Local reps defend vote on Internet privacy rules
If and when your local cable provider begins selling your personal browsing history, location data and Social Security number without your permission or knowledge in the near future, your three local Congressmen will be among those you can thank for the experience.
All three — Ryan Costello, R-6th Dist.; Pat Meehan, R-7th Dist., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-8th District — joined with other House Republicans Tuesday in a party-line 215-205 vote to prevent rules the Obama administration adopted in October against vehement Republican opposition from going into affect at the end of the year..
No Democrats voted for the rule’s repeal and 15 Republicans also voted against the measure, according to the tally taken by the House Clerk.
The rules would have limited what Internet providers like Comcast could have done with personal and computer user information as well as requiring “providers to strengthen safeguards for customer data against hackers and thieves,” according to a report in The Washington Post.
The rules also would have prohibited “broadband offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights” according to summary provided by the Congressional Research Service.
The U.S. Senate has already passed the measure, with the help of a vote from Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, and President Donald Trump is expected to sign the measure.
If and when he does, “providers will be able to monitor their customers’ behavior online and, without their permission, use their personal and financial information to sell highly targeted ads — making them rivals to Google and Facebook in the $83 billion online advertising market,” according to the Post’s report.
“The providers could also sell their users’ information directly to marketers, financial firms and other companies that mine personal data — all of whom could use the data without consumers’ consent. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission, which initially drafted the protections, would be forbidden from issuing similar rules in the future,” the Post reported.
“Supporters of Tuesday’s repeal vote argued that the privacy regulations stifle innovation by forcing Internet providers to abide by unreasonably strict guidelines” and ignore the more successful regulatory approach taken by the Federal Trade Commission, according to the Post and information from Costello.
Because the rules were not yet in effect, not much will change in the shortterm, according to the Associated Press.
“For now, phone and cable companies remain subject to federal law that imposes on broadband providers a ‘duty to protect the confidentiality’ of customer information and restricts them from using some customer data without ‘approval,’” according to the Associated Press.
But that law “doesn’t spell out how companies must get permission, how they must protect your data, or whether and how they have to tell you if it’s been hacked,” AP wrote.
Costello’s office issued a strong statement regarding his vote.
“Rep. Costello supports strong consumer protections for constituents’ Internet data. The pending rule not only deviates from long-established, successful precedent made by the very agency tasked with consumer protection — (the Federal Trade Commission) — but was so riddled with weaknesses the FTC issued a serious critique of the rule,” according to a statement on the vote provided by Costello spokesperson Natalie Gillam.
“Opponents of the bill have grossly mischaracterized it. Additionally, Rep. Costello supports legislative efforts to better align Internet provider privacy rules with the (Federal Trade Commission), including a bill introduced yesterday,” Gillam wrote. “For those wanting more information, please read Rep. Costello’s two page analysis on the vote.”
In that analysis, Costello wrote: “at first glance, it would be reasonable to be concerned about Congress’ disapproval of regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that are titled ‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services,’ which have also been dubbed the ‘Broadband Privacy Rules.’ Unfortunately, the name given to these regulations is aspirational, at best, and belies its true effect.”
“The FTC’s framework provides the most sensible foundation in which to further (Internet Service Provider) privacy discussions,” Costello wrote. “I would support efforts to align ISP privacy rules with the FTC framework so as to craft a harmonized regulatory structure that works to ensure consumers’ best interests are protected.”
Costello also wrote that “the FTC is our expert agency when it comes to protecting individual privacy, and it has exercised a significant role in safeguarding consumers through enforcement actions and education initiatives” and pointed to the agency’s recent action against Facebook for exposure of previously hidden profile content without consent.
However, the Post noted, “the FTC does not have the authority to punish Internet providers that violate its guidelines. That is because of a rule that leaves oversight of those companies to the FCC.”
Still others, including all five of those who commented on Costello’s analysis, pointed out that a user can choose not to use social media, web sites, apps or other applications that do not protect privacy to their satisfaction.
But in many places, customers have only one choice of Internet provider.
“Stop it with the deflection to Google and Facebook, it makes you look ridiculous (and doesn’t pass the smell test above),” Jeremy Powlus — who had initially noted “this post smells like it was written by a telecom lobbyist” — posted beneath Costello’s analysis.
“At least Google has a dashboard where I can see all of the data they’ve collected on me, delete portions of it, or opt out of it all together. Where’s my ISP dashboard? Better yet, where’s my ISP competition so that I can have some choices?”
Costello serves on the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection sub-committee as well as the Communications and Technology sub-committee.
According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, Costello or his political action committees received $38,740 in campaign contributions from the telecom industry in the most recent election cycle.
Vincent Galko, senior advisor to the Costello campaign, denied any connection between Costello’s vote and the contributions, writing “your insinuation that contributions from some of the region’s leading innovators and employers influenced the vote of three local congressmen is patently false and demonstrably political. Such an assertion dismisses the fact that over 210 other Members of the House and half the U.S. Senate voted to support this effort. It likewise dismisses the fact that these same contributors donated to some members who were on the other side of the issue,” Galko wrote.
“Unfortunately, understanding an issue and informing an audience of the facts so that they can make their own decisions requires more effort than simply restating a political press release,” Galko wrote.
Fitzpatrick serves on the Sub-Committee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection.
According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, Fitzpatrick or his political action committees received $16,100 in campaign contributions from the telecom services and equipment industry in the most recent election cycle.
Whereas Meehan or his political action committees, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, received a cumulative $64,200 in campaign contributions from the telecom services and equipment industry in the most recent election cycle.
By way of response to a Digital First Media inquiry, Meehan spokesman John Elizandro provided the text of a letter Meehan sent to constituents who raised questions about this issue.
“I’ve seen a lot of misinformation out there, both about the FCC’s regulations and the impact that Congress’ action will have on individuals’ privacy as they browse the internet,” Meehan wrote.
The conflict between FTC and FCC rules also figured in Meehan’s letter. “It was classic Washington: two federal agencies, working at crosspurposes, creating a regulatory maze and forcing American companies to navigate it. Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed their concerns, in writing, about the proposal,” he wrote.
“I chaired the House Homeland Security Committee’s cybersecurity subcommittee, where I worked extensively on online privacy concerns with groups like the American Civil Liberties Union,” Meehan wrote.
“There is much we can do to strengthen and modernize online privacy rules to keep up with the changing face of the modern internet. Last-minute regulations, poorly conceived and poorly executed, are the wrong way to do it,” wrote Meehan. “I’m going to continue to work with both Republicans and Democrats to push for
“Opponents of the bill have grossly mis-characterized it. Additionally, Rep. Costello supports legislative efforts to better align Internet provider privacy rules with the (Federal Trade Commission), including a bill introduced yesterday.” Natalie Gillam, Spokesman for U.S. Rep. Ryan Costello
thoughtful legislation and effective rule making that will better protect Americans’ online identities.”
Fitzpatrick’s office did not provide a response to the Digital First Media inquiry before deadline Wednesday.