FCC Signals It's No Longer Going To Nap On Broadband Privacy Issues

from the selling-everything-that-isn't-nailed-down dept

The FCC this week informed broadband ISPs that the agency is no longer going to be napping at the wheel when it comes to broadband-related privacy enforcement. In a new enforcement advisory posted to the FCC website (pdf), the FCC said that with ISPs now classified as common carriers under the new Title II based net neutrality rules, the FCC’s going to be taking a long hard look at improving broadband privacy protections. While the actual rulemaking process is still being worked on, the FCC will be leaning on Section 222 of the Communications Act, historically used to protect Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) on phone networks.

ISPs have already started complaining the FCC’s imposing draconian, ancient regulations on the modern Internet, and such rules will saddle them with all manner of new costs. Of course it should be noted that most of these privacy protections are fundamental common sense — and in some cases things most ISPs are already doing. They range from from requiring that ISPs keep private consumer data encrypted when being stored on servers, to not sharing consumer data with third parties without the explicit consent of consumers. The FCC shockingly found that absent such protections, things don’t work out well for consumers:

“The Commission has found that absent privacy protections, a broadband provider?s use of personal and proprietary information could be at odds with its customers? interests and that if consumers have concerns about the protection of their privacy, their demand for broadband may decrease.”

Of course ISPs have grown pretty comfortable with regulators that couldn’t care less about (or lacked the authority to police) broadband privacy abuses. One case in point is Verizon’s recent decision to manipulate wireless traffic to create new, undeletable super cookies. Despite the fact it took security researchers two years to find Verizon’s zombie cookie and another six months for Verizon to even seriously acknowledge a problem, the telco has historically tried to argue greater privacy protections aren’t needed for broadband and wireless because “public shame” will keep the company honest.

Many users also might recall how ISPs have long sold user clickstream data to third parties, but have historically denied that they collect any of this data whatsoever. Similarly, AT&T has been charging its gigabit fiber users a $44-$66 fee if they want to opt out of having their traffic snooped on via deep packet inspection. In both instances regulators simply couldn’t have cared less. Obviously having regulators do absolutely anything at all to protect broadband user privacy is a pretty unsettling change for a industry awash in regulatory capture.

While the FCC hasn’t yet solidified the rules for modern broadband networks, it is telling ISPs that it can reach out to the FCC if they have any questions about how the FCC intends to interpret the rules in the snoopvertising age moving forward:

“Although no broadband provider is in any way required to consult with the Enforcement Bureau, the existence of such a request for guidance will tend to show that the broadband provider is acting in good faith. The application of Section 222 offers an opportunity for broadband customers to increase their demand for broadband by knowing that their privacy is well-protected. In that goal, the Enforcement Bureau believes its interests and those of the great majority of broadband providers are firmly aligned.”

While I know there’s an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance (my own head included) forged by the idea that a government so horrible on surveillance issues could possibly do anything good on the privacy front, the FCC’s recent track record of actually giving a damn about consumer issues is encouraging. It’s as if the FCC has awoken form a long, deep slumber, and after fifteen years of being an empty-headed bobble head doll, has suddenly started caring about issues like broadband competition, massive, billion-dollar telecom industry scams and state protectionist telecom laws.

None of this is to suggest FCC over-reach on privacy is impossible, but based on Wheeler’s behaviors of late it seems likely the FCC’s just looking to impose some common sense ground rules. Still, there will certainly be no limit of handwringing among ISPs how some basic broadband privacy protections will destroy the Internet. You know, just like the net neutrality rules are obviously doing.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FCC Signals It's No Longer Going To Nap On Broadband Privacy Issues”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
17 Comments
Gwiz says:

"not sharing consumer data with third parties without the explicit consent of consumers"

Would kill Google! Now, I don’t say this will nor that the FCC has that in its scope, only that the principle in a pro-consumer regulatory milieu would logically also apply to Google, and would sink its “business model” based on unlimited spying and tracking for individually targeted advertising. Otherwise it has no advantage over prior mass advertising.

That “without the explicit consent” is all that lets Google operate by gathering data from nearly every web-site without any notice at all. No one by any known way except staying entirely off the internet can avoid ALL of Google’s spying and tracking: most don’t know how deep it goes — and those who get money from Google believe that its good.

Techdirt’s views aren’t uniformly anti-corporate and pro-consumer: they won’t call for any pro-consumer “neutrality” to be applied to Google.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "not sharing consumer data with third parties without the explicit consent of consumers"

You’re mistaken about Google’s practices, as many of the Google data tracking criticisms are. Google doesn’t share your individual, identified data with third parties. Google keeps that data in house and uses it to match up your data with ads that will likely be topical for you. Everyone keeps saying that Google is sharing data, but no one ever provides evidence for this claim.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: "not sharing consumer data with third parties without the explicit consent of consumers"

Right, Google doesn’t “share” date, it sells it!

How I hate that contemptible “share” when it’s a commercial transaction that the public has a right to regulate so much as we like.

No, I demand that YOU prove your claims. Google is only entity that can prove itself innocent, but should be assumed guilty just from known abilities. To say the least, it’s an interested and therefore unreliable witness.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: "not sharing consumer data with third parties without the explicit consent of consumers"

Right, Google doesn’t “share” date, it sells it!

How I hate that contemptible “share” when it’s a commercial transaction that the public has a right to regulate so much as we like.

No, I demand that YOU prove your claims. Google is only entity that can prove itself innocent, but should be assumed guilty just from known abilities. To say the least, it’s an interested and therefore unreliable witness.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: "not sharing consumer data with third parties without the explicit consent of consumers"

No, Gwiz and you are making the accusation that Google provides identifiable information to third parties as a part of their ad business. They don’t. They don’t sell it. They don’t share it. They don’t provide it. Since you’re asserting that they do, you need to provide proof that they do.

Since you’re apparently Googlephobic, I’ll provide a Yahoo! search for you to start with:

https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=how+do+google+ads+work

Or how about Bing?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=does+google+sell+personal+information

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: "not sharing consumer data with third parties without the explicit consent of consumers"

Please, explain if you will how Google, which is a search/advertising company, falls under the same rules being imposed on ISP’s. Now, Google Fiber would fall under the rules, sure, but the majority of Google’s services would not.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
05:26 Big Telecom Again Takes Net Neutrality To Court, But Faces Long Odds (9)
05:28 Final FCC Net Neutrality Rules Address 'Fast Lane' Loophole That Worried Critics (8)
10:45 Net Neutrality Is Back! For Now. (32)
05:25 Biden's New Net Neutrality Rules Don't Prevent Anti-Competitive "Fast Lanes" (52)
05:24 New Net Neutrality Rules Won't Harm Telecom Giants In The Slightest (13)
05:28 FCC Prepares To Restore Net Neutrality, But The New Rules Might Be Weaker Than The Ones Discarded By Trump (15)
05:21 The Net Neutrality Fight Will Soon Return, And The Bickering Will Be As Stupid As Ever (119)
05:25 Netflix Suddenly Cares About Net Neutrality Again After Comcast's Peacock NFL Success (9)
05:27 Big Telecom Allied GOP Lawmakers Pretend New FCC Net Neutrality Push Is 'Unlawful' (17)
05:20 Trump FCC Pick Nathan Simington Wants You To Think Net Neutrality Is A Secret Cabal By Big Tech To 'Censor Conservatives' (62)
05:26 Bloomberg Lazily Helps Telecom Lobby Seed The Press With Bullshit Claims About Net Neutrality (14)
15:58 Biden FCC Prepares To 'Restore Net Neutrality,' But The Details Will Matter (13)
05:23 Net Neutrality's Dead: Time To Focus On The Real Issue: Telecom Monopolization (25)
05:38 Ready Or Not, Here Comes Net Neutrality War 2.0 (8)
10:44 UK Eyes Scaling Back Net Neutrality Rules For No Coherent Reason (16)
06:33 Telecom Lobbyists At WISPA, NCTA Throw Hissy Fit Over Doomed Net Neutrality Bill (6)
05:32 Democrats "Strategically" Push Net Neutrality Bill That Won't Pass And Won't Be Noticed In The Summer Heat (19)
05:21 Democrats Hope To Gotcha The GOP With Doomed New Net Neutrality Bill (43)
05:30 Survey Shows Majority Of GOP Voters Support Restoring Net Neutrality (31)
06:25 Big Telecom Finally Ends Quest To Stop States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (35)
05:56 Big Telecom's Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers Continues To Go... Poorly (13)
12:15 Courts (Again) Shoot Down Telecom Lobby's Attempt To Kill State-Level Net Neutrality Rules (5)
04:48 Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered (23)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
More arrow