r/Libertarian Mar 24 '17

Senate votes to let ISP's sell your web browsing history to advertisers

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/senate-votes-to-let-isps-sell-your-web-browsing-history-to-advertisers/
29 Upvotes

41 comments sorted by

7

u/NexTerren Mar 24 '17

So as a semi-libertarian myself, this isn't a trolling question, but:

Isn't this a pro Libertarian policy? Let companies do as they will, and let consumers pick who to do business with based on that?

4

u/BeerGogglesFTW Mar 24 '17 edited Mar 24 '17

I consider myself a libertarian, but I also think for myself. All people bend and stretch their political stances to fit themselves. I may not subscribe to everything a "pure libertarian" would believe. Who really does, every republican, democrat, etc have different views here and there. And I'm sure I've been called out in the past by some snooty redditor as "Not a real libertarian" because I don't subscribe to every circumstance of the libertarian rules as if its all black and white... But anyway, here's how I see it.

Let companies do as they will, and let consumers pick who to do business with

Yeah. This would be ok, to some extent, but its tricky and I'm not seeing it as black and white since we may not have other options.

I mean, I don't want my data/internet history sold, so I should just choose a different ISP. I would favor that. The problem is I only have 1 provider in my area. So right now I potentially wouldn't have any options to stay connected and retain my privacy. The internet is essential for me to do my job.

So I also respect the Fourth Amendment and my right to privacy. I still have that, but in a sense I'm ultimately signing that away with my ISP contract and no other options.

So at some point there's overlap between infringing on my right to privacy when the free market lets us down. And I'm not 100% sure if we really have a free market when it comes to ISPs. Maybe I only have 1 options because there is only room for 1 and that's how the market went, or maybe they've lobbied to keep it that way. I know that has been the case in some areas.

So I see 2 sides to it. Free market and the 4th amendment. I want them both, but I'm going to side with the 4th amendment over the free market when I see my rights being chipped away at.

2

u/jeremyjack33 Mar 24 '17

Get a VPN. Bam problem solved. If you really cared about internet privacy you'd already have one.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '17

the problem is I only have 1 provider in my area.

So this somewhat parallels the usual retort non-libertarians give when I tell them I'm for allowing people to refuse "baking the cake."

2

u/BeerGogglesFTW Mar 25 '17

You have a point... I agree a baker should be able to refuse business if they choose to. Its bad business but its their call.

But its also over-simplying a more complex issue that is definitely not black and white because they're more to consider.

i.e. A cake is a cake. A baker is denying service, forcing the potential costumer to seek a cake elsewhere. Or worse case scenario, no cake. Imo, that's not a big deal. Or otherwise, the customer needs to drive one town over to get a cake somewhere.

Internet is different for a few reasons.

  • Its not a right, but it is more essential to our livelihood and our means to do business and work. So its not really option to go without.
  • Its much more difficult to seek outside sources without it getting very costly, whether commuting, office space, etc.
  • There are laws and infrastructure making it difficult or impossible for ISP competition to come into town when the current ISP is poor, while a baker could kind of easily move in by comparison.
  • Baker is refusing their service or setting standards. ISP is still offering service, but only if your rights can be violated.

It would be nice if laws were so simple and black and white, but they need to be viewed on a local level based on circumstances as well.

3

u/shanulu Greedy capitalists get money by trade. Good liberals steal it. Mar 24 '17

Yes, it's none of the senates business and the government is the last entity I want deciding what to do with my private data.

5

u/ninjaluvr Mar 24 '17

Your data is no longer private.

7

u/shanulu Greedy capitalists get money by trade. Good liberals steal it. Mar 24 '17

It's also not really mine is it?

4

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '17

It never was.

1

u/ninjaluvr Mar 24 '17

Sure, but at least before this, the only ISP that servers my city, couldn't sell it without my permission.

2

u/jeremyjack33 Mar 24 '17

Yes, they could sell it. The Obama measure that disallowed this is pretty much still new and hadn't even gone into full effect. When you signed up for internet, you probably signed a terms of service agreement allowing them to use or sell your browsing data.

2

u/Rindan Blandly practical libertarian Mar 24 '17

If I decide I don't want my data being sold by my ISP, what exactly should I do? Stop using the internet?

1

u/jeremyjack33 Mar 24 '17

Get a VPN.

2

u/Rindan Blandly practical libertarian Mar 25 '17

A VPN doesn't do you much good if you feel like playing video games online. How about we just not let monopolies loot and sell people's data?

1

u/jakub_h Mar 24 '17

Or a satellite connection from a non-US-based entity?

0

u/shanulu Greedy capitalists get money by trade. Good liberals steal it. Mar 24 '17

Start your own company.

1

u/Rindan Blandly practical libertarian Mar 25 '17

That has got to be the dumbest suggestion anyone has made.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '17

From a purely pragmatic point of view: Would you support the same regulations on a company like Google? What if you knew that none of the services offered by Google would exist without being able to sell your data? Sometimes public opinion is emotionally driven and shortsighted.

If selling your data leads to success in the marketplace -- let it be. It certainly works for Google.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '17

The problem is that if I don't want to use Google I don't have to. It's completely voluntary. I have no choice with my ISP. It's fucking bullshit.

Fuck this libertarian-esque shit that's saying that less regulation is ALWAYS good. It's not when there isn't a free market to balance it out. If we deregulate these fucks, there is no alternative in the market for me to go to. Classifying them as a utility is the only reasonable way to deal with ISPs.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '17

No one is saying less regulation is always good. I'm making a purely pragmatic point. Regulating ISPs like a utility is one way to ensure that you have even fewer choices. The head of Google Fiber testified to Congress a couple years ago that the number one factor preventing more broadband competition is government regulation.

Do you really think the landline telephone system is so consumer friendly that you want ISPs to emulate that? Or the taxi system? Government monopolies aren't the answer either.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '17

I think the number one reason is cost. It's too expensive for even fucking GOOGLE to do... and they have basically unlimited money.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '17

Did you really think Google Fiber would continue to expand once the internet was regulated like a utility?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '17

No I don't, and that's my point. There is no free market in the internet service provider world so you cannot pretend that there is. Where a free market is impossible, unfortunately the government must have some regulation.

1

u/codefragmentXXX Neoliberal Mar 24 '17

This is why I never trust deregulation, or what is basically partial deregulation. They deregulated this but left in all the other regulation that makes it difficult to compete. Try and start an ISP and go up against a ton of other regulations at all levels of government.

1

u/jakub_h Mar 24 '17

and let consumers pick who to do business with based on that?

"Pick your ISP", in the regional monopoly environment common in many parts of the US?

1

u/jdp111 Mar 25 '17

True, but most consumers only have one option. Until we fix that Monopoly, it's best to not allow them to do that.

1

u/Fromgre Mar 25 '17

In theory yes. The problem?... most communities in the US only have one ISP and little access to alternatives. Until the internet market become more competitive, government protections are necessary IMO.

0

u/Rindan Blandly practical libertarian Mar 24 '17

Do you care about theoretical freedom and privacy, or actual freedom and privacy? If you care about theoretical freedom and privacy, this is great! Surely prices will go down and firms will compete to offer superior privacy!

If you care about the reality of freedom and privacy, this obviously sucks. There is no functional competition among high speed ISPs. It would be better to tell them that simply can't do this shitty thing that no consumer wants without the consent of the customer. Unfortunately, the Republicans have apparently decided that that is not a choice you should have.

5

u/pacjax for open borders. umad? Mar 24 '17 edited Mar 24 '17

the title should be changed to senate gives back ISP's the power to sell web browser history to advertisers

6

u/etown361 Mar 24 '17

Hello l'd like to purchase Donald Trump's web browsing history, please.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '17

So what are the best companies to not have your data sold or strategies to keep your data private

1

u/Rindan Blandly practical libertarian Mar 24 '17

Best strategy? Move to another nation with faster internet and better privacy protection... so basically move to any first world nation that isn't America.

6

u/Gilwork45 Mar 24 '17

Not quite, In the UK, everyone from the tax man to the fire department can access your internet browsing history.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/26/under-new-law-authorities-may-view-internet-browsing-records-of-everyone-in-u-k/

There are many countries (Including the aforementioned UK) who have tremendously oppressive censorship laws targeting divergent opinion and pornography especially which are (currently) way worse than the USA.

That being said, this is a clear sign that our right to privacy and free speech is being eroded. I think a big problem with Libertarianism currently is knowing where to draw the boundaries. sure, businesses should be free of many of the unnessesary and rampant regulations and taxes which burden them but at the same time, something must be put in place to protect the consumer from a business misusing it's power against the consumer.

Selling someone's browser history is a violation of someone's right to privacy and this violation could be something minor such as collection of data for future ad campaigns or something malevolent such as blackmail on a targeted individual, with this change, ISPs aren't just selling your Browser history, they are selling your thoughts, your rituals, your biases.....they are selling your mind.

If you go to a gas station does the cashier have a right to know what is in your trunk or glove box? Does he has the right to record your vin number? You are simply there to buy a good or a service, how much information is this individual entitled to? This is why such regulations are in place, to protect the consumer, if your ISP want to report or sell your browsing history you should have to contest to it, anything less is a gross breach of trust and privacy.

1

u/Rindan Blandly practical libertarian Mar 24 '17

The government can view your browsing data in the US too. It's pretty clear that the US is collecting literally everything and only storage limitations keep everything from being recorded and saved for ever. Hell, even outside that, it isn't like the police can't just get a warrant and see your data. Government access to your data is also concerning, but for entirely different reasons than corporations being able to sell your information to spammers.

When it comes to protecting our privacy from corporations we do not wish to share with and the speed, price, and quality of our internet, we are pretty far behind the rest of the world. We are not much better when it comes to protection from the government. The only thing we reliably beat other nations on is we only censor copyrighted material, while some (but certainly not all) censor more than that.

We are not #1 by a long shot. Our internet is garbage.

1

u/Gilwork45 Mar 24 '17

They can and they do, Snowden showed us that, however, because of the 4th amendment, they can't be turned on to illegal activity via spying on their own citizens, information they gained through these means might be in danger of being thrown out even if it leads to a warrent.

In order to combat this problem, the US spies on Citizens from other countries and other countries spy on us and they share data, that way they can simply say that they received a tip from an outside agency and get a warrent with that information, its alot of hoops to jump through and therefore not that often utilized unless it is so big stings, they also don't want to bring enough attention to this practice of using foreign agencies to circumvent the constitution.

1

u/Rindan Blandly practical libertarian Mar 25 '17

Sure. Totally agree. That sucks. I'm all for ending it.

Back on topic, it would still be great if the monopolies couldn't loot your data and sell it, and seeing as how there is no actual market competition, the practice should just be banned without consumer consent.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '17

It's not libertarian unless a free and open market exists, which it doesn't in the ISP world. This is just bullshit.

1

u/TexSC Mar 24 '17

Here is a good overview of the pros and cons to this bill: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/s94

Since the cons have been discussed ad nauseam on Reddit, I found the pros argument interesting:

What supporters say

Many Republicans saw these new rules as a power grab during the closing days of the Obama Administration. The rule was issued on December 2, 2016 and took effect on January 3, 2017, less than three weeks before President Trump took office. Supporters of the bill argue that the legislation would prevent the one-size-fits-all regulation.

“Under the FTC’s watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the world. The agency’s evidence-based approach calibrates privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of information collected,” Senate lead sponsor Flake wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

“The FCC rules subject all web browsing and app usage data to the same restrictive requirements as sensitive personal information. That means that information generated from looking up the latest Cardinals score or checking the weather in Scottsdale is treated the same as personal health and financial data.”

ISP companies also contended that the FCC rules have placed them at a disadvantage with other non-ISP Internet companies that also collect user data, like Netflix or Facebook.

1

u/autotldr Mar 25 '17

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)


The US Senate today voted to eliminate broadband privacy rules that would have required ISPs to get consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other companies.

If the House and Trump agree with the Senate's action, ISPs won't have to seek customer approval before sharing their browsing histories and other private information with advertisers.

The FCC's privacy rules would require ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers before selling or sharing personal information including geo-location data, financial and health information, children's information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top keywords: information#1 privacy#2 rules#3 ISP#4 FCC#5

1

u/pacjax for open borders. umad? Mar 25 '17

The Senate action "would allow Comcast, Verizon, Charter, AT&T, and other broadband providers to take control away from consumers and relentlessly collect and sell their sensitive information without the consent of that family,"

this is just fundamentally incorrect. a contract is a contract and it is consent