It’s 2023 And The FCC Only Just Proposed Rules Requiring Telecoms Immediately Inform Consumers When Their Data Is Compromised
from the requiring-the-bare-minimum dept
Back in 2015, the nation’s top telecom regulator attempted to create some very basic (by international standards) privacy guidelines for telecom providers, demanding they do things like (gasp) be transparent about the consumer data they were collecting and selling, while also requiring that consumers (gasp) opt in to the sale of any particularly sensitive data.
This was too egregious an ask for the “we’re very concerned about consumer privacy violations but only if TikTok is doing it” GOP, which quickly set about using the Congressional Review Act to kill the rules before they could even take effect. That decision not only killed broadband privacy rules, it limited what the FCC can and can’t do in relation to broadband consumer privacy moving forward.
But there are still some things the FCC can do. Like this week, when the agency proposed new guidelines requiring that telecom providers be faster and more transparent about reporting on data breaches (the full FCC proposal itself is here):
The new rule would eliminate the current seven-day waiting period for carriers to notify customers of a breach and require all breaches to be reported to the FCC, FBI and U.S. Secret Service. Instead, telecoms would need to report breaches to law enforcement as soon as intrusions are discovered and immediately to consumers, as well, unless otherwise advised by authorities.
Current FCC guidance gives telecoms with more than 5,000 users seven days to report privacy breaches to consumers. Companies with less than 5,000 users have 30 days before they’re obligated to even inform consumers. The updated rules also updates the definition of “breach” to include the accidental exposure of consumer data by telecoms, and not just data compromised by a hack.
That it’s 2023 and we’re only just considering rules requiring that broadband consumers be immediately and transparently informed when their private data is compromised by a third party pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the state of U.S. privacy policymaking, and the corruption and incompetence that go hand in hand in keeping it that way.
Keep in mind the FCC’s stuck in 2-2 partisan commissioner gridlock thanks to the telecom industry’s relentless smear campaign against agency nominee Gigi Sohn. That’s made it more difficult for the agency to hold them accountable for decades of location data abuse (even post-Roe), and likely means approval of even these basic rule improvements likely won’t be finalized by vote anytime soon.
This is, as they say, why we can’t have nice things.
Filed Under: adtech, breaches, consumer privacy, fcc, hacking, location data, privacy, telecom
Comments on “It’s 2023 And The FCC Only Just Proposed Rules Requiring Telecoms Immediately Inform Consumers When Their Data Is Compromised”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
TechDirt is filled with a liars and corporate assholes who support Section 230
Beware of the tech lobby group that would support Section 230 and spew misinformation about online abuse:
Beware of any information published by these organizations or individuals. Think twice. These guys have an agenda, and it’s not to keep America safe from online crimes.
Re:
Ah yes. Big Tech Conspiracy regarding Section 230.
Now I know why the store was out of aluminum foil. wjohnson343 bought all of it to increase the size of his hat collection.
Re:
Dude, we get it. You have a hateboner for Section 230 and think harassing Mike will make your wet dream come true. News flash: it won’t. Stop harassing Mike and get a life (and some psychological help, too)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Tech Dirt is full of dishonest immoral fags who support Section 230
These fags at Tech Dirt support 230 because it makes them money, they do not care about victim safety and how to help out those who have been victims of cyber crimes.
Section 230 is the most vile and immoral thing that has been passed in the USA. It is a tool for the rich to get richer while making money off of the harm caused to ordinary citizens.
Fuck Tech Dirt Fuck Section 230 Fuck Tech Entrepreneurs
Re:
And getting rid of section 230 will make it much easier for people to run scams. Are you so against it because you cannot run your favorite scam, and all those warning about your scams feel like stalking to you?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Europe doesn't have Section 230 and the internet has not "broke", you fuck
Europe doesn’t have Section 230 and the internet has not “broke”, so the fags at Tech Dirt are making shit up when they say the internet will break without Section 230. Nothing will happen, but victims will be more protected. Fuck the fags at Tech Dirt who make money off the victim’s suffering.
Re: Re: Re:
I doubt you will understand what I’m about to tell you, but one can always hope that stupid shits like you can actually learn new things.
“Europe” doesn’t have a section 230 for several reasons like not having a first amendment, but they have other laws that fulfill the same thing. Secondly, in Europe the norm is to place the blame on the guilty party – not suing the richest 3rd party available which is the norm in the US where everyone is looking for a payday.
You really like harassing and defaming people, don’t you? Why don’t you give us your real name and address so we can sue you for libel?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: No idiot, keeping Section 230 would allow it easy for cyberstalkers
No idiot, only by allowing Section 230 would you make it easier for cyberstalkers and harassers to ruin people’s lives. Get rid of Section 230 and platforms will remove content that violates TOS that much faster … and keep victims safe.
Your logic in favor of Section 230 is complete junk
Re: Re: Re:
Get rid of section 230, and you will be protected because the ability for users to post would become rare, and large part of the existing Internet would dispensary or become one way systems. Do you really want to return to a world where the only way to publish anything was to get it accepted by a gate keeper. That is a world where most creativity will remain in desk drawers and trunks in the cellar for want of a means of getting them published.
The alternative of take does on notice would also destroy the Internet, as it would allow anybody to take down anything they disagree with, and somebody disagrees with everything.
Re:
Off topic, lying spam is spam. No need to engage with this guy.
Though I do find it hilarious that the “dirt” he has on us is that our small independent operation that struggles to stay alive and has spent years talking about how to take down big corporations, is “corporate scum” and that somehow 230 “makes us richer.”
This is just disconnected from reality nonsense. Nonsense that he wouldn’t be able to post if 230 weren’t around.
Re: Re:
I love the fact that shitheads like him never realize the irony in how calling for a repeal of 230 would make them less likely to have their speech hosted by platforms like this one. If they thought they were being “censored” before, wait until they get a load of a post-230 Internet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Remember. New data networks do not have any of the “tech debt” of global networks.
Domestic infrastructure redefines ecommerce, etiquette and culture in ways that a global network cannot.
Just adding that one variable makes the future look even better. Every country will have its own set of unique networks, which accelerates the creation of Internet 2.0.
Having a choice of data networks is common sense anyways.
Re: Re: Re:
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Progress and innovation.
Whoever that 1st comment was is more than welcome to express their opinion in the 1st world. No reprecussions from any of it.
The 1st world doesn’t have to overreact to varying opinions. A simple “good for you” and the discussion moves on.
Re: Re: Re:3
good for you
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Wow. You didn’t overreact like a child!
Fake is the worst kind :p
Re: Re: Re:5
good for you
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Lol. I already laughed at your irrational outbursts.
Simon didn’t even have to say :p
Re: Re: Re:7
good for you
Re: Re: Re:7
[Projects facts contrary to evidence]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Trends are for intelligent people :p
Re: Re: Re:9
Then why aren’t you trending? 🤔
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Trend – The general movement over time of a statistically detectable change.
Context in the real world is so much better.
At least I didn’t have to say “know your place b!itch” to see you parrot only three words. Thats rude :p
Re: Re: Re:11
Good for you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Want a saltine? Or is that too racist /s
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, yes, so, let’s leave dictators and hard authcap countries alone.
That’ll show them how good being under the American umbrella is!
My country right now shills for Xi and his shitdick regime, and that’s even worse than being under the American “umbrella”.
Re: Re:
Interesting that one of his “sources” has taken money from CGTN, known to be one of the CCP’s propaganda arms, and is a member of the Federalist Society.
Very interesting indeed…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Mike Masnick is a pathetic greedy liar
Mike, you’re nothing more than a pathetic liar. It is more than well known that Section 230 harms victims of stalking, doxing, cyberharassment, swatting, and online crimes, yet you purposely spew misinformation that somehow Section 230 is a GOOD thing. It is NOT A GOOD THING, for anyone, except fat tech entrepreneurs who want to get even richer with no legal liability and who don’t want to answer to the courts for why they refuse to remove harmful content when victims often have court orders for harassment and defamation. Tech companies gamble with victim lives and take no legal responsibility, yet they make money off the revenue associated with these harmful content. You honestly don’t think your tech friends have any liability? No fucken industry on earth is free from tort liability except the stupid bloated tech industry. For years, you guys have spread lies, lobbied Congress, bribed lawmakers to not amend Section 230, to the detriment of ordinary citizens who are not protected online. Privacy invasions, cyberstalking, revenge porn, etc… are all ignored and people’s lives are ruined just because you greedy corporate pigs want to make another quick buck. People’s lives are upended like on Kiwifarms just because you greedy pigs want to make another buck at the expense of someone’s life. We see through the lobbying crap that people like Tech Dirt, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Net Choice, and so called false “professors” like Eugene Volokh, Eric Goldman are putting out there.
Note the amicus curiae brief on Gonzales v. Google – nobody supports Google! Everyone wants to see Section 230 gutted because ordinary, reasonable, sane people care about making the internet safe, NOT just maximizing greedy profits for greedy corporate assholes like you.
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you have to lie so much to get your point across?
Re: Re: Re:2
He’s just another fucker itching do get sued for libel of course – why else would he make shit up and harass people? Stupidity? Nah, no one could be that stupid, could they?
Re: Re: Re:3
You underestimate Jhon Smith.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Since the whole premise of this article is based on domestic telcom operators being compromised by offshore entities, those problems do not exist on domestic networks and would be framed according to the domestic laws if such compromises occured.
Networks work better with defined borders in the longterm.
Re:
Your asserted premise is incorrectly narrow, and your second point is simply wrong, and so is your conclusion.
Nation states are hardly the only things which exist.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The domestic part is kind of complicated, isn’t it.
This would not pertain to the US only. I can see it in several 1st world countries.
The biggest benefit is when they come together again in Internet 2.0.
Just like all good fads and hype, once one country does it, they all will. FOMO in the 21st century is serious.
Cue telecoms begging LEOs for security reasons to not disclose to their customers.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Everyone knows Section 230 harms the public
Looks like everyone is tired of this Section 230 trash and social media trash companies that make money by harming users and the public.
https://www.engadget.com/seattle-schools-sue-tik-tok-meta-and-other-platforms-over-youth-mental-health-crisis-090607723.html
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/online-harm-tech-media-regulators-wef23/
https://www.grid.news/story/technology/2023/01/09/democratic-sen-mark-warner-on-how-congress-should-deal-with-the-crypto-crash-aftermath-and-section-230/
Everyone wants Section 230 gone, except vile immoral corporate scum at Tech Dirt and other pro-tech groups who put corporate profit above public safety. Vile scum.
Re:
How’s the Paul Hansmeier fund coming along bro?