Showing posts with label ISPs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISPs. Show all posts

Sunday, January 30, 2022

FCC unanimously approves ‘nutrition labels’ for broadband services; The Verge, January 27, 2022

Makena Kelly, The Verge; FCC unanimously approves ‘nutrition labels’ for broadband services

"Understanding your broadband speeds could be just as simple as reading the nutrition label on the back of the food you buy at the grocery store as soon as the end of this year.

The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously on Thursday to press forward on a new plan that would require internet providers, like Comcast and Verizon, to offer new labels disclosing an internet plan’s price, speed, data allowances, including introductory rates and later price hikes, as well as network management practices, like throttling, at the point of sale. This allows for greater transparency into market rates and could lead to lower prices down the line."

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Copyright could be the next way for Congress to take on Big Tech; The Verge, February 13, 2020

, The Verge; Copyright could be the next way for Congress to take on Big Tech

"By the end of the year, Tillis — who chairs the Senate’s intellectual property subcommittee — plans to draft changes to the DMCA. He and co-chair Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) kicked off the process this week with an introductory hearing, speaking to eight legal experts and former congressional staffers. The hearing helped set the stage to re-fight some long-running battles over the balance between protecting copyrighted content and keeping the internet open — but at a time where internet companies are already facing a large-scale backlash.

The 1998 DMCA attempted to outline how copyright should work on the then-nascent internet, where you could almost freely and infinitely copy a piece of media. But it’s been widely criticized by people with very different stances on intellectual property."

Thursday, December 6, 2018

EU Members Push For Private Censorship Of Terrorist Content On The Internet; Intellectual Property Watch, December 6, 2018

Monika Ermert, Intellectual Property Watch; EU Members Push For Private Censorship Of Terrorist Content On The Internet

"According to the planned regulation on preventing-terrorist-content-online hosters, cloud providers and all sorts of internet platform providers must delete terrorist content upon receiving orders from Europol or relevant member state law enforcement agencies in just one hour.

But they would also have to make their own assessments about the terrorist nature of content upon referrals by the authorities and even take proactive steps for “detecting, identifying, and expeditiously removing or disabling access to terrorist content” (see paragraph 6 of the draft text)."

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Verizon under fire for 'throttling' firefighters' data in California blaze; The Guardian, August 22, 2018

Olivia Solon, The Guardian; Verizon under fire for 'throttling' firefighters' data in California blaze

"Internet service providers (ISPs) are entitled to throttle people who use excessive amounts of data, depending on the terms of the individual plan. However, Verizon has a policy to remove restrictions if contacted in an emergency situations.

“We have done that many times, including for emergency personnel responding to these tragic fires. In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake,” said the company in a statement published on Tuesday.

Harold Feld, from Public Knowledge, one of the organisations bringing the suit, said: “Companies need to be liable for their actions,” adding: “Verizon’s response of ‘I’m terribly sorry your state is burning down, let me sell you this new package’ is not good enough. We need rules to prevent it from happening in the first place.”"

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Why states might win the net neutrality war against the FCC; Ars Technica, February 22, 2018

Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica; Why states might win the net neutrality war against the FCC

"Can states force Internet service providers to uphold net neutrality? That's one of the biggest unanswered questions raised by the Federal Communications Commission vote to repeal its net neutrality rules."

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Friday, May 19, 2017

Americans Want More Say in the Privacy of Personal Data; Consumer Reports, May 18, 2017

Bree Fowler, Consumer Reports; Americans Want More Say in the Privacy of Personal Data

[Kip Currier: Take a look at Consumer Reports' latest survey data on U.S. consumers' concerns about privacy and their personal data: significant majorities want more control over what data is collected and more transparency (not less!) regarding what Internet service providers can and can't do with that personal data.

Then consider this May 18, 2017 disconnect: "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led by chairman Ajit Pai, voted two to one to start the formal process of dismantling “net neutrality” rules put in place in 2015."]

"The latest CR Consumer Voices survey reveals that people have been increasingly worried about the issue in 2017. Seventy percent of Americans lack confidence that their personal data is private and safe from distribution without their knowledge, according to the nationally representative survey of 1,007 adults conducted in April.

That number climbed from 65 percent since we first asked about the topic in January.

Respondents to the April survey also said they want more control over what data is collected. Ninety-two percent said that internet service providers, such as Comcast and Verizon, should be required to secure permission from users before selling or sharing their data. [Bold and larger font added for emphasis]

The same proportion thinks consumers should have the right to request a complete list of the data an internet service provider or website has collected about them.

Finally, respondents spoke out about how such data may be used to charge online shoppers different prices for the same goods and services—without consumers knowing about it. This kind of dynamic pricing can be based on factors from age to browsing history to home address. Sixty-five percent of respondents oppose the practice.

Though consumers say they want stronger privacy protections, federal actions are moving the rules in the opposite direction."

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

No, Republicans didn’t just strip away your Internet privacy rights; Washington Post, April 4, 2017

Ajit Pai and Maureen Ohlhausen, Washington Post; No, Republicans didn’t just strip away your Internet privacy rights

[Kip Currier: In light of recent controversial online privacy developments, I'm particularly intrigued to hear what Maureen Ohlhausen, acting chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, has to say at a Thursday, April 6 lunch I'll be attending during the 32nd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference.]

"Ajit Pai is chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Maureen Ohlhausen is acting chairman of the Federal Trade Commission...

The FCC’s regulations weren’t about protecting consumers’ privacy. They were about government picking winners and losers in the marketplace. If two online companies have access to the same data about your Internet usage, why should the federal government give one company greater leeway to use it than the other?...

In short, the Obama administration fractured our nation’s online privacy law, and it is our job to fix it. We pledge to the American people that we will do just that."

Tim Berners-Lee: selling private citizens' browsing data is 'disgusting'; Guardian, April 4, 2017

Sam Thielman, Guardian; 

Tim Berners-Lee: selling private citizens' browsing data is 'disgusting'


"What did you think of the congressional repeal of Federal Communications Commission’s privacy rules?

It’s not the case that an ISP can just spy on people and monetize the data; if they do, they will get taken to court. Obviously the worry is the attitude and the direction. The attitude is really appalling. That bill was a disgusting bill, because when we use the web, we are so vulnerable.

When the internet was new, when people didn’t realize to what extent it would be important to people’s lives, I gave talks pointing out that, actually, when people use the web what they do is really, really intimate. They go to their doctor for a second opinion; they’ve gone to the web for the first opinion on whether it’s cancer. They communicate very intimately with family members that they love. There are things that people do on the web that reveal absolutely everything, more about them than they know themselves sometimes. Because so much of what we do in our lives that actually goes through those left-clicks, it can be ridiculously revealing. You have the right to go to a doctor in privacy where it’s just between you and the doctor. And similarly, you have to be able to go to the web.

Privacy, a core American value, is not a partisan thing. Democrats fight for it and Republicans fight for it too, maybe even more. So I am very shocked that the Republican party has managed to suggest that it should be trashed; if anyone follows up on this direction, there will be a massive pushback – and there must be a massive pushback!
If they take away net neutrality, there will have to be a tremendous amount of public debate as well. You can bet there will be public demonstrations if they do try to take it away."

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Senate votes to kill privacy rules meant to protect people's sensitive data from their Internet providers; Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2017

Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times; Senate votes to kill privacy rules meant to protect people's sensitive data from their Internet providers

"The rules, which have not yet gone into effect, require AT&T Inc., Charter Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. and other broadband providers to get customer permission before using or sharing sensitive personal data, such as Web browsing or app usage history and the geographic trail of mobile devices.

Companies use consumer data to target advertising. Privacy advocates worry that Internet service providers are assembling detailed dossiers on their customers without their consent...
Republicans and broadband companies opposed the rules because they imposed tougher restrictions on high-speed Internet providers than on websites and social networks, which also collect and use such data."

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Public interest groups urge officials to protect net neutrality; The Hill, March 7, 2017

Harper Neidig, The Hill; 

Public interest groups urge officials to protect net neutrality


"A coalition of 171 public interest groups sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission and Senate leaders on Tuesday urging them not to dismantle the net neutrality rules from 2015.

The ACLU, Greenpeace, MoveOn.org and Public Knowledge were among the groups signing on to the letter favoring the regulations, which prohibit internet service providers from discriminating against traffic to certain sites.

“Protecting net neutrality is crucial to ensuring that the internet remains a central driver of economic growth and opportunity, job creation, education, free expression, and civic organizing for everyone,” the letter reads.

The message was addressed to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ranking Member Bill Nelson(D-Fla.)."

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Prenda Law principal pleads guilty to federal charges in porn copyright case; ABA Journal, March 7, 2017

Stephanie Francis Ward, ABA Journal; 

Prenda Law principal pleads guilty to federal charges in porn copyright case


"A defendant in the Prenda Law case, which involved alleged shakedowns of people accused of illegally downloading pornography, pleaded guilty Monday to federal conspiracy charges of money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud. 

John L. Steele, the defendant, previously bragged about earning millions from suing people for illegal downloads, the Star Tribune reports. Federal prosecutors claim that Steele and Paul Hansmeier, a Minneapolis attorney, created two fake businesses to acquire copyrights for the pornographic films, some of which they filmed themselves, and posted the materials to file-sharing websites. Then they and other lawyers filed John Doe lawsuits against the downloaders and subpoenaed Internet service providers to identify defendants.
The government asked for a sentence of eight to 10 years. But according to the Star Tribune, prosecutors could agree to something shorter if Steele cooperates with them, which presumably would involve testifying against Hansemeier.
Between April 2011 and December 2012, Steele and Hansmeier, along with lawyers who worked for them, collected more than $6 million in settlements, according to the article."

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Data retention and the end of Australians' digital privacy; Sydney Morning Herald, 8/29/15

Quentin Dempster, Sydney Morning Herald; Data retention and the end of Australians' digital privacy:
"The digital privacy of Australians ends from Tuesday, October 13.
On that day this country's entire communications industry will be turned into a surveillance and monitoring arm of at least 21 agencies of executive government.
Intelligence and law enforcement agencies will have immediate, warrantless and accumulating access to all telephone and internet metadata required by law, with a $2 million penalty for telcos and ISPs that don't comply.
There is no sunset clause in the Abbott government's legislation, which was waved through parliament by Bill Shorten's Labor with only minor tweaks. The service providers are to keep a secret register of the agency seeking access to metadata and the identity of the persons being targeted. There is nothing in the Act to prevent investigative "fishing expeditions" or systemic abuse of power except for retrospective oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. That's if you somehow found out about an agency looking into your metadata - which is unlikely, as there's a two-year jail sentence for anyone caught revealing information about instances of metadata access.
Over time, your metadata will expose your private email, SMS and fixed-line caller traffic, consumer, work and professional activities and habits, showing the patterns of all your communications, your commercial transactions and monetised subscriptions or downloads, exactly who you communicate with, and how often."