5 things to know about Congress' rejection of FCC privacy rules

[humble3d]

5 things to know about Congress' rejection of FCC privacy rules

The House on Tuesday voted to block implementation of new online privacy rules rushed through the FCC in the final days of former chairman Tom Wheeler's tenure.

In a vacuum of information, this sent pockets of the internet into a panic. But consumers wake up today to the same online world and digital protections they enjoyed one week ago.

Here are five reasons why:

    Your most sensitive data—financial, Social Security, about your kids—remains fully protected. There are strict and enforceable protections under existing law safeguarding consumers' most sensitive information.

These remain wholly in force.

For example, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule has been in place since the days of dial-up.

 

    No one is buying anyone's individual browser history and putting it online. Step away from the Kickstarter campaigns. Such activity remains patently illegal.

 

    Your browser history is already being aggregated and sold to advertising networks—by virtually every site you visit on the internet.

Consumers' browsing history is bought and sold across massive online advertising networks every day.

This is the reason so many popular online destinations and services are "free."

 

And, it's why the ads you see on your favorite sites—large and small—always seem so relevant to what you've recently been shopping for online. Of note, internet service providers are relative bit players in the $83 billion digital ad market, which made singling them out for heavier regulations so suspect.

 

    Consumers expect and deserve one standard for online privacy. According to a national survey conducted last May by Public Opinion Strategies, 94% of consumers believe all companies should be held to the same online privacy rules —whether it's Apple, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Facebook, T-Mobile, Google or Twitter. Congress agreed.

 

    This action makes way for a unified approach.

The Federal Trade Commission has long been the cop on the beat protecting consumers' online privacy. This includes bringing more than 150 privacy and data security enforcement actions against not only ISPs but other major players in online search, content and e-commerce.

Two years ago, the FCC stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers and began down this bifurcated path. Fortunately, in advance of Congress' vote, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and FTC Chair Maureen Ohlhausen rejected this approach and jointly expressed their support for "a comprehensive and consistent framework."

 

Congress did not vote down consumer privacy protections.

It simply rejected an attempt to create a disjointed, separate and unequal regulatory regime. Lawmakers were right to take this stand for better public policy, and consumers are better off for it.

 

 

https://www.axios.com/toshiba-gets-18-billion-bid-for-chips-biz-2338151127.html

 

[Bausch]

ISPs have way more data to sell than sites you visit. Besides, unlike free internet sites, ISPs are already getting paid for the service they provide.

 

As a matter of personal preference, I find those kinds of ads so creepy and stalky, leaves me with a bad feeling about the product and/or brand, but that could just be me.

[banned]

Just because we have no privacy on the internet doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about our privacy. If internet companies are getting rich off of you, that's because you allowed it to happen. If you're not concerned about companies getting rich off your data while you struggle to pay the bills, you are just contributing to the problem. Thanks a lot for that.

[steven36]

32 minutes ago, banned said:

Just because we have no privacy on the internet doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about our privacy. If internet companies are getting rich off of you, that's because you allowed it to happen. If you're not concerned about companies getting rich off your data while you struggle to pay the bills, you are just contributing to the problem. Thanks a lot for that.

You're about 21 years too late too care now , ISP  and other businesses  designed  it  to make them money and to get  them rich and not to respect you're privacy  .

http://www.ib.hu-berlin.de/~wumsta/pub95.html

Ads are nothing new but people starting  too care about  a privacy they never had because they always have spied on you is kind of new but there still much more who dont care than do. If the internet didn't  have ads and data harvesting they would hardly be any free sites and services  everything would be wall to wall paywalls and private paid sites. I doubt it would existed  for the public like it do today they  commercialized the internet in 1995 and spyware was worse before than it is today.

 

Quote

 

A Brief History of Spyware  July 16, 2007

 

Spyware” has evolved in the cyber era as the most dangerous, damaging and menacing technological appliance in current history. It is no aggravation of statement that if you are linked to the Internet, there’s every chance of being affected by this nuisance. So, it is a good time for us to possess a peripheral view about “spyware”.

 

It was on 16th October 1996, when the word “spyware” was used in the public for the first time. It appeared on the Usenet. Basically it was on an article sarcastically aimed at the business strategies of the global leader Microsoft. Later still, around about the year 1999, its usage was synonymous to spy equipment like microphone bugs or miniature cameras. Later that year in a press release of Zone Alarm Personal Firewall by the Zone Labs Company it was used in the meaning we know it today.

 

The word “spyware” was an instant hit in the mass media and among the general mass and soon after in June 2000, the first anti-spyware application OptOut was released by Steve Gibson. Gibson planned to market its OptOut for a very competitive price but they faced tough competition from Lavasoft, around the middle of 2000 with their free anti-spyware software version 1.0 offered absolutely for free. Lavasoft’s application was more competent as a spyware removal component and already was performing multi-tasking applications. As a result Gibson had to abscent himself from the race leaving their OptOut with no more development. Nevertheless, OptOut could be termed as the pioneer of anti-spyware applications.

 

It must be stated that the term “spyware” yields a bit of confusion. Though the word renders a notion of information being send back to certain individuals, not all spyware applications may perform this job. Many computer personnel dealing with data security management prefer the word “malware” in place of “spyware” as it indicates a software that is particularly detrimental to the computer system. Another word “adware” is also popular to specify software applications like keyloggers and Trojans, which are nothing but “spyware” in usage.

According to a once celebrated cyber report, an explicit spyware application was put forward to numerous internet users under the covering of a free, exceedingly user friendly and a mass alluring game software named “Elf Bowling”. This occurrence took place in around the 1999s. At present, and in general, the Windows operating system is the more favorable target of the spyware applications.

A few of the most iniquitous spyware programming are Xupiter, Gator, XXXDial, DirectRevenue, Euniverse, CoolWebSearch, 180 Solutions, Bonzi Buddy and Cydoor. One thing is to be noted. All these applications attack only Microsoft Windows operating systems. Platforms like Linux and Mac OS X are never ever reported to be affected in anyway by these spyware applications.

 

In October 2004, America Online and the National Cyber-Security Alliance performed a survey. The result was startling. About 80% of all internet users have their system affected by spyware and about 93% of spyware components are present in each of the computers and 89% of the computer users were unaware of their existence. Out of the affected parties almost all, about 95% confessed that they never granted permission to install them.

 

Legally speaking, spyware cannot be entitled as a virus as it never replicates itself. As a result it remains undetected when anti-virus applications are used. What’s more, you actually agree to be spied upon while you click the ‘I agree’ button on the screen while you install software which contains spyware files (often bundled in). Unfortunately, people rarely read end user licence agreements while downloading and, if they were to read them, the documents are written in legalize. People never refer to a lawyer while doing such things as downloading or installing.

 

To safely enumerate what spyware actually is, we can easily quote what Dick Hazeleger, famous for his “Spyware List”, said, “Spyware is the name which was given to software that – without the user of the program knowing that the software performs this kind of action – traces the user’s usage of the internet and sends this information – again without the user knowing this is happening – to a computer (“Server”) designated by the developer of the Spyware software. By performing these actions, detailed user profiles may be collected – without the user’s knowledge and approval – which then can be used for commercial or other purposes. By gathering and sending this information both resources on the user’s computer as well as bandwidth on the Internet is abusively used, not to mention the breach of privacy such a User profile would be.”

 

The state of Utah has already gone a step ahead of others and announced that several tasks performed by spyware would be strictly proscribed. Even the US Congress is preparing to follow the same line of operation. House Resolution 2929–the Spy Act has been prepared to control this menace.

 

This is what Utah’s antispyware law, the Spyware Control Act, has to say, “… we would not consider any application that uses pop-ups, is distributed through file sharing such as Kazaa or is not removable. Beyond that, we would look for applications that provide consumers value and would be installed on their own if people knew about them. The aggressive tactics of some advertising-supported software has given the whole sector a bad name. But if the software is fully disclosed and doesn’t rely on intrusive methods such as pop-ups, the consumer should have a choice to view ads in return for software. What’s more, the developer should have a right to make money. Beyond these guidelines, the legal risks and moral problems become clear, and legitimate businesses should stay away from these practices.”

 

At present Microsoft can champion about its anti spyware application release and it is mandatory for the software developers to be certified by the International Charter as Spyware Free.

 

http://www.sitepronews.com/2007/07/16/a-brief-history-of-spyware/

Back when this was written was when Microsoft bought giant anti-spyware and turned into Windows Defender  
 

[banned]

1 hour ago, steven36 said:

You're about 21 years too late too care now

 

hence the sarcastic "thanks" at the end there.

[steven36]

1 hour ago, banned said:

 

hence the sarcastic "thanks" at the end there.

Well its true  AOL and other ISPs h ave been spying on people pcs since the dial up days

 

AOL's Forced Installation of Viewpoint Spyware CAN Be Prevented  March 07, 2006

http://edeldoug.blogs.com/thoughts_rants_raves_and_/2006/03/aols_forced_ins.html

Its a privacy we never had and also the Fccs plain had a loop hole in it were would  of allowed them  force you  too let them harvest you're data anyways trough toss, you never can trust government with privacy.

 

They are just a bunch of wolves in sheep's clothing  that just want too make laws to control the internet. Just like people in the EU thought there government cared about there privacy. .Only time they care if someone not in the EU is invading it . But its OK for them to too put backdoors in software to spy on there own people The people in the EU need not worry about the US spying on them,  because in the end its going be there own Government that's going too become big bother.

 

If the Government,  can gain the peoples trust  and give them false hope,  they have already won the battle and will turn right around and stab them in the back, with more laws too control the internet  The internet has always been like the wild west if you allow them too start making rules for the good then  you give them the power to make rules for the bad.