neutrality.

I'm not sure yours and their definition of net neutrality overlaps much. I personally don't think "not modifying user data" above IP is much of a net neutrality issue either; it should be a felony issue, as is tampering with mail.

That would require a legal definition of tcp traffic as federal mail. AFAIK there's no such definition.

(I agree with you, for what it's worth... I just don't see a path by which it's possible under current law)

Re: FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data

#110

Post by matthewmcg »

Spivak wrote: post #53
hackuser wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are legally empowered by elected officials, just like the police, the courts, the entire Justice Department, military, State Department, NIH, NSF, IEEE (for some things), and many, many more. What alternative is there? Our elected officials can't possibly have the time or the expertise to perform all those tasks themselves.

If Congress legally empowered an un-elected five person 'Super Congress' that wielded the power of Congress itself to make laws independently would you feel like your voice at the ballot box was being undermined? I'm not saying the US regulatory agencies are at that point, but I would feel better about them if their power was more directly checked by the Executive branch. Instead of "FCC voted today on a new ISP resu…

There's a longstanding principle in U.S. Constitutional Law called the nondelegation doctrine[1]. Congress has broad authority to grant administrative and rulemaking authority to executive branch agencies, but it can't just give them blank-check power as a mini-legislature. Instead, it has to provide an "inteligible principle" to guide agency rulemaking.

[1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._W._Hampton,_Jr.,_%26_Co._v....

Post reply on HN