Minnesota Senate votes 58-9 to pass Internet privacy protections in response to repeal of FCC privacy rules
What does Holla Forums think of this? As a Minnesotan this looks promising but I don't speak legalese so I have no idea what ISPs can and can't do once this is passed. I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs continue their spying on the down low but it does limit what they can do with the information they gather.
Sec. 17. [237.417] PERSONAL INFORMATION; PROHIBITION.No telecommunications or internet service provider that has entered into a franchise agreement, right-of-way agreement, or other contract with the state of Minnesota or a political subdivision, or that uses facilities that are subject to such agreements, even if it is not a party to the agreement, may collect personal information from a customer resulting from the customer’s use of the telecommunications or internet service provider without express written approval from the customer. No such telecommunication or internet service provider shall refuse to provide its services to a customer on the grounds that the customer has not approved collection of the customer’s personal information. EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
Are there bills like this in any of the other shitlib states?
Adrian Roberts
All according to plan...
Evan Martin
Nothing from Feel-goodie Oregon. All we care about is Trannies making $15/hr for bagging groceries, and sticking up yard signs that say: "I'm glad you're my brown, uneducated, disinterested in American culture, undocumented immigrant neighbor. Please come and fuck my daughter". Someone please tell me this new face of the left is just a psyop and none of it is really real.
Justin Flores
It says that ISPs can't "collect personal information from a customer resulting from the customer’s use of the telecommunications or internet service provider without express written approval from the customer."
It's pretty plain.
Lucas Mitchell
Please approve to this TL;DR agreement :^) But he didn't approve some other point in our agreement :^)
Jacob Sanchez
...
Caleb Phillips
... put all users behind single IP NAT, and when they bitch and moan about it, say its for "law reasons", not IPv4 depletion.
Alexander Sanders
I fucking hate this state and their stupid policy of bringing in niggers. Everything else is fine except the spics and niggers.
Mason Davis
those had better be reusable bags!
As a bonus, the BPA exposure cuts down on the need for HRT
Julian Davis
But it's not you retard
Jacob Edwards
Don't forget the Hmong
Jaxon Green
That's for court to decide.
Jack King
I never understood why people are so outraged when ISPs have been doing this for at least a decade regardless of the regulations in place.
Charles Reed
I'm not sure you realise how irrelevant bpa's are
Ryder Kelly
Because it gives their life meaning. It allows them to simulate resistance when they know it's too late because they didn't give a shit when it really mattered.
Brandon Reyes
How do they do that? Is storage seriously that cheap that ISPs are capable of storing all their customer's traffic? I understand how the NSA is capable with their limitless budget backing them up but I presume ISPs are not flush with that kind of operating capital.
You need an IP before you can make use of the service. lrn2readingcomprehension.
You still give them an IP, only now it's a non-routable private address, and you still know the public address they use to talk to everyone else.
Nolan Evans
Glad they included that as an edge case. I foresaw bills like this that would just say you can't sell their data without their permission, which would enable ISPs to sneak that into a service agreement and effectively not change anything.
I'm still iffy about how it only applies to infrastructure owned by or subject to the state of Minnesota. Does that include lines paid for and installed by private companies?
