{"id":89500,"date":"2020-07-23T13:42:12","date_gmt":"2020-07-23T11:42:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/blog\/administrirovanie\/budut-li-provajdery-i-dalshe-torgovat-metadannymi-opyt-ssha"},"modified":"2020-07-23T13:42:12","modified_gmt":"2020-07-23T11:42:12","slug":"budut-li-provajdery-i-dalshe-torgovat-metadannymi-opyt-ssha","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/administrirovanie\/budut-li-provajdery-i-dalshe-torgovat-metadannymi-opyt-ssha","title":{"rendered":"Will providers continue to trade metadata: the experience of the USA","gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"text"}]},"content":{"rendered":"

We discuss the law that partially revived net neutrality rules.<\/p>\n

\"Will<\/a><\/noindex><\/a><\/noindex>
\n\/ Unsplash \/ Markus Spiske<\/a><\/noindex><\/i><\/p>\n

What was said in the state of Maine<\/h2>\n

\nThe authorities of the state of Maine, USA, passed a law<\/a><\/noindex>, requiring internet providers to obtain receive<\/a><\/noindex> explicit consent from users before sharing metadata and personal data with third parties. This primarily concerns browsing history and geolocation. Providers are also prohibited from advertising services unrelated to communications and from using data that is not considered personal data by definition.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the law in Maine revived several net neutrality rules that were in place in the country until 2018\u2014until they were repealed by the FCC<\/a><\/noindex>. In particular, it prohibited<\/a><\/noindex> internet providers from offering discounts on their services and other forms of compensation in exchange for the customer's consent to provide personal information.<\/p>\n

Why is it only about providers?<\/h2>\n

\nThe law in the state of Maine does not regulate the activities of telecommunications or IT companies. This situation did not sit well with internet providers, so in July of this year, they filed a lawsuit. Industry organizations USTelecom, ACA Connects, NCTA, and CTIA submitted a class action suit<\/a><\/noindex>, arguing that the ruling discriminates against providers and violates noted<\/a><\/noindex>the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech in business practices.<\/a><\/noindex> Fresh materials from our blog on Habr:<\/p>\n

Why Canada needs a new tax for internet companies<\/b><\/p>\n