The FCC’s Open Internet order and proposed Title II privacy rules divided what was unified. For privacy, it broke what was working. Confused what was clear. Complicated what was simple. Unprotected what they sought to protect. Created more costs than benefits. Since the Internet’s beginning the FTC has had privacy authority over information services.
With due credit to “Ripley’s Believe it or Not!®,”so much odd and bizarre is happening at the FCC in the “name” of “privacy” that the topic calls for its own collection of: “Believe it or Not!®” oddities.
Recently, the Federal Communications Commission has proposed to construct a new, additional regulatory apparatus, asserting, without any factual support, that creating untested and discriminatory rules for internet service providers (ISPs) will be the silver bullet for protecting consumers’ privacy.
Since Google chose that apt metaphor, and boasted about how easy Google makes it to “check out” your private data and “leave” to a competitor, lets test if you can ever “in fact leave” Google-Eye’s pervasively invasive online surveillance — from a privacy perspective.
Why does the company that by far collects the most private information that the FCC claims it wants to protect, and that also has the worst consumer privacy protection record with the FTC, (Google), get 99% exempted from the telecom and cable privacy protections expected of telephone, broadband, cable and satellite providers?
In this episode of the weekly Budget & Tax News podcast, managing editor and research fellow Jesse Hathaway talks with The Heritage Foundation’s senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky about the fallout from California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ (D) attempt to force Americans for Prosperity, a national nonprofit organization advocating for fiscal responsibility in government, to make the private information of contributors public information.
In this episode of The Heartland Daily Podcast, managing editor Jesse Hathaway talks with Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Sophia Cope about the Federal District Court for the District of Central California’s recent demand that Apple, the $700 billion tech company producing consumer products like the iPhone and iPad, assist the Federal Bureau of Investigations with their investigation into the December 2, 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack by devising a way to unlock the deceased terrorist’s iPhone without a password.
Let me try to explain to a consumer what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) arbitrarily has done, and apparently intends to do, for consumer internet privacy protection going forward.
In arbitrarily applying Title II telecommunications rules to only the ISP half of Internet communications, while politically exempting the entire edge half of Internet communications in its Open Internet order, the FCC has ensured that information that was proprietary and controllable in the closed telephone world becomes public and uncontrollable in the open Internet world.
Google is unique in its leadership, plans, and global marketpower to accelerate the majority of all global Web traffic “going dark,” i.e. encrypted by default. Google’s “going dark” leadership seriously threatens to neuter sovereign nations’ law-enforcement and intelligence capabilities to investigate and prevent terrorism and crime going forward.
The U.S. government’s Internet priorities in Europe are upside down. It has chosen bits over bodies, prioritizing protecting the neutrality of innumerable inanimate Internet bits over protecting peoples’ privacy and personal data.
The juxtaposition of Google tacitly accusing the EU with “digital protectionism” and “discrimination” as the EU’s Digital Chief, Günther Oettinger, visits D.C. and Silicon Valley, while the Google-created Internet Association this week asks for U.S. protection from ISP “discrimination” in an appeals court brief in support of the FCC’s Open Internet order – exposes exceptional hypocrisy.
Some of my right-leaning heroes (insofar as politicians are worthy of being heroes) are ganging up with other politicos to support the dull-sounding but pernicious policy of a federal unit-record system for higher education. The skinny: This bugger would expand federal cradle-to-grave surveillance of we, the people, and further centralize our already micromanaged economy. And Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Marco Rubio, and Rep. Mia Love are leading cosponsors. Jigga what?
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Managing Editor of School Reform News Heather Kays speaks with Moriah Costa. Costa is an education reporter for Watchdog.org. Costa and Kays talk about student privacy and a recently introduced bill titled “the Student Digital Privacy and Parental Rights Act of 2015.”
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Managing Editor of Budget & Tax News Jesse Hathaway speaks with Heartland Institute policy advisor Jeffery Tucker. Tucker and Hathaway have a discussion about the history and future of Bitcoin, an alternative digital currency with which users can buy physical goods.
Tweet If you don’t visit Somewhat Reasonable and the Heartlander digital magazine every day, you’re missing out on some of the best news and commentary on liberty and free markets you can find. But[…]