EFF Targets Californians being Mislead on Broadband Privacy Vote

[FrgMstr]

If you are a HardOCP reader in the great state of California, I highly suggest you give this Elelctronic Frontier Foundation article a read before you head to the polls next week. And if you head to the polls tonight, remember to take a thick stack of ones.

The large broadband providers and their associations who spent millions in Washington, D.C. to repeal broadband privacy just a few months ago in Congress are fighting to protect their victory in California. They are throwing every superficial argument against A.B. 375 in hopes to confuse California’s legislature enough to give them a pass despite an overwhelming 83% of the American public demanding a response to the Congressional Review Act repeal of their privacy rights.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

They are throwing every superficial argument against A.B. 375 in hopes to confuse California’s legislature enough to give them a pass despite an overwhelming 83% of the American public demanding a response to the Congressional Review Act repeal of their privacy rights.

As someone on here who quite possibly writes the most poorly worded responses, I can safely say that this sentence is without meaning or context to what "A.B. 375" and whom "they" is to help me understand what's going on.

Would I or would I not want to vote "yes" on this?

I would say "No" on initial reading of the question.

 

[lcpiper]

I have some problems with that EFF article.

Just on the surface the writer says;

We fought hard to stop Congress from repealing our broadband privacy rights. Tens of thousands of Americans picked up the phone to demand Congress vote no on the broadband privacy repeal but they were ignored.

And my first thoughts were "how is it that you repeal a right?" And my second is, since when is tens of thousands a large number of people on a national issue? A nation of 325 Million and all these guys could get to respond was a few tens of thousands, pathetic.

But then he follows it up with this;

That is right. They are arguing that the FTC has no legal enforcement power over them.

The link take us to a legal document from the referenced legal action dated February 22, 2016, but this is after the FEB. 26, 2015 FCC ruling classifying the internet as a utility and no longer allowing the FTC to regulate it. This guy can't have it both ways but he sure wants us to believe it's so.

Is their case so weak that an honest elicitation for support stands no chance?

If I can pick out these lies with just a few minutes effort why should I think any of what they are saying is credible?

I agree with Kju1, save your ones for the strippers.


Edited: I am not against our privacy rights, I'm all for them. I am against trying to use the wrong part of the government to maintain them. And I am against misleading people into backing a cause even if the cause is just. We've had far too much of "the ends justify the means" over the last several years. We need correct solutions regulated by the correct authority, half assed solutions only provide half assed results.

 

[MarkVI]

I have some problems with that EFF article.

Just on the surface the writer says;

And my first thoughts were "how is it that you repeal a right?" And my second is, since when is tens of thousands a large number of people on a national issue? A nation of 325 Million and all these guys could get to respond was a few tens of thousands, pathetic.

But then he follows it up with this;


The link take us to a legal document from the referenced legal action dated February 22, 2016, but this is after the FEB. 26, 2015 FCC ruling classifying the internet as a utility and no longer allowing the FTC to regulate it. This guy can't have it both ways but he sure wants us to believe it's so.

Is their case so weak that an honest elicitation for support stands no chance?

If I can pick out these lies with just a few minutes effort why should I think any of what they are saying is credible?

I agree with Kju1, save your ones for the strippers.

I don't see any "lies" here.
1. You can certainly revoke a statue, regulation, or law that grants rights to people. What is controversial about this statement? You can't revoke a constitutional right without an amendment, but that is an entirely separate issue.
2. It's entirely subjective whether or not tens of thousands calling congressional reps is a large number or not. Yes this is a nation of hundreds of millions of people, but it's spurious to suggest any issue will result in millions calling congressional reps. Either way, you are entitled to think that this is not a large number, but it isn't a lie, it is a difference in interpretation between you and the author of the article.
3. It is relevant that AT&T is suing to block FTC regulation since, as we all know, Ajit Pai is working hard to make the FCC revoke common carrier classification of internet service providers. What exactly do you think is disingenuous about this? Isn't AT&T speaking out of both sides of its mouth?

You are fully entitled to disagree with the article, but a lie is not the same as a difference or an inaccuracy. Note how carefully the media parses the difference between inaccurate statements and lies. Trump claiming that his inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's was incorrect, but to call it a lie one must know what is in the mind of someone else. That's can be pretty difficult. Calling the statements by the article's author "lies" is alarmist and overly dramatic at best.

 

[Zinn]

TL;DR: AT&T argues that privacy legislation is unnecessary because the FTC will hold them to their self-imposed "privacy principles." Meanwhile AT&T also argues in court that the FTC has no authority over them.

 

[lcpiper]

I don't see any "lies" here.
1. You can certainly revoke a statue, regulation, or law that grants rights to people. What is controversial about this statement? You can't revoke a constitutional right without an amendment, but that is an entirely separate issue.
2. It's entirely subjective whether or not tens of thousands calling congressional reps is a large number or not. Yes this is a nation of hundreds of millions of people, but it's spurious to suggest any issue will result in millions calling congressional reps. Either way, you are entitled to think that this is not a large number, but it isn't a lie, it is a difference in interpretation between you and the author of the article.
3. It is relevant that AT&T is suing to block FTC regulation since, as we all know, Ajit Pai is working hard to make the FCC revoke common carrier classification of internet service providers. What exactly do you think is disingenuous about this? Isn't AT&T speaking out of both sides of its mouth?

You are fully entitled to disagree with the article, but a lie is not the same as a difference or an inaccuracy. Note how carefully the media parses the difference between inaccurate statements and lies. Trump claiming that his inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's was incorrect, but to call it a lie one must know what is in the mind of someone else. That's can be pretty difficult. Calling the statements by the article's author "lies" is alarmist and overly dramatic at best.

Wait up, let's go over these in detail because you seem interested enough.

1. You are correct, they can revoke a regulation, and that is what was done, FCC Rules (a regulation), were revoked. Those FCC rules did not equate to a "Right", they did not grant a right. They were rules and they act as regulatory control over what was, a Utility. Claiming that congress revoked privacy rights is a falsehood. They revoke rules that were ostensibly written in order to ensure privacy rights were not violated. The rules did not establish the privacy rights, only ensured their protection if you grant them that intended consequence. If this isn't making a false claim, then what is? And if a false claim isn't a lie, again, what is?

2. You would like to argue over what is "subjective". I'll be specific, if tens of thousands is less then a hundred thousand, then less than a hundred thousand is less than .00325% of the nation's population. Not 1%, not a 10th of a percent, but a little over 3 thousandth's of a percent. I'm not seeing this as a hot button issue at all at that rate. Still, I never specifically claimed this as a lie, I used lies in the plural, but I didn't specify what I was calling a lie and I didn't say everything was a lie, I just said there was more then one.

3. I think this one was clear enough. I think it's disingenuous and a lie. The legal action was filed by the FTC before the FCC ruling which took away regulatory power from the FTC and placed it upon the FCC instead, so the existing legal action had been overcome by events and made moot. Now Congress has reversed that decision and the power again lies with the FTC to regulate these issues, but this writer wants to "remember" this point in time and use it today as if it were still true and it is not. Did the author say "back in Feb 2016, when the FTC no longer had the authority to regulate blah blah, they said "blah blah blah". No, he said is as if the conditions surrounding the statement have not changed but they have changed. Maybe this expert who writes articles for the EFF wasn't aware that Congress reversed the FCC ruling and that the Internet is no longer a Utility to be managed by the FCC. Must have just slipped by him and he's not a lier, he's just misinformed.

But if "lie" remains too strong a word for you at least acknowledge that the writer was at the least, mistaken in his statements and how he justified them. No matter his good intentions.

 

[lcpiper]

TL;DR: AT&T argues that privacy legislation is unnecessary because the FTC will hold them to their self-imposed "privacy principles." Meanwhile AT&T also argues in court that the FTC has no authority over them.

Yes, as I said, AT&T did make this claim, in court, at a point in time when the authority for the FTC to regulate them was removed by the FCC's ruling that the internet was a utility, which Congress has now reversed. So at the time that AT&T claimed the FTC has no authority over them, it was true, and today, it is not. So drawing a comparison using this as an argument is disingenuous at the least.

But you can help me out, I must confess some ignorance, I don't know what TL;DR means?

 

[Zinn]

Yes, as I said, AT&T did make this claim, in court, at a point in time when the authority for the FTC to regulate them was removed by the FCC's ruling that the internet was a utility, which Congress has now reversed. So at the time that AT&T claimed the FTC has no authority over them, it was true, and today, it is not. So drawing a comparison using this as an argument is disingenuous at the least.

But you can help me out, I must confess some ignorance, I don't know what TL;DR means?

When did Congress reverse the net neutrality regulations? AFAIK that is an open question that the FCC is about to decide on. Congress has proposed but not passed any legislation rolling this back. (TL;DR: means too long, didn't read, aka. a summary)

 

[lcpiper]

When did Congress reverse the net neutrality regulations? AFAIK that is an open question that the FCC is about to decide on. Congress has proposed but not passed any legislation rolling this back. (TL;DR: means too long, didn't read, aka. a summary)

I think I am seeing the same thing. I have confused myself with the FCC Title II reclassification of the internet and the FCCs proposed privacy rules that the Senate voted down, and I believe is awaiting the House to rule on.

Still, does that change the meat of what I am saying. That a court case that was begun years before the FCC reclassification and new privacy rules, is effected by changes in a manner that prohibit the FTC from regulating what the on-going case is based on, and then is again reversed so that FTC is again, back in the game and have renewed authority to regulate.

And then again, what company isn't going to say whatever they think they can in order to win a law suite against the government, and then someone wants to take a statement from their legal defense out of context?

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

How is misleading information releases not an SEC violation? Potentially misinforming stockholders?

 

[sleepeeg3]

There is nothing for voters to vote on here. Looks like this is a Senate bill, which will surely get passed, because the illegal immigrants and fart huffer's, here in California, gave the state legislature a supermajority of Democrats. We're screwed!