Posted on 03/23/2017 3:03:24 PM PDT by LouieFisk
If passed by the House and signed by President Trump, the bill would use an obscure law called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to eliminate the rules before they go into effect. The CRA would also prevent the FCC from passing “substantially similar” regulations in the future, though no court has ruled on what agencies can pass under those standards.
Critics of the privacy regulations say they are too onerous, and subject service providers to stricter regulations than websites such as Facebook and Google, which also collect consumer data.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
If they’re using CRA....I think that means Obama signed it real, real recently.
“If they’re using CRA....I think that means Obama signed it real, real recently.’
==
Any rule/regulation that keeps user’s data private is a good regulation in my book, no matter which admin initiates it.
Absolutely. What is wrong with the turtles in the Senate? It should be a no brainer:
"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>>>Any rule/regulation that keeps user’s data private is a good regulation in my book, no matter which admin initiates it.
Shouldn’t this be negotiation between the service provider and the consumer. Why involve the federal government?
No, not necessarily, the agency must send a report on the regulation to Congress. If no such report was sent by Obama’s lazy administration, then all the Trump Administration has to do is send the report! The law has expedited processing in the Senate built into it. How cool is that?
“Shouldn’t this be negotiation between the service provider and the consumer. Why involve the federal government?”
==
That’s the problem in undoing the regulation, since it gives the consumer the right to opt out of having their private info given away or sold. With the Senate vote, consumers would have no such option. This needs to be voted down in the House or vetoed by Trump.
“Absolutely. What is wrong with the turtles in the Senate? It should be a no brainer.”
==
Since there’s money to be made in selling private info, I’d suspect you’d have to see who is contributing to and lobbying said turtles. As always, it’s “follow the money”.
In theory maybe so. But have you ever received the the privacy disclaimers tract sent to you by a credit card company or service provider or anyone else for that matter. It's several pages of tiny print, written in legalese, meant to confound and confuse. It is a document that properly requires a lawyer to interpret.
As much the McMuffin libertarians would like it, in no way should private enterprise should not be allowed to do an end run around the Fourth Amendment, just because … well … just because it's private enterprise and the god of libertarianism decreed it.
You'll need to pass a law for that purpose, not let the FCC run amock. Even better, eliminate the FCC.
The 4th amendment doesn’t give you free stuff. If you don’t like the cable company collecting the info, then don’t buy cable service.
“You’ll need to pass a law for that purpose”
==
I don’t get what you’re trying to say - companies can ignore an FCC regulation?
FCC has been out of control for decades. They need to enforce property rights (e.g. spectrum ownership) and that’s it. Everything else they do creates middle class entitlements at the expense of the economy.
>>>should not be allowed to do an end run around the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment is only a restriction on government action, not that of private parties.
Congress can pass a law requiring opt-in for participation. Right now most providers offer opt-out, only takes a little personal effort to protect your privacy.
I wouldn’t feel overly confident in the measures you’ve taken. If there’s one thing we’ve learned in recent years it’s that it’s not all that hard for people to get through even the best security measures. (Or Wikileaks would be outta business).
But, more to the meat of the matter, this is about people’s privacy. They should have no need to jump through hoops in wild hope of avoiding not having their privacy and personal info made public by an entity to which they’re paying money. Unless the company is a PR firm (and an awful one at that).
We don’t give the USPS the right to make copies of all our incoming and outgoing mail to sell on the street corner. This is just basic common sense. If anything, in an age when attacks on personal privacy are commonplace the goal should be to limit such attacks in any form, not aid and abet them.
But, more to the meat of the matter, this is about people’s privacy. They should have no need to jump through hoops
No, these are not hoops. IMAP/SSL was the default setting. The reason you need to do those things is not because the Feds are going to stop your cable company from spying on you, but because it's the right thing to do for your own security. It prevents wikileaks types of things.
We don’t give the USPS the right to make copies of all our incoming and outgoing mail to sell on the street corner.
And they can't if it is in a sealed envelope. The cable companies cannot decrypt your traffic to your email provider. Granted if you use them for your email provider (which is stupid because it locks you in) then they can read your email. Google can and does read your email. If you don't like that, choose a provider who won''t.
I suspect we won’t agree on this. Your thinking seems to be the default situation should be a consumer paying an ISP should be in the position where he has play defense against the entity to which he’s giving his money. To me that’s bass-ackwards - and bad business policy,to boot.
Then there’s a whole ‘nother animal involving ownership legalities, copyright law and last - but certainly not least - consumers providing content without compensation from the companies that use it. As I sez, that’s going off into another, but related, area where lawyers could probably make a killing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.