What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
45 Comments
- xerodustrial, on 04/24/2009, -0/+59How is an ISP meticulously parsing, investigating, and archiving everything I send through my data connection something I would ever want as a consumer?
If they get to do that, can I inspect the data moving through the CEO's machines? It's only fair. - bavatara, on 04/24/2009, -0/+46Looks like we might see a net neutrality bill sometime this year. boucher is my rep and i just sent him and email, everyone else should do the same.
- str3ama, on 04/25/2009, -0/+34and anal cavity searches are a great way to stay healthy.
The think that we all need to be in shock and aware of is that most ordinary Internet users don't know what DPI is and won't go out of their way to look up what it is. If they hear that DPI is good for them, they'll probably take it on face value. These guys control not just the television media, but are now buying up internet properties too and are trying to control what people know about carrier neutrality. - smacksaw, on 04/25/2009, -0/+28Nationalise this ***** now. Then sell it off to the local communities and let them buy/invest in/own it.
It's like in California when we had the rolling blackouts and the crazy electricity prices from the so-called "free market deregulation"...all they did was scam us with false promises of capitalism.
The only place in the whole goddamned state that had low prices was the city of Los Angeles. Because they didn't participate in the deregulation. And the small, local group of Angelinos benefited.
I am sick of these cable companies and their lies. Declare eminent domain over them and then sell off the pieces to local concerns for local control and run it as for-profit business whose owners and investors are the customers.
Corporatism != Capitalism - wjappe, on 04/24/2009, -0/+21I said somewhere else something like that, about the spying on US citizens on phone lines video cameras etc. Why don't we return the same favor to them, I'd like to know what they are up to. Spy on them, don't they work for us and we should know?
- nextekcarl, on 04/25/2009, -0/+18And since what they do is more important (they control more) than what we do it would make far more sense to watch them.
- TimtheTaxMan, on 04/24/2009, -0/+18Shhh...Tor doesn't exist neither does Usenet
- slillibri, on 04/25/2009, -0/+16Actually, there is a difference. Using Gmail (and seeing contextual ads) is an opt-in system. DPI is a privacy invasion in the same way as a phone company listening in to each call you make without warrant, just to make sure you aren't up to no good.
- theuserdylan, on 04/25/2009, -0/+15The cable companies need to get their PR department on this right away.
Step 1: Movie tie in
"How I learned to stop worrying and love deep packet inspection"
Step 2: Explain consumer benefits
"Since we're going to throttle your bandwidth depending on what you're downloading think about all the money you'll save under our new pay per gigabyte downloaded plans!"
Step 3: Buy off congressman and senators
"Someone call Ted Stevens! What he's not a Senator anymore!? Dear god who will explain to the public the problem with clogged internet tubes?" - kerbe6, on 04/25/2009, -1/+16Deep packet inspection is good for consumers like torture is good for America.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 04/25/2009, -0/+14What amazes me is that ISPs, which can already look at consumers' packets, do absolutely-nothing about zombie computers on botnets, even though such computers MUST be *obvious* to those ISPs. I know it pisses-off granny and gramps if their ISP shuts off their connection to the world and says, "you need to become the owner of your computer again, and once you do, you'll also need to quit stupidly clicking on everything that arrives in your email box," but that's what has to happen or the rest of us will continue to be inconvenienced by DDOS attacks.
- copypastry, on 04/25/2009, -0/+14I thought it was only necessary to get a deep packet inspection after your 40th birthday.
- pagno, on 04/24/2009, -1/+14Im from Texas, my reps will vote against anything with a (D) next to it.
- PatrickBrown, on 04/25/2009, -1/+11Just put "faith based" in front of the bill. Problem solved.
- DamnMan, on 04/25/2009, -0/+9"Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) chairs the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. In remarks opening the hearing, he announced his "intention for the Subcommittee this year to develop legislation extending to Internet users that assurance that their online experience is more secure."
I love wording like this. "More secure" can mean whatever they want it to mean. Secure for government? Secure for the ISP? Secure for the Big Medias profits? Or secure for you?
Don't get to cozy thinking that congress looking into this is going to turn out well for us. - CanIGetAWitness, on 04/25/2009, -0/+9When "Big Cable" says something is good for consumers, you can bet your life savings that it is not.
- anarchist101, on 04/25/2009, -0/+7"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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of ... - cerejota, on 04/25/2009, -0/+7Greenlight FTW!!!
- cerejota, on 04/25/2009, -0/+5Enhanced interrogation techniques, not torture, you surely meant...
- qwertydvorak, on 04/25/2009, -0/+5just remember... the internet was meant to be encrypted...
- Wosat, on 04/25/2009, -0/+5Privacy-minded individuals who are against network neutrality out of a distaste for "government regulating the internet" need to wake up and smell the DPI-coffee. The reality is that the lack of network neutrality enforcement makes deep packet inspection profitable. Once ISPs are all decked out in DPI gear, the door to *real* government interference is opened because the feds can now compel ISPs to program their new toys to help "protect" public safety and "police" the internet. Once the feds get a taste for that kind of power, they can compel ISPs to install DPI gear and the internet as we know it is over.
- sizzzzlerz, on 04/25/2009, -0/+4Tell 'em its a secession bill.
- olympiawa, on 04/25/2009, -0/+4ISPs 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.
- Myztry, on 04/25/2009, -2/+6The 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. - buckrogers1965, on 04/25/2009, -1/+4Just say "It's for the children!"
- Bloodsweattears, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3I am so glad all these companies and governments are all playing the role of consumer advocate. I am sure their benevolence and wise motives will become apparent to us eventually.
And then I put down the crack pipe. - RockSlice, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3That's one of the things that make me hate our political system. BS politicians(or people in general) who refuse to listen to anything simply because it came from the "other side."
- inactive, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3Long ago, I decided that all big organizations were evil (the government included). The reason being that they are willing to trample the rights of the individual in favor of what they think is good for the masses.
- planetbeing, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2Everyone should just start encrypting every packet. It will all look like mathematically random noise that ISPs will be powerless to monitor, filter, or throttle. Then they can start being dumb pipes like they should be. We may consent to voluntarily tagging some data, like VOIP, as more time-sensitive to help them with traffic control, but that's it.
- Ratteler, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2Beheading corporate executives is good for customers as well. Let's do that first.
- R3t0x, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2This has dangerous potential in the hands of money driven executives.
- carlosos, on 04/25/2009, -1/+3I don't want my ISP to look at what is in my packets even if there is a chance that they can reduce the number of botnets.
I accept such a system if it is opt in system so that every user can decide if he wants to have that but ISPs have a track record of making that an opt out system (if there is even the possibility for that).
I'm already sick of Time Warner with their DNS server that provides ads when typing a wrong address and blocking (or not supporting) certain domain types (like the .tk domains). I know that changing DNS servers is easy to do but I never asked TW to block domains and provide ads with the DNS server. - OmegaWolf, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2How is invading a person's privacy good for them?!
- Niteryder, on 04/26/2009, -0/+1Deep packet inspection is to serve RIAA and
MPAA interests and nothing else. No one
needed deep packet inspection, other than
to thwart dos and ddos attacks. - slillibri, on 04/25/2009, -1/+2@benologist I didn't consider that argument, and I actually agree with it. Although one end of the conversation did agree. It does raise interesting questions.
Full disclosure: I also have domain + gmail - sooska, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1More and more ISPs are dropping usenet, so Usenet will cease to be a viable option for many soon
- WildBil, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1Well the only way to sell this would be to list that it's to enable them to give porn the highest priority on the networks.
WTF?
The response is going to be all consumers using encryption and a need for more bandwidth...
Which costs more... wait, this does make sense for them... - faskill, on 04/26/2009, -0/+1sweet, I just made $40!
- Taiyoryu, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1Anything 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.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 04/25/2009, -1/+2Even for privacy-obsessed people who don't use gmail?
- benologist, on 04/25/2009, -1/+1The argument gets weaker - any email address *could* be gmail. Unless you check DNS records you'll never actually know if someone@theirowndomain.com is in fact gmail.
My email address uses a domain + gmail. Now two people know. - benologist, on 04/25/2009, -3/+3And the people who are just sending an email to somebody using gmail? Are they opting in just by emailing someone@gmail.com?
Are we opting in just by being customers of an ISP that is/would like to do this? - Harabeck, on 04/24/2009, -5/+4Would protocols like Tor help with this? It seems like they'd be able to what you're accessing regardless...
- slillibri, on 04/25/2009, -2/+1@benologist To answer your second question first, by being a customer of an ISP that does DPI you are opting in. In many areas there may not be too many choices, but it's still opt in. The choice to be a customer is still made.
As for the sending mail to Gmail customers, many know of the contextual ads (and in effect, snooping), what they do is a known element. If it's not then it needs to be made more known. I don't agree with it but I accept it (and I know that's a weak defence) - benologist, on 04/25/2009, -9/+3Why is DPI a privacy invasion when Google reading everyone's email to put contextual ads around it is not? If I recall correctly the argument there was no human is doing the reading it's all done by machine. DPI is also just a machine looking at the data.
They're both doing the same thing, the only difference is *why*. It can't be an invasion of privacy just because you don't like the reason someone else is doing it. There are valid arguments for and against DPI but gmail effectively rules out privacy.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is