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

Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 233 posts

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#81

Post by JohnFen »

marmada wrote: post #45
inetknght wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your consent should be considered an outlier and should not be used to hinder my lack thereof.

I don't think their consent is an outlier. Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I mean I use Gmail, Google Search, Google Maps, etc. etc. knowing they hoover up my data because, in the end, I value the ability to have these services for free more than I care about Google's ability to collect useful statistics about me/its users.

> Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services.

I'm far from convinced that this is true. Most users don't actually know the extent to which their data is being collected. I suspect that a large percentage of people, if they were informed (and believed it), would object mightily.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#82

Post by noxToken »

umvi wrote: post #71

Is this personally identifiable? I don't see any issue with collecting and selling anonymized observations. It would be like police setting up cameras and using them to train a machine learning model on drunk driver detection. It's not collecting who is driving, just observing how normal cars subtly drift in and out of a lane and brake vs. intoxicated drifting/braking and using that to train a DUI detection model.

The true test is if the anonymized data can be filtered and cross-referenced in a way to still link back to people[0].

[0]:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-privacy/anonymous-...

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#83

Post by johndubchak »

khawkins wrote: post #60
malloreon wrote: post #35

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…

I'm not certain why this viewpoint, a completely valid one, was down-voted. This is simply the other side of the argument.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#84

Post by JohnFen »

khawkins wrote: post #60
malloreon wrote: post #35

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…

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 wouldn't have an issue.

> What's really great is that it can really help small businesses and startups over large corporations.

No, that's not really great. I'm all for helping small businesses, but not by allowing them to abuse me.

> I can understand the need for treating data carefully and making sure the data is sufficiently scrubbed for personal identification

That's important too, but it doesn't address the issue of consent.

If data is being collected about me or my use of my machines without my informed consent, that's spying, period. I will treat anybody doing that as the attackers that they are.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#85

Post by JohnFen »

rapind wrote: post #63
khawkins wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because it's rife with bad actors due to a lack of regulation. And even the good actors are kind of forced to be bad actors in order to compete. Lacking better regulation it's just a horrible business model for consumers, with really no exceptions since anyone who plays nice will ultimately lose out to less scrupulous players.

> And even the good actors

This sounds like snark, but I don't intend it that way. I genuinely want to know.

Who are the good actors? I really can't see any.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#87

Post by Dig1t »

idlewords wrote: post #80
JohnFen wrote: post #78

Hmmm... This might make it worth having me park a server in the state and get my internet feed through a VPN to that server.

There's a lot of reliability problems with Maine internet because lobsters keep snipping the cable.

I don't know what this site has against jokes, but you can have my upvote.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#88

Post by JohnFen »

Buttons840 wrote: post #51
orblivion wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Which isn't necessarily bad One positive is that it changes the criteria of success in the market from "who can provide quality internet at a low price, and mine and sell the most data" to simply "who can provide quality internet at the lowest price". When new companies enter the internet market (if such a thing still happens?) they will be asking "how can we provide good internet?" instead of "how can we mine more…

> One positive is that it changes the criteria of success in the market from "who can provide quality internet at a low price,

Since only one ISP is available in my (and many other's) area, there is no pressure to provide quality internet at a low price at all.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#89

Post by sbov »

inetknght wrote: post #48
marmada wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think their consent is an outlier. Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I mean I use Gmail, Google Search, Google Maps, etc. etc. knowing they hoover up my data because, in the end, I value the ability to have these services for free more than I care about Google's ability to collect useful statistics about me/its users.

> Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I think you're incorrect. I think most users recognize that they usually don't have a choice: they don't have money to provide for services that they need, so they are _forced_ to use services that are cheaper or free. And I think most users feel helpless to do anything about it because most politicians actively ignore them (because t…

There's plenty of similarly priced alternatives out there that aren't as abusive as the big ad companies.

The problem isn't just that poor people are money poor. It's that they're also time poor. They're too busy making ends meet to care about this stuff. That Google collects so much of their data would probably not even be on their list of things to care about.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#90

Post by JohnFen »

erentz wrote: post #8
samayylmao wrote: post #2

I live there and I am proud our lawmakers took this seriously. It seems too common for lawmakers to not understand the ramifications of what was at stake.

There was a campaign by the Maine Chamber of Commerce running against it on the grounds that the privacy protections didn't go far enough. They only applied to ISPs (carriers) not to companies higher in the stack (Facebook, etc.). [1] I couldn't quite work out of this campaign was done out of legitimate concern or was a cynical attempt to derail it? I mean, I agree with them that privacy legislation should apply broa…

> I couldn't quite work out of this campaign was done out of legitimate concern or was a cynical attempt to derail it?

I would bet on "cynical attempt to derail it", since it conflates two things that are not remotely comparable: providing internet service itself and providing a service that uses the internet.

Post reply on HN