October, 27 2016, 12:45pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Brian Wesolowski,Director of Communications,press@cdt.org,+1 (202) 407-8814
Strong FCC Broadband Privacy Rules a Win for Consumers
Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to extend crucial privacy protections to broadband users. The new rule empowers consumers to control how broadband providers use and share their information. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) worked with the FCC, civil society, and other stakeholders throughout the process to ensure that the final rule offered meaningful privacy protections.
"This rule represents a significant step forward in protecting internet users, who have no choice but to expose massive amounts of information to broadband providers. It reflects the reality that where we go online is private and the people we pay to carry it should treat it as private," said Chris Calabrese, CDT's Vice President of Policy.
The rule requires broadband providers to get opt-in consent before using or sharing customers' "sensitive" information for purposes other than providing broadband service. This information includes the content of communications, location information, and web browsing and app usage history. In order to use "non-sensitive" information, providers must obtain opt-out consent. Although CDT does not support distinguishing between "sensitive" and "non-sensitive" information in the broadband context, we are pleased that the FCC's definition of "sensitive" information is broad.
The rule does allow broadband providers to use de-identified data without users' consent, but imposes strong de-identification requirements and standards, placing the burden on providers to ensure that information is not re-identified. "The FCC's promise to enforce strong de-identification requirements is essential to protecting customers' anonymity," Calabrese said. "Absent effective, proven de-identification methods, third parties have both the incentive and the ability to re-identify information."
The rule does make changes that allow ISPs to use consumer information to market their own products without any avenue for opt-out for the consumer. "While we would prefer consumers be able to opt out of sharing this information, the narrow product types covered by the exception - only including offerings of cable, wireless, internet, and phone services - make the overall rule a major net gain for the privacy of broadband customers," said Calabrese.
The rule does not explicitly mention IP and MAC addresses, but CDT urges the FCC to interpret the rule going forward to include such information within the definitions of web browsing and app usage history.
The broadband privacy rule sets an important standard for protecting internet users. CDT will work to support and expand the protections in the rule, as well as baseline privacy laws that will uniformly protect consumers throughout the digital ecosystem.
The Center for Democracy and Technology works to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age. With expertise in law, technology, and policy, CDT seeks practical solutions to enhance free expression and privacy in global communications technologies. CDT is dedicated to building consensus among all parties interested in the future of the Internet and other new communications media.
LATEST NEWS
Autopsy Says Corporate Capture, Support for Genocide Were Key Factors in Democrats' 2024 Disaster
"Harris and the Democratic Party leadership prioritized the agendas of corporate donors and gambled on a centrist path, while largely abandoning working-class, young, and progressive voters."
Dec 11, 2025
As the Democratic establishment slow-walks its own assessment of what went wrong in last year's elections, an outside autopsy released Thursday argues the party's failure to sufficiently appeal to and mobilize working-class voters as well as its complicity in Israel's genocide in Gaza were key factors behind the failure to prevent President Donald Trump from securing a second White House term.
The report, authored by journalist Christopher D. Cook and published by the progressive advocacy group RootsAction, argues there were five primary reasons for former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss to Trump:
- Harris' loss of nearly 7 million voters who backed Joe Biden in 2020;
- Biden's refusal to exit the top of the ticket until just months before the election;
- The Democratic Party's decision to prioritize courting so-called moderate Republicans and corporate donors over organizing working-class voters;
- Support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza; and
- The loss of young-voter support.
Cook acknowledges that certain "external factors" impacted the 2024 contest beyond the Democratic Party or the Harris campaign's control, including "immense special-interest spending to manipulate voters’ information and perceptions on social media platforms" such as Elon Musk's X and racism and sexism, which "certainly disadvantaged" the former vice president.
But ultimately, Harris' campaign and the leadership of the Democratic Party "bear responsibility for Trump’s return to the White House," the report says.
"This was a preventable disaster, but Harris and the Democratic Party leadership prioritized the agendas of corporate donors and gambled on a centrist path, while largely abandoning working-class, young, and progressive voters," Cook said in a statement.
The report places significant emphasis on the Harris campaign's fateful decision to openly appeal to Republican voters in the hope that some would abandon Trump—a strategy that Hillary Clinton pursued during her 2016 presidential bid, to disastrous effect.
Cook points to the Harris campaign's embrace of former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) as the most galling example of this strategy.
"Harris and Cheney—a Republican who had become a pariah in her own party—campaigned for several days together," the report observes. "On the campaign trail, they repeatedly hit high-minded themes about the threat that Donald Trump posed to American democracy, while scarcely speaking to voters’ more urgent concerns about the state of the economy."
The campaign's gamble that it could appeal to potential GOP swing voters while keeping the Democratic base intact "proved to be a huge mistake," the report says, arguing the approach muddied "Democrats’ message about economic inequality" while "consuming valuable campaign resources that should have been spent on a more robust base turnout operation."
The report cites a "glaring instance" in the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania, which Trump ended up winning by fewer than two percentage points:
As the New York Times reported, Harris campaign staffers in Pennsylvania were so concerned about poor outreach to Black and Latino voters in crucial areas of Philadelphia, they met secretly at a donut shop and formed a “rogue” voter turnout operation to reach these core Democratic constituents. In this clandestine operation, hastily conceived in the waning days of the campaign, members of Harris’s team set out to knock on the doors of as many Black and Latino voters as possible in a desperate dash to shore up Harris’ numbers among what should have been core constituencies.
The Harris campaign also received guidance and support from corporate interests and prominent billionaires, which Cook names as a "likely factor for why more working-class voters walked away from the Democrats."
"Due to these corporate influences, including from billionaire Mark Cuban and others, the Harris campaign avoided any bold policy proposals confronting corporate power, instead adopting 'marginal pro-business tweaks to the status quo that both her corporate and progressive allies agreed never coalesced into a clear economic argument,'" Cook wrote, citing the Times.
On Gaza, the postmortem notes that Harris "offered no substantive changes from Biden’s unpopular policies backing Israel," fueling a sharp drop-off in support among Arab Americans and young voters.
"Extensive polling suggests that Biden, and later Harris, could have inspired and mobilized these voters by campaigning on policies such as cancelling student debt, expanding healthcare access, curbing support for Israel’s siege of Gaza, and boldly promoting economic populist policies," the report says, pointing to the success of progressive ballot measures even in red states where Harris struggled.
In coming elections, the report concludes, Democrats must learn from their recent failures and embrace highly popular "economic populist policies"—from Medicare for All to higher corporate taxes to a long-overdue federal minimum wage hike—to build a lasting working-class coalition.
"The Democratic Party must show voters that it has a spine and can stand up to corporate and big-money interests," the report says.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Total Amateur Hour’: FBI Official Says Antifa Is #1 Threat in US—But Can’t Say Where, Who, or What It Is
"Just a complete admission here that the entire ‘antifa’ threat narrative is totally manufactured by this administration," said one critic.
Dec 11, 2025
A top FBI official struggled on Thursday to answer basic questions about antifa, a loosely organized collective of anti-fascist activists that he labeled the top terrorist threat facing the US.
Michael Glasheen, operations director of the FBI's National Security Branch, testified before the US House Committee on Homeland Security that antifa was "the most immediate violent threat" facing Americans today when it comes to domestic terrorism.
But when Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, asked Glasheen for specifics about this purportedly dire threat, he mostly came up empty.
"So where is antifa headquarters?" Thompson asked him.
Glasheen paused for several seconds and then said, "What we're doing right now with the organization..." before Thompson interrupted him.
"Where in the United States does antifa exist?" asked Thompson.
"We are building out the infrastructure right now," Glasheen replied.
"So what does that mean?" asked a bewildered Thompson. "I'm just, we're trying to get information. You said antifa is a terrorist organization. Tell us, as a committee, how did you come to that? Whether they exist, how many members do they have in the United States as of right now?"
"Well, that's very fluid," Glasheen said. "It's ongoing for us to understand that... no different from al-Qaeda and ISIS."
Thompson again interrupted and tried to make Glasheen answer his original question.
"If you said antifa is the No. 1 domestic terrorist organization operating in the United States," he said, "I just need to know where they are, how many people. I don't want a name, I don't want anything like that. Just, how many people have you identified, with the FBI, that antifa is made of?"
"Well, the investigations are active..." Glasheen said.
Thompson then became incredulous.
"Sir, you wouldn't come to this committee and say something you can't prove," he said. "I know you wouldn't do that. But you did."
GLASHEEN: Antifa is our primary concern right now. That's the most immediate violent threat we're facing
BENNIE THOMPSON: Where is antifa headquartered?
GLASHEEN: ... ... ... we are building out the infrastructure right now
THOMPSON: What does that mean? pic.twitter.com/FBzRJ5dCBj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2025
Many observers were stunned that Glasheen appeared to know so little about what he proclaimed to be the top domestic terrorist threat facing the US.
"Total amateur hour in US law enforcement," remarked Democracy Docket news editor Matthew Kupfer, "where the No. 1 terror threat is an organization that does not formally exist and a career FBI official is dancing around before a congressional committee trying to make the Trump strategy sound legit."
Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan argued that Glasheen's testimony was proof that the administration was simply concocting domestic terrorism threats with zero basis in reality.
"Wow," Hasan marveled. "Just a complete admission here that the entire ‘antifa’ threat narrative is totally manufactured by this administration."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic congressional candidate in Missouri, wondered how many actual dangerous criminals are running free while the FBI focuses on taking down an organization that it apparently knows nothing about.
"This would be comical if there wasn’t real world impact from this idiocy," Wellman wrote. "We have real crimes and real threats and they are chasing a fake 'organization' for politics."
Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee also piled on Glasheen, citing his testimony as evidence that the Trump administration is completely unserious about law enforcement.
"If your 'top threat' has no headquarters, no organization, and no definition then it’s not a top threat," they posted on social media. "The Trump administration is ignoring real threats, and the American people see right through it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Forceful Stand for Our Constitution': Judge Orders Release of Kilmar Ábrego García
Judge Paula Xinis found that the Trump administration redetained the Salvadoran father of three "without lawful authority."
Dec 11, 2025
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the immediate release of Kilmar Ábrego García—who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration earlier this year—from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.
"Since Ábrego García's return from wrongful detention in El Salvador, he has been redetained, again without lawful authority,” US District Judge Paula Xinis wrote in her ruling. “For this reason, the court will grant Ábrego García's petition for immediate release from ICE custody.”
In early April, Xinis—an appointee of former President Barack Obama—ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Ábrego García's return to the United States after he was deported in March to the abuse-plagued Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) maximum security prison in El Salvador. This, after the US Department of Justice (DOJ) admitted in a court filing that Ábrego García was wrongfully deported due to what it called an "administrative error."
The US Supreme Court also weighed in on the case in favor of Xinis' ruling. However, the Trump administration refused to comply with the judge's order, arguing that it had no legal obligation to return Ábrego García to the US and could not force El Salvador's government to free him.
The DOJ dubiously contended that Ábrego García—a 30-year-old Salvadoran father of three who entered the US without authorization when he was a teenager—was a member of the gang MS-13, an allegation based on a statement from an anonymous police informant. The Trump administration deported him despite a judge's 2019 ruling that he could not be removed to El Salvador because he could be tortured there.
An attorney representing Ábrego García said at the time that his client suffered beatings and "psychological torture" while imprisoned at CECOT.
Ábrego García was transferred to a lower security Salvadoran prison before being sent back to the US on June 6 to face DOJ charges for allegedly transporting undocumented immigrants, to which he pleaded not guilty. He was immediately taken into custody and sent to an immigration detention facility in Tennessee.
On July 23, federal Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Tennessee ruled that Ábrego García must be released from custody pending his trial. That same day, Xinis issued a simultaneous ruling in Ábrego García's wrongful deportation case blocking ICE from immediately seizing him once released in Tennessee and ordering the government to provide at least 72 hours' notice before attempting to deport him to any third country.
As Ábrego García was released on August 22, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) informed him that he could be deported to Uganda—one of several nations to which the administration has sought to send him. A bid by Ábrego García to reopen a previous bid for asylum in the US was denied in early October by an immigration judge.
Ábrego García is currently being held in an immigration detention center in Pennsylvania. Responding to Xinis' latest ruling, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Thursday that "this is naked judicial activism by an Obama-appointed judge."
"This order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts," she added.
Advocates for Ábrego García welcomed Thursday's ruling.
"For months, the Trump administration has sought to deny Kilmar Ábrego García his rights to due process and fair treatment by our justice system," US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)—who met with Ábrego García in El Salvador in April—said on social media.
"Today’s ruling by Judge Xinis—requiring the government to immediately release him—is a forceful stand for our Constitution and all of our rights," he added.
Lydia Walther-Rodríguez, chief of organizing and leadership at CASA, hailed what she called "a moment of joy and relief."
“Kilmar finally gets to return home to his family, where he belongs," she said. "No one should be separated from their loved ones while fighting for justice.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


