arstechnica.com — While the cable industry told Congress that deep packet inspection technology was great for consumers, Rick Boucher (D-VA) expressed some doubts. DPI's "privacy intrusion potential is nothing short of frightening," he said, as consumer groups called for a full investigation into how ISPs are using the technology.
Apr 24, 2009 View in Crawl 4
myztryApr 25, 2009
The whole issue of interception is easily solved with public/private key encryption. When establishing a connection the two parties just exchange public keys and tunnel the connection over any protocol. Only the receiver with the private key can decrypt the communication.Only those with the private key can sign the data ensuring integrity. The public keys could be used as a unique indentifers - if they were remain fixed. But like all things digital, there is no (significant) cost to generating and using an unlimited quantity.That is what is going to face those hijacking communication. Off course keys can be broken, but once there is billions traversing the internet in any second then it's going to take more than quantum computing just to access the data - let alone determine it's purpose without context.Context is another important aspect. Digital data can represent anything. It's entirely dependant on how it is interpreted as to what it actually represents. The word Love can be written, pictured or pronounced. With digital it becomes representable in a billion other ways. As does every other concept.
olympiawaApr 25, 2009
ISPs should not have the right to block bit torrent. Just like McSlarrow mentioned "any technology can be used for either benign or nefarious purposes". This statement is the reason bit torrent isn't illegal, not everyone that uses it is a pirate. I like to use bit torrent to download distros of Linux or freeware, it lowers the impact on individual servers. If a computer or internet connection can be used in a nefarious manner, is that not just reasons for these technologies to be illegal, I think not. The problem being faced is not that DPI technology itself should be illegal, its that its a violation of privacy and therefore it should not be used by ISPs period.
anarchist101Apr 25, 2009
"it is important to stress at the outset that all applications of DPI raise serious privacy concerns because all applications of DPI begin with the interception and analysis of Internet traffic.""The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.""..houses, papers, and effects.." is key here. ISP's being a usually state chartered monopoly are in fact nothing less than agents of the government.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of ...</a>
taiyoryuApr 25, 2009
Anything coming from a corporation's spokesperson is always said with the company's self-interest at heart. If at any point those interests align with the customers' interests, it is typically by accident. And when it does align, it is a marketing opportunity.
omegawolfApr 25, 2009
How is invading a person's privacy good for them?!
r3t0xApr 25, 2009
This has dangerous potential in the hands of money driven executives.