The FCC put in place critical broadband privacy protection rules late previous year to protect your right to privacy online.
Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, "worries that personal data could be used for discriminatory advertising practices, like showing ads for high-interest loans only to low-income consumers, or prices for products that vary based on the user's income information".
"We respectfully urge you to veto S.J.Res. 34 and make sure that the broadband privacy protections stay intact", the letter said. Even worse: The method they would use - passing a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to repeal the rules - would ban the FCC from ever writing similar privacy rules.
Still, supporters of the privacy measure argue that the information seen by Internet service providers - every website you visit and whom you send emails to - would be extremely useful for advertisers and marketers. Republicans have recommended that ISPs should be synchronized by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as an alternative of the FCC. "Consumers deserve the right to make their own decisions about access, use, and sale of their personal, sensitive internet data by their broadband provider". He called the rule an effort to strip the agency of that role.
Republican Rep. Kevin Yoder of Kansas parted ways with his Republican colleagues on the issue.More news: West Virginia Senate backs budget with spending cuts
Internet security experts like Paul Hager said there are some things people can do to protect their information.
Broadband providers don't now fall under FTC jurisdiction, and advocates say the FTC has historically been a weaker agency than the FCC. But on Thursday, more than 40 Senators, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., signed a letter urging President Trump to veto the bill on behalf of consumers, the Huffington Post reported.
Republicans repeatedly discounted the privacy benefits generated by the rule.
Representative Michael Burgess, a Republican, described the rules as "duplicative regulation" on the House floor and said the repeal would "level the playing field for an increasingly anti-competitive market".