No privacy rules needed: ISPs say Web browsing isn’t “sensitive” data

Re:No privacy rules needed: ISPs say Web browsing isn’t “sen... by loup-vaillant on Friday March 17, 2017 @03:33PM (#13897219)

Mere conduits have no memory —they wouldn't keep logs, let alone sell them to third parties.

If the ISP wants to "simply be a conduit", I can only applaud, as long as they follow the rules of common carriers they just implied by saying so: no snooping, no filtering, no selective throttling, no looking at TCP packets to look for a "25" (SMTP requests) and block them…

If they do that, they don't have to follow any privacy rule: they already respect mine.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No privacy rules needed: ISPs say Web browsing isn’t “sen... by bonzini on Friday March 17, 2017 @03:57PM (#13897426)

I suppose a water "carrier" could have a sieve to filter away unwanted particles, or could add chlorine to kill bacteria, etc. But it certainly couldn't do anything equivalent to keeping or selling logs...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No privacy rules needed: ISPs say Web browsing isn’t “sen... by yosamino on Friday March 17, 2017 @04:46PM (#13897848)

Well, they could drugtest your wastewater [0] and measure your water consumption with one of these "smart" meters at small intervals. It's not at the scale of data that an ISP could sift through, but with a little imagination, water can be a source of metadata...

[0] http://www.dw.com/en/experts-on-drug-wastewater-analysis-say...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No privacy rules needed: ISPs say Web browsing isn’t “sen... by subway on Friday March 17, 2017 @04:05PM (#13897487)

The "carrier" ceases to be just a "carrier" at that point. They're now both a "carrier" and a "filter".

Sometimes I just want unmolested water.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No privacy rules needed: ISPs say Web browsing isn’t “sen... by KMag on Sunday March 19, 2017 @12:25PM (#13908001)

You and me both, General Ripper.

[ Parent | on HN ]