It’s been a dreadful week if you care about privacy online in the US. Last October the FCC passed broadband consumer privacy rules that constrained ISPs from commercialising users’ browsing data. These rules required that users opt-in to such usage rather than having to opt-out. Companies intent on profiting user data hate opt-in requirements as they know that many will not agree to these uses. Conversely many people who value privacy do not opt-out because they are unaware the option exists, don’t know how to avail of it, or the choice may be presented to them in terms which are confusing – in such cases uses tend to stick to the default setting.
Ajit Pai, the new head of the FCC, made clear his opposition to both the privacy and net neutrality rules when he was one of two Republican minority appointees on the last Commission. Reversal of the privacy rules was lobbied for intensely by the Cable providers (NCTA), wireless companies (CTIA) and the Telecom sector (US Telecom). They were supported by almost the entire advertising sector, notably the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). The sole exception is the Digital Advertising Alliance who have been conspicuous by their silence. DAA represents online advertising behemoths such as Google and Facebook and their interests are somewhat at odds with those of the infrastructure owners.
Sensitive or Insensitive?
Until last October browsing records were in the main classified as insensitive information. Sensitive information is characterized as that relating to financial and health data and information relating to children. This is the Federal Trade Commission’s classification, and is what allows Adtech to collect information about users without their consent. In 2015, as part of the net neutrality process, Broadband provision was re-categorized from information to telecommunications service. This may sound trivial but it meant ISPs became classed as ‘common carriers’ and placed under the jurisdiction of the FCC. The FCC then determined that browsing history as a whole is sensitive data, requiring companies to get opt-in to be allowed to use it.
Competition between Privacy Invaders
The cable, wireless and telecom companies hate this because they want to get into the personal data fueled advertising business, and their position sitting over the pipe of user data gives them an unparalleled to observe. Google and Facebook meanwhile track users over as much of the web as they can, on their own widely popular properties, and using third party cookies and social media buttons (like!, G+) to track users on other sites who are connect to their infrastructure for advertising or marketing purposes. Effectively this means that they can surveil most users over the lion’s share of their online activity (see the research from Engelhardt & Naranyan). These two colossi currently dominate internet advertising and are obviously keen to suppress the emergence of new competitors. But they also want to protect against the risk of their own data collection being redefined as involving sensitive information – the problem could spread from the FCC to their overseers (ha!) at the FTC. that’s why Google opposed this redefinition and lobbied against it.
Secondly, the DAA have their own self-regulatory privacy framework. This describes the interface of three classes of actors with user privacy: first parties (sites that you visit intentionally); third parties (domains that you interact with unknowingly because they provide services to the first); service providers, who are ISPs. In their schema service providers must get user consent for the use of data for reasons other than performance tuning. This explains why the DAA actively opposed the new privacy rules in the run-up to their introduction but is quiet now. It also explains the slurs being thrown at privacy advocates that they are acting as stooges for Google.
With this background let’s parse the Orwellian gobbledygook issued by industry lobbyists after their victory:
“We appreciate today’s Senate action to repeal unwarranted FCC rules that deny consumers consistent privacy protection online and violate competitive neutrality (#1). … Our industry remains committed to offering services that protect the privacy and security of the personal information of our customers (#2). We support this step towards reversing the FCC’s misguided approach and look forward to restoring a consistent approach to online privacy protection that consumers want and deserve (#3).”
#1 = These rules put us at a competitive disadvantage to Google/Facebook, they can intrude, we can’t – it wasn’t fair!
#2 = We’ll decide what information of your is personal and what is not (it’s all entertainment data, right?!). You can trust us.
#3 = Now that users have no privacy protections from either the biggest publishers or the infrastructure providers, the playing field field is finally level! Yes, we could have lobbied to have Google and Facebook subjected to the same constraints and evened things up that way, but nah, silly idea.
The big winners are companies like Verizon who bought AOL to move their business towards online advertising and is in the process of taking over what’s left of Yahoo. They’ve bought themselves an advertising infrastructure with lots of data of their own and can now exploit the data trail of their own customers. AT&T are also in celebratory mood and have been gushing about the Trump administration more generally. Back in 2013 they operated a program called ‘internet preferences’ which instituted additional charges for users who opted out of having their usage data exploited to expose them to behavioural advertising. Have achieved their goal of overturning the regulations, Telecoms are claiming they won’t sell users’ browser history. But selling data is not the model of Google or Facebook either – once sold the competitive advantage the data provides is lost. Instead they control access to its exploitation on long-term exploitation: they administer the data, marketers pay them directly or indirectly to take advantage of it.
As the gatekeeper to the network the ISP can see and read the URLs of all the pages you visit. If the site connection is via HTTPs then only the domain you are visiting is exposed – a minor mitigation but another good reason to use HTTPs Everywhere.
There are two technical responses to this situation both of which are unsatisfactory.
Tor: if you use Tor to access the web then your traffic is encrypted and routed via a series of other servers before being reaching the destination website. Thus the traffic is concealed from the ISP but at the cost of performance – all that circumnavigation to get your request to its final destination slows down the process. If it sounds too technical for you, think again: the Tor browser requires zero configuration overhead.
VPN: if you use a virtual private network then all your web traffic is routed securely through another server, so the ISP can only observe you connecting to that resource. That’s great but VPNs are paid services, typically between $30 and $100 a year. If you use a VPN for this purpose you hope that they are more trustworthy than the ISP, but the VPN world is fragmented among small providers and has no consistent audit standard.
- The FCC and the Tectonics of Commercial Surveillance
- End2End: Privacy Theatre or Promise Deferred?
- A 2016 Almanac
- The Machinic Sewer
- A Yahoo User’s Journey through the Unknown
- Filmpiraten Crush Austrofascists (at first instance…)
- Pirate Residuum
- Readings from the Book of (library) Genesis
- Cyberspace – the Fifth domain of Warfare?
- Demystifying AdTech
- The Hymn of Acxiom
- Knowledge is born free, yet is everywhere in chains…
- civil liberties
- Data Protection
- European Court of Justice
- european directives
- european regulations
- european union
- material culture
- open video
- Pirate Bay
- Pirate Party
- social cooperation
- steal this film