from Hacker News

Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

by rahuldottech on 2/20/20, 2:28 PM with 144 comments

by Panino on 2/20/20, 3:44 PM
The big telcos have always been horrible and they will never change. I used to work for a small provider in that industry and always hated USWest because of that experience. They will never change as long as they exist, whatever name they go by.
Good to see Maine has a law protecting privacy. I agree with other commenters that this kind of law should be broad-spectrum, affecting all businesses from telcos to lemonade stands.
My ISP is a municipal fiber provider with strong and proud Net Neutrality. Obviously NN isn't a privacy issue, but it's unlikely to pair with trying to sell personal data (of our own neighbors!) for cash.
In addition to consumer protection laws, strongly consider supporting local municipal FTTH. Compared to Comcast, I pay less money for unmetered symmetric gigabit, it's run by ordinary people (not comic book villains), and the money stays here in town. All it takes is determined civic engagement.
(And that includes voting out the people who support these attacks against people.)
by fossuser on 2/20/20, 5:53 PM
For those that are unaware, if you live in California the recently passed CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act) gives you a lot of new power to force companies to delete your data and let you opt-out of them selling it.
For Comcast: https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/ccpa
It's a little tedious since you have to do it with each company, but so far I've found that it largely works.
You can also do it for equifax, experian, and transunion (though when I tried equifax it was unsurprisingly broken).
You can either request the data they have on you, ask for it to be deleted (the parts they don't require for operation), or opt-out of resale.
This website [0] has a bunch of links to the CCPA pages for different companies. The better companies have enabled this ability for all users, but generally the companies you'd rather delete from have only enabled it for California.
[0] https://caprivacy.github.io/caprivacy/
by ipython on 2/20/20, 3:25 PM
Sounds like I have an equal first amendment right to publicly expose the personal cell phone numbers and home addresses of every lawyer, corporate executive, and lobbyist who think this is a good idea.
by kitteh on 2/20/20, 3:41 PM
When I worked at a large telco/broadband provider in the 90s and onward such concepts of selling this data was forbidden and you'd get funny looks for suggesting it. Our leadership chain - comprised of a mixture of long tenured employees with mostly engineering backgrounds supported not wanting to sell this data as well. It wasn't until the mid 2000s when our leadership got swapped out with younger executives who'd do 2 year rotations across the company and were looking to do a fast big bang to wow others that would go down this road. It wasn't just selling data this new gang wanted, but DNS redirection (think for nxdomains), and ad insertion thru TCP seassion hijacking platforms. There were a number of startups who were happy to give us free gear to sniff & manipulate customer traffic and we'd get a cut of the ad money.
by rs23296008n1 on 2/20/20, 3:35 PM
Sure. Just get the corporate entity to say a single word. No representatives. No notes. No proxies. No robots. No automated voices. The actual corporate legal entity. Not even the CEO. No clever stand-ins with same name.
Just one mouthed, audible word to confirm the entity can qualify for speech. Then we can consider "free speech" for that entity.
I can only dream this would hold up even as I know there are likely dozens of loopholes to render it irrelevant. Not to mention specific exceptions and allowances already in law.
by comis on 2/20/20, 3:17 PM
> “Maine's decision to impose unique burdens on ISPs' speech—while ignoring the online and offline businesses that have and use the very same information and for the same and similar purposes as ISPs—represents discrimination between similarly situated speakers that is impermissible under the First Amendment,” the lawsuit claimed.
I agree. The law should apply to everyone, not just ISPs.
by CaptArmchair on 2/20/20, 4:00 PM
That's not how "free speech" works. That right isn't violated by privacy protection laws.
Free speech states that a state isn't going to prosecute you directly for whatever you may say. But that doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of what you're saying.
Privacy protection simply states that any legal person who feels that your actions violated the consent they gave, is free to sue you via the legal system for compensation for damages incurred. Which has little if anything to do with free speech.
If a telco uses the "free speech" argument, they essentially argue "we're a media company and we are accountable for what we publish".
If we're discussing media companies, it's interesting to note that these pull the "freedom of press" card to defend divulging person or confidential information in news outlets.
At this point, the entire discussion becomes rather silly semantics.
Interestingly, many EU countries also have "secrecy of correspondence" enshrined as a fundamental principle into their constitutions. The U.S. does not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence
by 34679 on 2/20/20, 5:10 PM
There's a pretty big difference between the qualifiers used in the 1st and 4th Amendments.
The 1st begins with "Congress shall make no law.."
The 4th states "..shall not be violated"
This is important because the 1st restricts what the government can do, while the 4th restricts what anyone can do. In other words, Congress need not pass a law restricting the collecting and sale of private information because that activity is already banned by the 4th. This is a job for the courts.
by AdmiralAsshat on 2/20/20, 7:27 PM
First Amendment seems to mean whatever the hell we want it to mean, these days.
A group of gun's rights advocates marching in Virginia recently argued that not being allowed to brandish assault weapons at the capitol was violation of their "symbolic" speech.[0]
I'm just waiting for the point where someone tries to make the defense in court that shooting another person in the head was an exercise of their freedom of speech.
[0]https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/gun-groups-want-firearms-b...
by mfer on 2/20/20, 4:46 PM
I wonder...
Do the big telco's remove the history of their own execs when selling it?
What would it cost for someone to buy the browsing histories of the execs at these companies ... or that of politicians and their staffs.
by gumby on 2/20/20, 4:17 PM
Great: furniture movers should also have the free speech right to talk about my address, describe all my possessions, etc.
I hire those assholes to transport my bits, unmodified except for TTL, from my endpoint to a peer, no more, no less. Since they have a de facto monopoly I don’t even have the ability to choose an alternative. This exploitative crap must be stopped.
by thepete2 on 2/20/20, 9:46 PM
How did we arrive at the situation where roads are public, but internet isn't? I'd argue many more people use the internet than own a car.
by awinter-py on 2/20/20, 5:07 PM
I mean every platform is monetizing data. If the telcos are arguing 'google and facebook are the same as us, we should have the same business models' I kind of agree
Of course my version is that they're all common carriers and have to comply with some norms, but allowing platforms to do this but not telcos is potentially silly
by kabdib on 2/20/20, 3:42 PM
Wasn't Apple using the same argument when they refused to make custom iOS firmware with backdoors for the FBI a few years ago?
I could be wrong. I guess my point is, this is a double-edged sword, like most freedoms.
by volgar1x on 2/20/20, 5:35 PM
I don't know if they are evil or just trying it anyway and seeing what happens. French people have a saying for this
```
    You never know, on a misunderstanding it might actually work!
```
by dredmorbius on 2/20/20, 7:33 PM
Somewhat more information, including the plaintiffs (America's Communications Association, CTIA, NCTA, and USTelecom), in the referenced Ars Technica article:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/isps-sue-maine-c...

by m463 on 2/20/20, 10:27 PM

Note the word "privacy"

  California Constitution

  ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

  SECTION 1.
  
  All people are by nature free and independent
  and have inalienable rights. Among these are
  enjoying and defending life and liberty,
  acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,
  and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness,
  and privacy.

by bryanrasmussen on 2/20/20, 5:20 PM
Do I have a first amendment right to sell pirated Disney cartoons?
on edit: obviously not because I'm not in the U.S but if I were?
by allovernow on 2/20/20, 3:11 PM
That sounds like a pretty desperate argument. What proportion of their revenue are they making from selling this data?
by TallGuyShort on 2/20/20, 3:24 PM
I would be fine with that argument if they could get media companies on board with fair use and more limited copyright again. At least that would be consistent logic, but that won't happen.
by pnutjam on 2/20/20, 7:41 PM
I'm just going to leave this here, seems relevant:
https://movetoamend.org/
by ghastmaster on 2/20/20, 4:00 PM
If municipalities stop giving them local monopolies they can have rights again. Until then, they should be beholden to strict rules.
by ptah on 2/20/20, 3:48 PM
watering down freedom of speech because why not
by 12xo on 2/20/20, 3:12 PM
How perverted. They claim that the entity has a right to free speech? And worse, that somehow that entitles them to do as they please? Is Alan Dershowitz behind this?
by aswanson on 2/20/20, 7:40 PM
This is insane.
by auiya on 2/20/20, 3:16 PM
The US needs GDPR-equivalent laws ASAP.
by clSTophEjUdRanu on 2/20/20, 4:45 PM
I think it's funny how high and mighty so many are on this site but if you look to your left and right YOU are the ones building this dystopia.