Verizon wireless - New FCC rules on privacy.

Author

New FCC rules on privacy.

Larry

2007-04-02, 10:33 pm

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...OC-272008A1.pdf

Today, FCC moved to change the landline and wireless privacy rules to
"prevent pretexting".

The actual report and order is on:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...FCC-07-22A1.pdf
for those of you with S&M tendencies, strong stomachs or students of
government lawyer doublespeak Orwell would be proud of. For instance, in
the footnotes:

"175 See United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 177-78
(1968) (Southwestern Cable). Southwestern
Cable, the lead case on the ancillary jurisdiction doctrine, upheld
certain regulations applied to cable television
systems at a time before the Commission had an express congressional
grant of regulatory authority over that
medium. See id. at 170-71. In Midwest Video I, the Supreme Court expanded
upon its holding in Southwestern
Cable. The plurality stated that “the critical question in this case is
whether the Commission has reasonably
determined that its origination rule will ‘further the achievement of
long-established regulatory goals in the field of
television broadcasting by increasing the number of outlets for community
self-expression and augmenting the
public’s choice of programs and types of services.’” United States v.
Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 667-68
(1972) (Midwest Video I) (quoting Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the
Commission’s Rules and Regulations
Relative to Community Antenna Television Systems; and Inquiry into the
Development of Communications
Technology and Services to Formulate Regulatory Policy and Rulemaking
and/or Legislative Proposals, Docket No.
18397, First Report and Order, 20 FCC 2d 201, 202 (1969) (CATV First
Report and Order)). The Court later
restricted the scope of Midwest Video I by finding that if the basis for
jurisdiction over cable is that the authority is
ancillary to the regulation of broadcasting, the cable regulation cannot
be antithetical to a basic regulatory parameter
established for broadcast. See FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689,
700 (1979) (Midwest Video II); see also
American Library XXX’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (holding
that the Commission lacked authority to
impose broadcast content redistribution rules on equipment manufacturers
using ancillary jurisdiction because the
equipment at issue was not subject to the Commission’s subject matter
jurisdiction over wire and radio
communications)."

I musta missed something.....(c; I'll reread it again........drunk.

Larry
--
Is it any wonder why cellular is so expensive and Skype is so cheap?

tavenger5

2007-04-05, 10:33 am

Larry Wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/24xd3u
>
> Today, FCC moved to change the landline and wireless privacy rules to
> "prevent pretexting".
>
> The actual report and order is on:
> http://tinyurl.com/3bgqhb
> for those of you with S&M tendencies, strong stomachs or students of
> government lawyer doublespeak Orwell would be proud of. For instance,
> in
> the footnotes:
>
> "175 See United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 177-78
> (1968) (Southwestern Cable). Southwestern
> Cable, the lead case on the ancillary jurisdiction doctrine, upheld
> certain regulations applied to cable television
> systems at a time before the Commission had an express congressional
> grant of regulatory authority over that
> medium. See id. at 170-71. In Midwest Video I, the Supreme Court
> expanded
> upon its holding in Southwestern
> Cable. The plurality stated that “the critical question in this case is
>
> whether the Commission has reasonably
> determined that its origination rule will ‘further the achievement of
> long-established regulatory goals in the field of
> television broadcasting by increasing the number of outlets for
> community
> self-expression and augmenting the
> public’s choice of programs and types of services.’” United States v.
> Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 667-68
> (1972) (Midwest Video I) (quoting Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of
> the
> Commission’s Rules and Regulations
> Relative to Community Antenna Television Systems; and Inquiry into the
> Development of Communications
> Technology and Services to Formulate Regulatory Policy and Rulemaking
> and/or Legislative Proposals, Docket No.
> 18397, First Report and Order, 20 FCC 2d 201, 202 (1969) (CATV First
> Report and Order)). The Court later
> restricted the scope of Midwest Video I by finding that if the basis
> for
> jurisdiction over cable is that the authority is
> ancillary to the regulation of broadcasting, the cable regulation
> cannot
> be antithetical to a basic regulatory parameter
> established for broadcast. See FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S.
> 689,
> 700 (1979) (Midwest Video II); see also
> American Library XXX’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (holding
> that the Commission lacked authority to
> impose broadcast content redistribution rules on equipment
> manufacturers
> using ancillary jurisdiction because the
> equipment at issue was not subject to the Commission’s subject matter
> jurisdiction over wire and radio
> communications)."
>
> I musta missed something.....(c; I'll reread it again........drunk.
>
> Larry
> --
> Is it any wonder why cellular is so expensive and Skype is so cheap?

Humm... this explains it a little better: 'FCC imposes rules designed
to prevent pretexting | CNET News.com' (http://tinyurl.com/2lh5lz)

Love the last line there. haha.

--
tavenger5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/alt-cell...es-privacy.html

Cubit

2007-04-05, 3:33 pm

What is "pretexting?"

"tavenger5" <tavenger5.2okjwc@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
news:tavenger5.2okjwc@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>
> Larry Wrote:
>
> Humm... this explains it a little better: 'FCC imposes rules designed
> to prevent pretexting | CNET News.com' (http://tinyurl.com/2lh5lz)
>
> Love the last line there. haha.
>
>
> --
> tavenger5
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
> View this thread:
> http://cellphoneforums.net/alt-cell...es-privacy.html
>

SlobbyDon

2007-04-05, 10:33 pm

Cubit wrote:
> What is "pretexting?"
>

It's not top posting, which seems to be your method.

It's the selling of subscriber info. Not clear to me if the rules are
FCC, FTC or a combination of both. Here's an article:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...ll_records.html
[color=darkred]

--
SlobbyDon

Scott

2007-04-05, 10:33 pm

"SlobbyDon" < slobby_NIXSPAMdon@ma
il.ru> wrote in news:VYeRh.18707$PL.124
@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Cubit wrote:
>
> It's not top posting, which seems to be your method.
>
> It's the selling of subscriber info. Not clear to me if the rules are
> FCC, FTC or a combination of both. Here's an article:
>
> http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...ll_records.html
>
>
>

Actually, pretexting is posing as someone else with the intent of getting
personal and sensitive data from their account with the intent of reusing
the information, either by selling it or using it to scam companies out of
services.

LinkBot