Internet Privacy Vote

[Rolfe]

Outrage grows over Congress' Internet privacy vote

Outrage is growing at Republicans following a controversial vote Tuesday to repeal Internet privacy protections that were approved by the Federal Communications Commission in the final days of the Obama administration.

Privacy advocates, consumer groups and the tech community are all attacking the decision. It was quickly panned by both the editorial board of The New York Times and by commenters on conservative media outlet Breitbart News.

Outrage grows over Congress' Internet privacy vote

Shame on them.

 

[InTheLight]

This is regulation busting for the sake of saying you are getting rid of regulations. Not all regulations are bad. This is one of them.

The Obama rule would require ISP's (your internet provider, i.e. Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, CenturyLink, etc.) to get your permission before they could divulge and sell your internet browsing habits, apps you use on your phone, websites you visit, stores you visit, etc. to advertisers and other entities. This was an additional step the ISPs were to be required to go through before they could sell your internet activity logs. This is known as an "opt-in" rule, that is, you have to specifically opt-in for them to be able to sell this information. Previously ISPs could do this to you without your knowledge and you had to tell the ISP that you wanted to "opt-out" of their selling of your information.

The vote to repeal was done (mostly) by Republicans and the reasoning given, as far as I can find, is so there is a uniform "opt-out" rule in place for all things internet. In other words, for the sake of uniformity of regulations the GOP wants ISPs to be able to sell your internet browsing history without you agreeing to their ability to do this.

 

[Rolfe]

This is regulation busting for the sake of saying you are getting rid of regulations. Not all regulations are bad. This is one of them.

Agree.

 

[Brent W]

This is regulation busting for the sake of saying you are getting rid of regulations. Not all regulations are bad. This is one of them.

Agreed. This is a pathetic show of being bought by lobbyist.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Another reason to "Drain the Swamp" of the lobbyist-bought politicians.

 

[Brent W]

Another reason to "Drain the Swamp" of the lobbyist-bought politicians.

Unfortunately that isn't going to happen under any Republican or Democrat administration. The person who coined that term certainly hasn't done it. Just my opinion

 

[Dr. Bob]

We are already seeing that any attempts seem to fall short.

When Jesus returns . . .

 

[Brent W]

We are already seeing that any attempts seem to fall short.

What attempts if I may ask? I was very disappointed by the administration that Trump put together. It was essentially the good ol' boy network. On top of that, the person he selected for Attorney General was a Senator for almost as long as I have been alive. Not much draining from my point of view when it comes to who he selected for his cabinet.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Evaluation of cabinet is that it is "more conservative" than Reagan or either Bush. My prayer is they actually DO something.

So sad to see the failure of the first big bush (eliminate socialized medicine) with a mediocre replacement was shot down by the far right wing of the GOP, not the outnumbered/ineffective liberals. Doesn't give much hope for any REAL change, does it.

 

[InTheLight]

Evaluation of cabinet is that it is "more conservative" than Reagan or either Bush. My prayer is they actually DO something.

Exactly. This is my problem with the Trump administration. They don't seem to know what to do. Here we are 70 days in and they've failed at two of the main campaign promises--travel ban and ObamaCare repeal/replace--and they just last week started talking about tax reform and the hope that it gets done before the August recess. Apparently they are going to tie tax cuts to the infrastructure plan I suppose using infrastructure as a carrot to get Democrats on board. "Vote for tax cuts and we'll put a nice new bridge in your district".

George W. Bush got his tax cut plan passed on June 7, 2001; Reagan's was passed in the first week of August 1981. Trump's plan should have been introduced in Congress by now.

 

[kyredneck]

Trump's plan should have been introduced in Congress by now.

To be fair, repeal/replace was the first step in his tax cut plan. Now it's back up and punt.

 

[Billx]

Well, for them who believe one world order is coming and it is an evil order, blocking of privacy individual privacy should make them really paranoid. What concerns me is the administrations denial the is guarantee privacy in the constitution. Privacy is implicit in the idea of illegal search and seizure Big business is making big bucks on your privacy. They say we can invade all we want because they re not the government. Yet, NSA can peek all it wants. It sounds like the constitution has been relegated to obsolescence.

 

[Billx]

We are already seeing that any attempts seem to fall short.

When Jesus returns . . .

I think POTUS found out there are more gators in the swamp than he anticipated and the Trump!s rump is getting bitten. Yet drain it anyway

 

[Arkstfan]

Well, for them who believe one world order is coming and it is an evil order, blocking of privacy individual privacy should make them really paranoid. What concerns me is the administrations denial the is guarantee privacy in the constitution. Privacy is implicit in the idea of illegal search and seizure Big business is making big bucks on your privacy. They say we can invade all we want because they re not the government. Yet, NSA can peek all it wants. It sounds like the constitution has been relegated to obsolescence.

A lot of that goes to the big debate over the 9th Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th has been used to recognize a right of privacy. Justice Scalia and his current proposed replacement had and have stated that unenumerated rights do not exist unless the legislative body recognizes the right.

That is nonsensical. If it only exists when Congress says it exists it isn't a right. A right exists regardless of the Congress.

If the right is retained by the people as set forth in the 9th, then it is not Congress' role to grant the right by recognizing it.