Hacker News Reader

Comment by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | Hacker News Reader

The article puts it in plain terms:

> that the nation’s most important network has no public interest supervision

That's abstract jargon I'm not familiar with. What sort of changes might an ISP have to make (or be prevented from making) as a result of "public interest supervision?"

The article mentions supervision once and “blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization” about half a dozen times. Is the idea to just have some bearucracy around ISPs, then? It really isn't clear what the point is.

Those are not plain terms to me. Can you describe something that ISPs are doing right now that they couldn't do under "public interest supervision"?

Comcast's router/modems routinely gather information concerning your local network. CS employees and techs alike will act stupid so you can't use your own hardware, too.

They sell DNS data, search term data, anything they can glean from your network activity in-transit.

We need data liability laws. Watch tho silos disappear overnight the moment they're responsible for damages incurred.

How does Comcast know your search term data over https? Yes query strings are encrypted

If it can be gleaned then it will. I recall Mozilla investing in DoH and other technologies in efforts to strengthen HTTPS because it alone isn't enough for privacy.

Correct me with real info if I'm wrong please.

I think you are wrong, this is not how TLS works. In order to man-in-the-middle you, your ISP would have you install a certificate that makes their fake certificates for services (ie google.com) trusted on your devices.

In general terms I’m in favor of public interest supervision where it’s needed, but I would also be interested in knowing some details of what that supervision is going to be looking at.

Further down the page he brings up the “just and reasonable” standard from Title II. I want to know what behavior he (or the FCC) would consider unjust or unreasonable that isn’t in the realm of blocking or throttling.

this. while i agree with the claim in the article on principle, it left me wanting.

It is the conduct of the ISPs that is in question here. Because telephone companies were Title II common carriers, their behavior had to be just and reasonable. Those companies prospered under such responsibilities; as they have morphed into wired and wireless ISPs, there is no reasonable argument why they, as well as their new competitors from the cable companies, should not continue to have public interest obligations.

what were those responsibilities and obligations?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com