6 ms·

What a bunch of sell-out traitors. Is there no party that values privacy, individual liberty, or the constitution? I thought these "Senators" took an oath to

What a bunch of sell-out traitors. Is there no party that values privacy, individual liberty, or the constitution? I thought these "Senators" took an oath to protect the constitution. From the way they vote, it seems they never even read it!

rrggrr 9y ago
(1) Don't bet on many of them understanding their vote. It was billed as a removal of an unfair restraint on the free market. (2) Oddly silent were folks like Google, Microsoft, etc. I fully expect to have to pay for privacy, or to have to choose whom I trust with my data: Comcast or Google. Its a shitty time for privacy, period.
- ccrush 9y ago
  Silent to you. Their lobby speaks volumes when they pay these pricks to take away more and more privacy.
  - mattnewton 9y ago
    All that is required is that they do not spend money to match the telecom's interest here. I don't see what Google, Microsoft or Facebook have to gain from telecoms getting datasets large enough to compete with their ad buisinesses. I think they probably just figured hey had little to lose and would not fight very hard.
- brantg 9y ago
  I also don't fully understand this. Jumping in to see if someone can clarify. Here's the text of the bill (it's pretty short): https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re... It looks like all this does is undo an FCC rule from Dec 2, 2016. My understanding is that if this passes, our internet privacy will be the same as it was on Dec 1, 2016. Am I wrong? Why is this so bad?
  - dannyobrien 9y ago
    Worth reading this: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-industry-using-convince-congress-repeal-fccs-privacy-rules https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-in... -- essentially, there was a court decision that moved privacy enforcement of ISPs from the FTC to the FCC. The FCC took up the mantle with the new rule. Now Congress is undoing the FCC regulation, ISP privacy won't be governed by either the FCC or the FTC.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    Actually, privacy rules continue to be the same as before Trump (since Obama pulled the FTC's authority over broadband, anyway). No element of that rule change, implemented weeks after the election, could possibly have taken effect before next December. (There are complex notification requirements that could push parts of it out even longer).
    - brantg 9y ago
      Good point. So if this passes, nothing changes.
      - DrScump 9y ago
        If the bill becomes law, the existing Obama-era rules stay in place, but the one difference is that the limitation is encoded in statute law as opposed to just an administrative rule... so another act of Congress (another passed and signed bill) would be necessary to override it.
  - mikeyouse 9y ago
    > Am I wrong? Why is this so bad? Prior to August 2016, the FTC regulated all aspects of consumer protections. Unfortunately, the FTC has a specific call-out ceding authority to the FCC for certain parts of the regulation of 'common carriers', which ISPs fell into. AT&T sued and said that the FTC carve-out for common carriers means that the FTC can't regulate any part of their business, not even consumer protections like data privacy. In August, the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of AT&T, which meant that the FCC would have to enact new rules and would have responsibility for consumer protection with regards to common carriers. The FCC passed consumer protection rules in October (which came into force in December). The FCC has authority on rulemaking unless there's an explicit congressional action saying otherwise. So along comes the new Republican Senate and they pass this bill to nullify the FCC rules. It's written ambigiously enough that you'll likely need another act of congress to undo it, which would require a Democratic congress / senate / President. In summary: before August, the FTC protected your data. Since last winter, the FCC was protecting it. If this passes, nobody will be protecting it.
rayiner 9y ago
I think companies profiting on privacy is a bad thing, but how exactly is it unconstitutional?
- goda90 9y ago
  It should be pretty clear that privacy against government agencies is protected by the Constitution. Of course our government ignores that and tramples all over the spirit of the Bill of Rights, if not the letter. As far as corporations? Not unconstitutional, but I don't think passing laws in the interest of the People's privacy against corporations would be unconstitutional either, so if our government had our best interests in mind, then they'd pass those laws instead of repealing them.
  - gph 9y ago
    >so if our government had our best interests in mind, then they'd pass those laws instead of repealing them. That is still a debatable issue though. I completely agree with you, but there are possible world views in which one might think allowing ISPs to sell your viewing data will provide a better product to the end user. Of course this assumes trust that these corporations will act ethically with your data (i.e. anonymize the data before selling and not allowing any leaks of non-anonymised data). That's a dream world to me, but a lot of people seem to be living in dream worlds to me these days.
  - 1001101 9y ago
    Well Smith v. Maryland, Third Party Doctrine, etc. holds that a warrant is not needed if you share data willingly with a third party. In this case, you give up your reasonable expectation of privacy. So... If you're sharing with Comcast, you're sharing with Uncle Sam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
ignu 9y ago
uh, no Democrat voted for this. "The Senate" didn't vote for this. The Republicans did.
- ccrush 9y ago
  Do you have a source for this? Not arguing. Just looking for data.
  - kibwen 9y ago
    https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_... Scroll down to "Grouped by Vote Position". EDIT: Better link
  - ihattendorf 9y ago
    Roll call votes: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
  - dorolow 9y ago
    Here you go. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
  - extra88 9y ago
    Vote tallies are posted online. Here's the URL for S.J. Res. 34 [0]: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_... Grouped By Vote Position is most useful for this question, they don't offer a by-party grouping but it's pretty easy to scan all 50 YEAs and see every one is followed by an "R." All the NAYs are from Democrats or independents. Senator Isakson (R) didn't vote because he's recovering from surgery, I don't know why Rand Paul (R) didn't vote. [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...

rrggrr 9y ago

(1) Don't bet on many of them understanding their vote. It was billed as a removal of an unfair restraint on the free market. (2) Oddly silent were folks like Google, Microsoft, etc. I fully expect to have to pay for privacy, or to have to choose whom I trust with my data: Comcast or Google. Its a shitty time for privacy, period.

ccrush 9y ago
Silent to you. Their lobby speaks volumes when they pay these pricks to take away more and more privacy.
- mattnewton 9y ago
  All that is required is that they do not spend money to match the telecom's interest here. I don't see what Google, Microsoft or Facebook have to gain from telecoms getting datasets large enough to compete with their ad buisinesses. I think they probably just figured hey had little to lose and would not fight very hard.
brantg 9y ago
I also don't fully understand this. Jumping in to see if someone can clarify. Here's the text of the bill (it's pretty short): https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re... It looks like all this does is undo an FCC rule from Dec 2, 2016. My understanding is that if this passes, our internet privacy will be the same as it was on Dec 1, 2016. Am I wrong? Why is this so bad?
- dannyobrien 9y ago
  Worth reading this: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-industry-using-convince-congress-repeal-fccs-privacy-rules https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-in... -- essentially, there was a court decision that moved privacy enforcement of ISPs from the FTC to the FCC. The FCC took up the mantle with the new rule. Now Congress is undoing the FCC regulation, ISP privacy won't be governed by either the FCC or the FTC.
- DrScump 9y ago
  Actually, privacy rules continue to be the same as before Trump (since Obama pulled the FTC's authority over broadband, anyway). No element of that rule change, implemented weeks after the election, could possibly have taken effect before next December. (There are complex notification requirements that could push parts of it out even longer).
  - brantg 9y ago
    Good point. So if this passes, nothing changes.
    - DrScump 9y ago
      If the bill becomes law, the existing Obama-era rules stay in place, but the one difference is that the limitation is encoded in statute law as opposed to just an administrative rule... so another act of Congress (another passed and signed bill) would be necessary to override it.
- mikeyouse 9y ago
  > Am I wrong? Why is this so bad? Prior to August 2016, the FTC regulated all aspects of consumer protections. Unfortunately, the FTC has a specific call-out ceding authority to the FCC for certain parts of the regulation of 'common carriers', which ISPs fell into. AT&T sued and said that the FTC carve-out for common carriers means that the FTC can't regulate any part of their business, not even consumer protections like data privacy. In August, the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of AT&T, which meant that the FCC would have to enact new rules and would have responsibility for consumer protection with regards to common carriers. The FCC passed consumer protection rules in October (which came into force in December). The FCC has authority on rulemaking unless there's an explicit congressional action saying otherwise. So along comes the new Republican Senate and they pass this bill to nullify the FCC rules. It's written ambigiously enough that you'll likely need another act of congress to undo it, which would require a Democratic congress / senate / President. In summary: before August, the FTC protected your data. Since last winter, the FCC was protecting it. If this passes, nobody will be protecting it.

rayiner 9y ago

I think companies profiting on privacy is a bad thing, but how exactly is it unconstitutional?

goda90 9y ago
It should be pretty clear that privacy against government agencies is protected by the Constitution. Of course our government ignores that and tramples all over the spirit of the Bill of Rights, if not the letter. As far as corporations? Not unconstitutional, but I don't think passing laws in the interest of the People's privacy against corporations would be unconstitutional either, so if our government had our best interests in mind, then they'd pass those laws instead of repealing them.
- gph 9y ago
  >so if our government had our best interests in mind, then they'd pass those laws instead of repealing them. That is still a debatable issue though. I completely agree with you, but there are possible world views in which one might think allowing ISPs to sell your viewing data will provide a better product to the end user. Of course this assumes trust that these corporations will act ethically with your data (i.e. anonymize the data before selling and not allowing any leaks of non-anonymised data). That's a dream world to me, but a lot of people seem to be living in dream worlds to me these days.
- 1001101 9y ago
  Well Smith v. Maryland, Third Party Doctrine, etc. holds that a warrant is not needed if you share data willingly with a third party. In this case, you give up your reasonable expectation of privacy. So... If you're sharing with Comcast, you're sharing with Uncle Sam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

ignu 9y ago

uh, no Democrat voted for this. "The Senate" didn't vote for this. The Republicans did.

ccrush 9y ago
Do you have a source for this? Not arguing. Just looking for data.
- kibwen 9y ago
  https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_... Scroll down to "Grouped by Vote Position". EDIT: Better link
- ihattendorf 9y ago
  Roll call votes: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
- dorolow 9y ago
  Here you go. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
- extra88 9y ago
  Vote tallies are posted online. Here's the URL for S.J. Res. 34 [0]: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_... Grouped By Vote Position is most useful for this question, they don't offer a by-party grouping but it's pretty easy to scan all 50 YEAs and see every one is followed by an "R." All the NAYs are from Democrats or independents. Senator Isakson (R) didn't vote because he's recovering from surgery, I don't know why Rand Paul (R) didn't vote. [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...