When our lawmakers in Washington, D.C., recently voted to scrap the Federal Communications Commission’s internet privacy rules, a bipartisan group of legislators in Washington quickly decided that the action by Congress and President Trump was wrong. On that, our legislators are right.
The rules, to take effect at the end of this year, would have required internet service providers to get permission from users before selling their browsing history and other private information. Last month’s move by the Republican-controlled Congress, quickly signed into law by President Donald Trump, likely bars the FCC from writing any similar rules in the future.
It is true that the federal move, supported by 4th District U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, doesn’t take away any current privacy rights. But it does eliminate a future promise that internet users wouldn’t be further bombarded by unwanted advertisements. Those who wanted the ads could have opted in; now, there is no way for them to opt out.
It also feeds into the perception that our government is for sale. Critics immediately noted that during the 2016 election cycle, Newhouse, a Republican, received a total of $10,000 in campaign contributions from four major telecom companies. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers, a Republican who represents the Spokane-based 5th District, received $28,000 from the same four companies; she also supported the bill.
Newhouse, during a town hall-style meeting Thursday in Sunnyside, denied that the donations affected his vote. In an email soon after Congress’ action, he said the FCC’s rules would have provided a “false sense of security to consumers” because they applied to broadband providers and not to sites such as Facebook or Google.
The difference: Broadband providers are defined as “common carriers” that deliver service as a public utility and with a financial charge to consumers, while the Googles and Facebooks of the world are free to users and make their money from ad sales. Internet service providers, by their nature, have much broader access to users’ data. In addition, daily access to the internet is essential to many in modern life. Social media sites such as Facebook are utilized more at users’ discretion.
Newhouse voted with the Republican majority, but the party’s caucus was not unanimous on the measure. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, of Camas, and Dave Reichert, of Auburn, both Republicans whose districts extend into Central Washington, opposed the measure.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group in Olympia jumped into action with legislation that would prohibit ISPs from selling or using private information, such as browsing histories, without a subscriber’s consent, which was the intent of the FCC rules. While the federal government largely regulates broadband and telecom companies, sponsors believe the state also has authority to take this action, in part by extending its consumer protection rules. The Seattle Times notes that the legislation is in line with the state’s 2015 data-breach law, which requires consumers to be notified when they are part of a widespread release of personal information.
As noted above, the legislative proposals — HB 2200 in the House and SB 5919 in the Senate — cross political and philosophical lines. Among the House sponsors is 15th District Rep. David Taylor, of Moxee, one of the most conservative House Republicans who in the past has found common cause with Democrats on privacy issues. Democrat Drew Hansen is a House sponsor, along with Republican Norma Smith. The Senate’s measure was introduced by Democrat Kevin Ranker and Republican Joe Fain.
On Friday, the House Technology and Economic Development Committee approved the measure 15-2. According to The Seattle Times, one of those two no votes, 13th District Republican Rep. Matt Manweller, of Ellensburg, said he opposed the bill because it didn’t go far enough to secure internet privacy.
Most of us want choices, and the FCC’s proposed rules provided at least some choice. Congress and the president took away that choice all while feeding the narrative that the nation’s Capitol is captive to special business interests. Newhouse, at Thursday’s town meeting, did say that he might consider privacy legislation in the future.
Meanwhile, the state legislative efforts are good politics and good policies that stand to benefit the vast majority of their constituents, whether Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, independents or folks who don’t give a fig about politics. This is an issue that should not be subject to partisan politics to begin with.
