Should companies like Comcast be able to sell your internet browsing history without your permission? Most Americans would say “no,” yet the Senate voted to allow just that.
A , passed by a thin margin of 50-48 in the Senate, could overturn rules developed by the Federal Communications Commission last year, which required most internet service providers (ISPs) to get your consent before using and selling your web browsing history and other sensitive data. The resolution also prohibits the FCC from issuing rules that are substantially the same in the future.
The FCC rules are necessary to ensure that large companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon don’t put their profits above our right to choose how our online information is used and shared. Here are three reasons why the House of Representatives should vote no to overturning the FCC rules.
1. Companies would be able to sell your sensitive data to advertisers, big data brokers, and even the government.
Without the FCC rules, ISPs won’t have to ask your permission before passing along data — your browsing history, IP address (which can indicate your location), app usage, and the times you log in and out of services — to third parties. These third parties could be advertising firms and big data brokers, both of which have a of discrimination. With the data they get from ISPs, these third parties could get insight into your religion, sexual orientation, or even how often you binge-watch Netflix. Even more disturbing, the government could also this data for law enforcement or other uses.
2. A huge gap would be created in consumer protection online — opening the door to abuse.
The FCC is the only agency that can proactively protect your online privacy. Other government bodies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, cannot issue proactive rules that require companies to obtain consent before sharing customer information. Moreover, as a result of recent court cases, the FTC over some internet service providers, such as AT&T. As a result, if Congress eliminates the FCC rules, no existing regulations would require companies to provide opt-in consent to consumers before sharing their information, creating an enormous privacy gap.
3. The FCC might not be able to remedy future privacy abuses.
Under the fast-track procedure being considered by Congress under the Congressional Review Act, the FCC rules would be eliminated and the agency would be prohibited from issuing rules that are “substantially the same” or similar in the future. Prior to this Congress, this procedure under the Congressional Review Act had only been used once before. Thus, it is unclear how the term “substantially the same” will be interpreted. However, it is a fair bet that companies will use this language to argue against the ability of the FCC to issue rules in the future. Moreover, the FCC may interpret this language in a way that forecloses it from addressing future privacy abuses or changing business practices.
Most Americans believe that their sensitive internet information should be closely guarded — and Congress’ votes should reflect that same belief. The House should stand up against industry pressure to put profits over privacy and reject the resolution to overturn the FCC’s privacy rule.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.