吃瓜大本营

This piece originally ran at .

Did you spend eight hours binge-watching last night? Or did you search the Internet to read about birth control options, find a new church, or research ways to get involved with your local political party? If so, there鈥檚 an important fact you should know: Information about the websites you visited or the time you spent using certain apps is not as private as you think. And that鈥檚 not good news if you want to protect yourself against discrimination.

On Tuesday, in a vote with strong Democratic opposition, to undo Federal Communications Commission (FCC) privacy rules issued under the Obama administration late last year that would have protected this sensitive information. Internet service providers (ISP) oppose these rules for a very simple reason: There is a lot of money to be made in selling consumers鈥� data. As a result, the industry has spent lobbying Congress to oppose the protections. The Trump administration鈥檚 of the measure means it is almost certain to become law.

The FCC rules like and receive customers鈥� permission before using or selling their private information, including web browsing history and app usage data. These same rules also prohibited these companies from adopting policies that leave customers no choice but to consent to sharing their personal information if they want to access the Internet. They further required companies to develop reasonable data security measures and to notify customers if their private information were breached.

These limits are essential to protecting users鈥� privacy. But they are also essential for another reason: They help consumers take steps to shield themselves from discrimination. Advertisers and data brokers are increasingly using data to decide what prices to advertise to someone, the content they should steer them to, and even the types of loans to offer them. And there is increasing evidence that this data can be used to discriminate against certain communities.

For example, until just recently, Facebook based on their race, their gender, or a medical condition. Before this policy change, advertisers had the option of, for instance, excluding anyone with an African American 鈥渆thnic affinity鈥� from seeing certain housing advertisements. Such practices undermine laws designed to prohibit practices that have been used to discriminate against minorities for generations.

Internet service providers (ISP) oppose these rules for a very simple reason: There is a lot of money to be made in selling consumers鈥� data.

Similarly, evidence shows that data brokers increasingly seek to identify financially vulnerable populations to assist companies in targeting their financial products. For example, a found that data brokers advertise the ability to identify consumers with fewer traditional bank accounts than average; these include 鈥渨idows,鈥� 鈥渘ew legal immigrants,鈥� and 鈥渃onsumers with transitory lifestyles, such as military personnel.鈥� Given the financial industry鈥檚 history of , we should not take lightly the ability of financial institutions to target consumers in this way.

Indeed, ad targeting can even impact the job openings that someone is likely to see. A recent found that Google鈥檚 algorithm was more likely to show prestigious, high-paying executive jobs to men than to women.

This is precisely why the FCC rules are so important. In some cases, it is in consumers鈥� best interest for their private data to remain just that鈥攑rivate. Yet even if consumers take steps to protect their private information by, for example, using a private web browsing option, their ISP can still see the websites they visit and has access to a host of other sensitive information.

Some critics of the FCC rule have that they believe that the free market will correct these types of abuses. But this is unlikely to be the case. have access to only one high-speed ISP. In many rural areas, in particular, there is an . And anyone who has ever tried to negotiate their bill can tell you that trying to barter with these companies is not an easy endeavor (ISPs consistently of customer satisfaction surveys).

Moreover, reversal of the FCC rule using the Congressional Review Act鈥攖he procedural maneuver being employed by Congress鈥攈as other far-reaching consequences. It prevents the FCC from issuing rules that are 鈥渟ubstantially the same鈥� in the future. As a result, the FCC may be unable to issue rules that directly respond to future abuses, even if technologies and public opinion on ISP behavior have shifted. What鈥檚 more, other government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission lack the authority to issue proactive rules or do not have jurisdiction over some ISPs.

All of this leaves consumers with little ability to control just how their personal information is used. It leaves government agencies tasked with protecting these consumers even less equipped to address future abuses. And it leaves the public once again let down by members of Congress who have voted to sacrifice consumers鈥� rights so companies can make an extra buck.