back to article Democrats draft laws in futile attempt to protect US internet privacy

Less than a week after President Trump signed the law allowing ISPs to sell customers' browsing habits to advertisers, Democratic politicians are introducing bills to stop the practice. On Thursday, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) submitted a bill [PDF] that would enshrine the FCC privacy rules proposed during the Obama …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not quite futile

    They heard the blowback from citizens about this, so they want it on the record that republicans voted against or refused to bring to a vote a bill that would restore the internet privacy that was lost.

    No different really from house republicans voting to repeal Obamacare 50+ times (no, really!) over the last few years, because they wanted it on the record they were against it and it was the democrats who prevented the repeal. Kind of ironic they are unable to repeal it now that they have the chance, but it is easier to throw stones from a minority position than it is to lead, as the republicans are learning as the new majority party.

  2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "Information Sold for Profit"

    Nice acronym.

    Doesn't mean I like the idea any more.

  3. The_Idiot

    So...

    ... as a genuine question, but one from a non-USA-ian, how does this work under US law? Especially if it's t'internet? For example, assuming (say) New York passes its law:

    1: I'm an internet user living in New York. My ISP is also based in New York. It sells my information to a buyer in New York. Illegal? (I'm assuming that's the easy one)

    2: I'm in New York. My ISP is based in, say, Texas. They sell my information to a buyer in New York. Illegal?

    3: I'm in New York, my ISP is in Texas, the buyer is in Minnesota. Illegal?

    4: I'm _not_ in New York. My ISP isn't in New York, and neither is the buyer. But my internet traffic can be shown to relate to sites that _are_ in New York. Illegal?

    I'm not trying to be a smart-a$$. I'd genuinely like to understand. Or is it like most things under law? It depends on who has the best lawyers, and who gets to pick the judge?

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: So...

      Hopefully, they will take the sensible approach, it is where the customer lives that is the critical part.

      At least that is how it works in the EU, and why American companies whine about it as unfair and they are rules against American companies... But they are rules for all companies dealing with customers/users in the EU. It isn't something forced on American companies, it is something forced on all companies.

      One would hope that there isn't too much flouride in the senate's cups.

      1. BebopWeBop

        Re: So...

        It would seem from the present bunch, bromide would be of more use

    2. Eric Olson

      Re: So...

      Not a lawyer, but based on the typical arguments...

      Things get tough when crossing state lines are involved... however, there are ways around it.

      Most often, businesses have local affiliates in a state they do business as. These are for numerous business related reasons, but often is required for a regulatory standpoint in the state. So if Comriz & T wants to be an ISP in Minnesota, they need to be mindful of state laws. Otherwise, they will be shut down by state regulators and prevented from operating in the state. That handles 1, 2, and probably 3 in your example.

      #3 could also be handled by a state law in Minnesota that makes it illegal for companies in Minnesota to purchase aggregate or individual data from states that make collection illegal (essentially, illegal to use illegal goods). Maybe that one isn't so cut-and-dried.

      The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution typically comes into play when state laws attempt to supersede or ignore federal laws that apply to interstate commerce. So when it comes to your 4th example, the state laws would have no impact.

      #3 might also be tricky if Minnesota had a law on the books applying to MN companies and used a higher standard to determine what is "illegally collected" data, such as not even allowing opt-in data, or just a blanket prohibition on their use of such data. Those companies might be able to sue the state if they can show that they conduct interstate business or that the data was not illegal where it was collected.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So...

      I would point out that #2 and #3 don't really make much sense. Your ISP may be headquartered in Texas, but they have a physical presence in New York (all those funny cables, workmen to setup new connections and probably some shops too), which means that New York law would still apply.

      If you have a case where you live in New York, buy a service from someone in Texas and they sell your data to someone in Minnesota, then you usually have the choice of which of those three districts you want to use for the court case. All three of them should have reasonable claim to jurisdiction, you pick the one that gives you the best chance for a big payout.

  4. scrubber

    Americans don't know history

    The reason privacy was originally enshrined was because a conservative judge got embarrassed when his video store* rental list was released and it wasn't the list of a True Christian... So the Republicans made releasing such information illegal.

    * A video store was a place people went to rent** films on cassettes the size of house bricks.

    ** Renting is when you take temporary ownership*** of something from someone else for money.

    *** Ownership is when something is yours and yours alone.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Americans don't know history

      A lot of us do know the history.. and a lot of us are waiting for a bunch of Congressgritters' browsing history to come out. Life is about to get interesting in DC.

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: Americans preparing to repeat history

        This time people are making sure the repetition happens ASAP.

      2. breakfast Silver badge

        Re: Americans don't know history

        "Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it, those who do are condemned to watch everyone else repeat it."

      3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        "and a lot of us are waiting for a bunch of Congressgritters' browsing history to come out. "

        What do you mean "come out?"

        Under this plan theirs, along with the members of the FCC can simply be bought outright.*

        *Unless of course they have bought the special "discretionary" package at $99.99/ month*

        *Because privacy is important to us (that's why we're so glad you let us sell other peoples) and you to. So pay up b**ch.

  5. James 51

    It is probably a bid to influence the next election rather than get it implemented now. 'Look at this list of people who want to sell you like cattle to big corperations!' Of course lets hope that the Dems actually act on this if they win anything.

  6. unwarranted triumphalism

    The usual

    ... childish posturing from the Democrats.

    Remind me again why they lost the election.

    1. strum

      Re: The usual

      >Remind me again why they lost the election.

      Crooked electoral system?

    2. James 51
      Trollface

      Re: The usual

      Because Donald Trump is the master of childish posturing and that was what people were voting on.

    3. James 51

      Re: The usual

      I have to admit, I first read your name as unwarrented trumphallicism. Sorry about that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The usual

        Have a thumbs up for managing to get a Trump joke and a penis joke all in one word.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like