We Have 24 Hours to Save Online Privacy Rules(eff.org)
eff.org
We Have 24 Hours to Save Online Privacy Rules
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/we-have-24-hours-save-online-privacy-rules
55 comments
https://resistbot.io/ makes it real easy to contact your representatives in a manner they are more likely to see.
This service seems short-sighted to me. It might trick a few representatives the first time around, but if it actually succeeds in bringing in a high volume of low-effort responses it will only devalue itself the way email is currently devalued (possibly along with some collateral damage to the credibility of the class of high-effort correspondants it is disguising its users as).
The way to improve politics isn't to make political engagement as casual and low effort as possible.
The way to improve politics isn't to make political engagement as casual and low effort as possible.
It seems like to SOME extent it is. Seems like part of lobbyist influence comes from planting seeds in legislators minds, as their full-time job. Most people have an opinion but can't be bothered to lobby for their own interests because they have their own full time job. We need transparent ways for representatives to poll what constituents want. Really there should be a state sponsored electronic voting system for stuff like this.
#ArmChairPhilosophy
#ArmChairPhilosophy
This only gave me the option to send to my senators (when starting), this issue is currently headed to the house.
EDIT: from the FAQ looks like there is a house command but it is only active to more "experienced" users.
EDIT EDIT: https://resistbot.io/privacy.html worth reading before you use, there are some clauses in there that are a little sketchy.
EDIT: from the FAQ looks like there is a house command but it is only active to more "experienced" users.
EDIT EDIT: https://resistbot.io/privacy.html worth reading before you use, there are some clauses in there that are a little sketchy.
I disagree. The best option is to call. You likely won't talk to the rep themselves, but you will either leave a message or talk to one of their staffers. It will bubble up to them. If a rep gets a ton of calls against a particular piece of legislation, they may change their position for fear of not being re-elected.
https://callyourrep.co/
https://callyourrep.co/
This is purely anecdotal, but I found the idea that calling is more effective than writing or emailing to be a myth. I interned for a Congressman in their DC office, and we interns were responsible for taking and responding to all in-bound communication. While we did assemble the metrics of which issues we received the most communication on each week, I never got the impression that those numbers impacted policy positions in the least. I don't think the Congressman or his CoS ever saw them.
That said, the Congressman I served was also part of the party leadership, so my experience may have been the exception, partly for that reason.
I think it may depend on the congressperson, but we've spoken directly to staffers. All of them have told us that email is the least effective way to reach out. Some of them are even picky about where you call, and suggest that calls to the main DC line are the only ones that count; others say that calls are tallied at all regional field offices.
Nobody has advised us not to call.
Nobody has advised us not to call.
I continue to be bewildered by the opacity of the process. You (the politician) are getting free market research. Why would you try to impede it?
Not to steer this conversation into campaign finance waters, but...
I'm not sure its accurate to depict constituent communication as market research, as the constituents are not always/not usually the market elected representatives are catering to. The people they need to please are the people who pay for their campaigns, rather than the people they try to reach with those campaigns.
I'm not sure its accurate to depict constituent communication as market research, as the constituents are not always/not usually the market elected representatives are catering to. The people they need to please are the people who pay for their campaigns, rather than the people they try to reach with those campaigns.
I think politicians vote the way they're paid to vote on issues nobody cares about, but it can be dangerous to ignore voters on issues they do care about.
That may be true, but one must also consider that the public is also not well enough informed on many issues to have an opinion worth merit.
Health care, foreign policy, corporate taxes, etc. are all extremely complex issues, and its hard to derive an informed opinion from the press alone. I think that's why it's hard to be a good leader and a popular leader at the same time.
Health care, foreign policy, corporate taxes, etc. are all extremely complex issues, and its hard to derive an informed opinion from the press alone. I think that's why it's hard to be a good leader and a popular leader at the same time.
Not a joke, I believe this video will answer most of your questions about why a political thing works the way it does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
[deleted]
Certainly, I would never suggest that someone _shouldn't_ try to communicate their views to their representative. My thoughts focus more on efficacy, and the degree to which individual voters can impact the decisions their rep makes.
Here's an existence proof that congresspeople pay attention to calls from their constituents: https://twitter.com/RepJudyChu/status/845044275427659776.
What's perhaps striking is the low number of total calls regarding AHCA (439 support, 6 against) compared to the total population of her district (~700k). Unless I'm misinterpreting, this seems like pretty strong evidence that a call to your representative can have a massively disproportionate impact?
What's perhaps striking is the low number of total calls regarding AHCA (439 support, 6 against) compared to the total population of her district (~700k). Unless I'm misinterpreting, this seems like pretty strong evidence that a call to your representative can have a massively disproportionate impact?
As our resident security expert pointed it, it really depends on the office. My evidence is purely anecdotal, but it mirrors the experiences that friends of mine who interned in other offices had. One more thing that I can add is that most of the Reps we worked for had been in their seat for 15+ years, and it may be that they consider their seats safe enough that they don't need to reference the daily numbers much, or they have a deep enough understanding of their constituency that they can instinctively know how they will feel or react to an issue. Or it could be N number of other things.
Small correction: you flipped the yes/no counts.
I thought "NO WAY" were there 439 for and 6 against AHCA.
But, I could be wrong depending on the part of the country.
I checked your link, and you did in fact put those in the wrong order. There were 439 against and 6 for AHCA.
I checked your link, and you did in fact put those in the wrong order. There were 439 against and 6 for AHCA.
Every NGO I've worked with as part of Tech Solidarity has stressed that phone calls are the most effective form of pressure short of face-to-face meetings.
Do you think your congressman was more receptive to constituent calls to his local office? Or did he not care about any of it?
Do you think your congressman was more receptive to constituent calls to his local office? Or did he not care about any of it?
Honestly, I was never made aware of any metrics regarding inbound comms from the district office, so I can't really say.
I think the reason people say that phone calls are the most effective is because they are the most exhausting to deal with, and thus may leave the strongest impression on those who have to deal with them. From there, it's a matter of flow of information within the Rep's office. If anything, I would suggest that callers ask how exactly their opinions will reach their representative at the end of the call. Find out if a staffer will be relayed this information, and if so, which, and then inquire how that staffer will be relaying it to the rep. Adding verbal accountability may increase the likelihood of it getting moved up the chain?
I think the reason people say that phone calls are the most effective is because they are the most exhausting to deal with, and thus may leave the strongest impression on those who have to deal with them. From there, it's a matter of flow of information within the Rep's office. If anything, I would suggest that callers ask how exactly their opinions will reach their representative at the end of the call. Find out if a staffer will be relayed this information, and if so, which, and then inquire how that staffer will be relaying it to the rep. Adding verbal accountability may increase the likelihood of it getting moved up the chain?
I work for the NGO that is asking people to call Congress in this article, and we also have the impression that this is a useful way for constituents to lobby their representatives (though some people say sending a paper letter is more effective, perhaps precisely because even fewer people are willing to do it). It would be interesting to hear more on this from people who've worked in various Congressional offices.
I'm honestly jealous of both you and @Idlewords. What I wouldn't give to work in the Tech Policy space.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/16/...
Resistbot, can you easily convert these texts and faxes into phone calls by providing the number of the office... So that I can call with a single tap, after organizing my message? And then ask me to report my outcome?
Resistbot, can you easily convert these texts and faxes into phone calls by providing the number of the office... So that I can call with a single tap, after organizing my message? And then ask me to report my outcome?
What I've been curious to learn and haven't heard discussed is how this data will become available. Will I be able to call up Comcast and pay $X for a particular user's browsing history after this passes?
You misunderstand.
Your data is available now.
It was made available by Obama starting in 2015 when he removed FTC authority over them. That tap wouldn't shut off until December at the earliest if the current administration did nothing.
The EFF is oddly silent about why they've been so oddly silent about this exposure for close to 3 years now.
Your data is available now.
It was made available by Obama starting in 2015 when he removed FTC authority over them. That tap wouldn't shut off until December at the earliest if the current administration did nothing.
The EFF is oddly silent about why they've been so oddly silent about this exposure for close to 3 years now.
You (J. Random Person) may not be able to, but advertising companies probably will be able to. For example, from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-you... :
> According to Ad Age, SAP sells a service called Consumer Insights 365, which “ingests regularly updated data representing as many as 300 cellphone events per day for each of the 20 million to 25 million mobile subscribers.” What type of data does Consumer Insights 365 “ingest?” Again, according to Ad Age, “The service also combines data from telcos with other information, telling businesses whether shoppers are checking out competitor prices… It can tell them the age ranges and genders of people who visited a store location between 10 a.m. and noon, and link location and demographic data with shoppers' web browsing history.”
> According to Ad Age, SAP sells a service called Consumer Insights 365, which “ingests regularly updated data representing as many as 300 cellphone events per day for each of the 20 million to 25 million mobile subscribers.” What type of data does Consumer Insights 365 “ingest?” Again, according to Ad Age, “The service also combines data from telcos with other information, telling businesses whether shoppers are checking out competitor prices… It can tell them the age ranges and genders of people who visited a store location between 10 a.m. and noon, and link location and demographic data with shoppers' web browsing history.”
That's what I figured. I wonder if a request from a sole proprietorship would be sufficient to get an ISP to respond to such requests.
My guess is they'd just use price as a gatekeeper, rather than spending time to do a background check of their customers. I doubt any of these data feeds are cheap.
I'd love to see this process get hacked - What's the CEO of {your_favorite_ISP} been perusing on the web? Sounds like a good opportunity for a crowdfund.
There are firms that specialize in advertising data. If you're wondering where you information goes when you signup for your grocery store rewards programs, it's those guys. You usually can't buy a particular user history, it's usually in bulk. This is just standard practice, no government organization is placing rules on it so we'll see what kind of inevitable abuse stems from it.
One wonders if this asinine legislation might also be supported by VPN providers?
PIA took out a full-page NYT ad indicating strong opposition: https://i.imgur.com/GJYYNle.jpg
I'm sure there are VPN providers that support it, though.
I'm sure there are VPN providers that support it, though.
This form of protest is of course very good marketing as well.
Unpopular comment alert: This is a good thing.
Guys, I don't think the "Federal Communication Commission" should be passing consumer protection regulations. What's to stop Amazon, Netflix, etc from selling a service where an advertiser sends them an IP and they get back your name and interests? These regulations need to be passed at a much broader level. I think the FCC should focus on anti-competitive behavior on ISPs right now, and leave these sorts of matters to another regulatory body.
And besides, with TLS (and DNSCurve if you're paranoid), I'm not sure this regulation means much anyway.
Guys, I don't think the "Federal Communication Commission" should be passing consumer protection regulations. What's to stop Amazon, Netflix, etc from selling a service where an advertiser sends them an IP and they get back your name and interests? These regulations need to be passed at a much broader level. I think the FCC should focus on anti-competitive behavior on ISPs right now, and leave these sorts of matters to another regulatory body.
And besides, with TLS (and DNSCurve if you're paranoid), I'm not sure this regulation means much anyway.
The FCC has no authority over media and retail companies - they DO have authority over ISPs in some aspects. They have passed consumer protection regulations relating to the transmission and storage of data before.
The practices you describe (with Amazon etc) are none of the FCC's business. Anti-competitive behavior and privacy violations by non-telecoms businesses falls under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission.
It means something, because the idea is to protect the vulnerable from predatory practices, not to prevent the technically proficient from what they see as easily avoided practices.
The practices you describe (with Amazon etc) are none of the FCC's business. Anti-competitive behavior and privacy violations by non-telecoms businesses falls under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission.
It means something, because the idea is to protect the vulnerable from predatory practices, not to prevent the technically proficient from what they see as easily avoided practices.
Where should consumer protection exist? As one agency? That means they need to staff people with dozens of fields of expertise, and it gives politicians (Republicans) one throat to choke when they want to "kill big government".
Why not let the agencies that administer different fields and businesses have a "consumer protection" section?
Why not let the agencies that administer different fields and businesses have a "consumer protection" section?
[deleted]
The "Calling you now" widget to contact my congress person doesn't seem to work for me. Is this just my problem of is it down for everyone?
I'm assuming this will pass.
Will we ever be able to remove it one it's in effect? Or is that likely to never be an option.
Will we ever be able to remove it one it's in effect? Or is that likely to never be an option.
These rules are/were certainly a step in the right direction for the protection of consumer privacy and should be saved; the attention on consumer privacy is welcome.
What's fascinating is that other online privacy areas that I would argue are much more invasive and threatening to consumer privacy are completely ignored. I'm referring, of course, to the ecosystems of Google, Facebook, the new Verizon (AOL, Yahoo), and the many other companies looking to amass as much consumer data as possible for profit.
These FCC rules feel a bit like the FCC was patting themselves on the back for fixing a drip in the bathroom faucet while ignoring the broken pipe to the water main.
From a business perspective I can also see why ISPs would be so upset about their businesses having to abide by these rules while their competitors (again, Facebook, Google, et al) are left to collect data unbridled. The all sell ads after all.
What's fascinating is that other online privacy areas that I would argue are much more invasive and threatening to consumer privacy are completely ignored. I'm referring, of course, to the ecosystems of Google, Facebook, the new Verizon (AOL, Yahoo), and the many other companies looking to amass as much consumer data as possible for profit.
These FCC rules feel a bit like the FCC was patting themselves on the back for fixing a drip in the bathroom faucet while ignoring the broken pipe to the water main.
From a business perspective I can also see why ISPs would be so upset about their businesses having to abide by these rules while their competitors (again, Facebook, Google, et al) are left to collect data unbridled. The all sell ads after all.
Google, Facebook, etc., are not being ignored. They are regulated by the FTC when it comes to consumer privacy.
ISPs used to also be subject to the same rules, but when the FCC changed the classification of ISPs from information services to common carriers in order to restore the net neutrality rules that had been struck down by the courts that took them out from under FTC regulation.
ISPs used to also be subject to the same rules, but when the FCC changed the classification of ISPs from information services to common carriers in order to restore the net neutrality rules that had been struck down by the courts that took them out from under FTC regulation.
The EFF discusses this on one of the linked pages[1]:
> Myth 3: The FCC’s privacy rules put Internet service providers at an unfair disadvantage when compared to Internet companies like Google who can profit off of consumers’ data.
> Fact: Google doesn’t see everything you do on the Internet (neither does Facebook, for that matter, or any other online platform)—they only see the traffic you send to them. And you can always choose to use a different website if you want to avoid Google’s tracking. None of that is true about your ISP. You probably only have one, maybe two options when it comes to ISPs offering high-speed Internet, and your ISP sees everything—they have to, in order to send your traffic to the right place. That’s why we need the FCC’s privacy rules: ISPs are in a position of power, and they’ve shown they’re willing to abuse that power.
> Plus, if you’re worried about creepy third-party tracking online, you can use free tools to protect yourself; the only way to protect your privacy from your ISP is to pay for a VPN.
> Extended Version: > To begin with, it’s worth remembering that ISPs and companies like Google or Facebook see entirely different parts of your Internet activity; namely that Google or Facebook only see the traffic you send to their servers, while ISPs see all your traffic. Even when you take into account the fact that Google and Facebook have creepy third-party trackers spread across the web, they still only see a fraction of what your ISP sees. Being able to see all of your traffic gives your ISP an unprecedented view into your life (everything from what you’re shopping for, to who you talk to, to what your politics are, to what you read), which not even Google or Facebook can achieve.
> There’s also another big difference between Comcast and Google: choice. While Internet users can choose between numerous online services for search, email, and more—including services that feature built-in privacy protections as a selling point—most consumers have few if any options when it comes to choosing an ISP. According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 51 percent of households have access to only one high-speed broadband provider. If that provider decides to sell their data, they can’t vote with their wallets and choose another ISP.
> There’s one last difference: Internet users can prevent companies like Google from spying on them as they surf the web. If you want to do something online without being tracked, you can use a variety of free tools that even powerful companies like Google cannot overcome. But nothing short of paying to use a virtual private network—essentially having to pay a fee to protect your online privacy—will protect you from your ISP.
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-in...
> Myth 3: The FCC’s privacy rules put Internet service providers at an unfair disadvantage when compared to Internet companies like Google who can profit off of consumers’ data.
> Fact: Google doesn’t see everything you do on the Internet (neither does Facebook, for that matter, or any other online platform)—they only see the traffic you send to them. And you can always choose to use a different website if you want to avoid Google’s tracking. None of that is true about your ISP. You probably only have one, maybe two options when it comes to ISPs offering high-speed Internet, and your ISP sees everything—they have to, in order to send your traffic to the right place. That’s why we need the FCC’s privacy rules: ISPs are in a position of power, and they’ve shown they’re willing to abuse that power.
> Plus, if you’re worried about creepy third-party tracking online, you can use free tools to protect yourself; the only way to protect your privacy from your ISP is to pay for a VPN.
> Extended Version: > To begin with, it’s worth remembering that ISPs and companies like Google or Facebook see entirely different parts of your Internet activity; namely that Google or Facebook only see the traffic you send to their servers, while ISPs see all your traffic. Even when you take into account the fact that Google and Facebook have creepy third-party trackers spread across the web, they still only see a fraction of what your ISP sees. Being able to see all of your traffic gives your ISP an unprecedented view into your life (everything from what you’re shopping for, to who you talk to, to what your politics are, to what you read), which not even Google or Facebook can achieve.
> There’s also another big difference between Comcast and Google: choice. While Internet users can choose between numerous online services for search, email, and more—including services that feature built-in privacy protections as a selling point—most consumers have few if any options when it comes to choosing an ISP. According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 51 percent of households have access to only one high-speed broadband provider. If that provider decides to sell their data, they can’t vote with their wallets and choose another ISP.
> There’s one last difference: Internet users can prevent companies like Google from spying on them as they surf the web. If you want to do something online without being tracked, you can use a variety of free tools that even powerful companies like Google cannot overcome. But nothing short of paying to use a virtual private network—essentially having to pay a fee to protect your online privacy—will protect you from your ISP.
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/three-myths-telecom-in...
I'm familiar with these arguments but find them wanting. Trying to avoid Google and Facebook online is very difficult even for a knowledgeable, tech literate consumer. These companies collect data nearly relentlessly from non google/facebook sites through "like" buttons, analytics tools, advertising placed on 3rd party sites etc. Trying to say that one willingly and with knowledge gives up privacy to google/facebook is naive at best and deceptive if said with integrity.
One could apply the same logic to ISPs, after all. If you don't like Verizon's privacy policy you're free to switch to Comcast, or ATT. Oh - they all have the same privacy sapping policy? Too bad.
Certainly it should not be too much to ask that a "normal" non-technical internet user should feel free to roam the open internet without every click and view being tracked. I cannot expect to train my grandmother avoid google/facebook, use privacy badger and/or ublock and know what to do when her video doesn't load or play because privacy badger has blocked some adobe tracker....
This is hacker news. Let's not accept cringeworthy arguments that could have been proudly published by lobbyists for Facebook here. If this audience cannot scale higher what hope do we have for society at large? So yes, we should have regulations to limit what ISPs can track. And yes, those policies should apply to extremely large internet ecosystems as well.
One could apply the same logic to ISPs, after all. If you don't like Verizon's privacy policy you're free to switch to Comcast, or ATT. Oh - they all have the same privacy sapping policy? Too bad.
Certainly it should not be too much to ask that a "normal" non-technical internet user should feel free to roam the open internet without every click and view being tracked. I cannot expect to train my grandmother avoid google/facebook, use privacy badger and/or ublock and know what to do when her video doesn't load or play because privacy badger has blocked some adobe tracker....
This is hacker news. Let's not accept cringeworthy arguments that could have been proudly published by lobbyists for Facebook here. If this audience cannot scale higher what hope do we have for society at large? So yes, we should have regulations to limit what ISPs can track. And yes, those policies should apply to extremely large internet ecosystems as well.
It might be difficult to avoid google and others for tech illiterate users, but in some areas, there isn't the choice to use a different ISP.
Absolutely agree that there is not fierce competition in ISPs and that when they do compete it is more on price and speed than privacy so really no market driven factors to protect privacy. Of course I could offer a specious argument that there are satellite providers and dial-up so of course there's competition wink-wink.
The argument is essentially the same for Google/Facebook et al. Try telling someone who has used gmail for the last 10 years before Google altered their privacy policy for Google's benefit that if they want to keep their email private they're free to switch to Yahoo or Outlook. And that's a case where consumers have a choice. Consumers have no voice in web sites use of Google Analytics or Doubleclick. Or Facebook's like button. Or Adbobe's audience tracking....
The argument is essentially the same for Google/Facebook et al. Try telling someone who has used gmail for the last 10 years before Google altered their privacy policy for Google's benefit that if they want to keep their email private they're free to switch to Yahoo or Outlook. And that's a case where consumers have a choice. Consumers have no voice in web sites use of Google Analytics or Doubleclick. Or Facebook's like button. Or Adbobe's audience tracking....
* Fact: Google doesn’t see everything you do on the Internet
Fact 1: Google sees very huge part of the Internet traffic through AdSense and Analytics and other smaller tools like fonts, scripts etc.
Fact 2: Google has access to more detailed traffic given SSL makes most traffic (thankfully so) opaque to a ISP.
Fact 3: ISP only sees its own traffic but Google has access to the traffic from multiple ISPs.
This does not mean that we should give the same advantage to ISP, quite contrary - we should take this advantage from Google (and everyone).
Fact 1: Google sees very huge part of the Internet traffic through AdSense and Analytics and other smaller tools like fonts, scripts etc.
Fact 2: Google has access to more detailed traffic given SSL makes most traffic (thankfully so) opaque to a ISP.
Fact 3: ISP only sees its own traffic but Google has access to the traffic from multiple ISPs.
This does not mean that we should give the same advantage to ISP, quite contrary - we should take this advantage from Google (and everyone).
The title and the article are missing "United States" somewhere.
Speaking as a non-American, this is partially-valid point, and a very frustrating one.
While the only people who can affect the decision are Americans (members of congress won't, and fundamentally shouldn't listen to calls and emails sent by foreign nationals), this is an issue that affects much of the internet-using world by virtue of such a large volume of international internet traffic going through lines on US soil.
In this case, it would make sense for there to be a framework whereby international citizens can provide input, but I doubt there's a way to do this without setting a precedent which could seriously compromise the integrity of their federal decision-making bodies (any further).
While the only people who can affect the decision are Americans (members of congress won't, and fundamentally shouldn't listen to calls and emails sent by foreign nationals), this is an issue that affects much of the internet-using world by virtue of such a large volume of international internet traffic going through lines on US soil.
In this case, it would make sense for there to be a framework whereby international citizens can provide input, but I doubt there's a way to do this without setting a precedent which could seriously compromise the integrity of their federal decision-making bodies (any further).
To to my understanding they can not legally sell information about me as I have local laws protecting me from that. Sure I doubt they really care but this seems to be a us thing to me
Is there anything practical I can do if I already know my representative is going to vote against the bill?
Contact your state reps. Even if the federal rules go, state-level rules can help mitigate the damage locally, and perhaps even nationally [1].
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/technology/internet-priva...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/technology/internet-priva...
It isn't over till it's over. Many reps/senators would have voted in favor of SOPA/PIPA, but were dissuaded from doing so by the sheer volume of people calling about it. Public pressure is a real thing. Call your rep!