What is Digg?29 Comments
- sockpuppets, on 04/06/2009, -2/+29Sounds like the title of a nerd porno:
Deep Packet Inspection IV: Full Duplex - intrepidia, on 04/06/2009, -0/+12It's nice to see a government agency opening the debate to public dialogue on Deep Packet Inspection. Given that Canadians are major sellers of this technology... (think Sandvine) this becomes evan more so....
Kudos to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for it's progressive stance in dealing with these issues. - x713, on 04/06/2009, -0/+7This is something that everyone should be interested in if they care about privacy.
- billricardi, on 04/06/2009, -0/+5Hi I'm Troy McClure! You might remember me from such corporate endorsements as "Who Put the N in Enron?" and "The Exxon Valdez - Slip Slidin' Away!"
I would like to take a moment to tell all of you little people out there that Deep Packet Inspection is good for you. Let's face it, nobody knows what's good for you more than big corporations who's entire JOB is find out who you are and what you like. Am I right?
(This message brought to you by Netsweeper Canada) - PlantAssassin, on 04/06/2009, -0/+4No, but squads of people with guns will punch your door down, then throw you to the ground and punch you repeateadly.
- Eorster, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3No, but it is the censorship enabler.
- johnwoo32, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3The major part of articles are critical or hostile of DPI. I am hostile of DPI but would like to have known what industry insiders think on the matter. They should have included more industry opinions.
- HHP2K, on 04/06/2009, -1/+4I predict that the rest of the comments below mine will be about Canada.
- tgc1, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3On the other hand the CRTC has dropped the ***** ball when it comes to regulating Telcos who abuse their monopoly position by throttling their leased lines. I was mad as hell when the CRTC basically told me they couldn't do anything because the internet was not part of their mandate.
Stupid ***** asses. I'm just trying to figure out who bought them out. Bell has a lot of money I guess. - TrellSaracen, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2It's one potential tool in a censorware vendor's toolkit, that's all.
- TrellSaracen, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2Ever since the Mandatory Internet Censorship debate started up in Australia, there've been a couple of "persons" trawling news site discussions singing the praises of a censorware deal with an ISP in India called BSNL.
They're obviously astroturfers, but the company they work for, Netsweeper, happens to be Canadian. So there is a slight possibility that someone of that description may come on here and start their little marketeering spiel.
Just...you know...do what you guys do :-) - HonoredMule, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2The line they wrote me off with was that there was nothing wrong with throttling the traffic they are MANDATED to wholesale, and that the ISP industry is healthy and perfectly fine...I should be happy.
Meanwhile, my internet service performance degrades/gets ***** by the quarter on a consistent, 4-year-plus trend, so I can totally see the overall 'health' argument. - 97viper, on 04/07/2009, -0/+2It is interesting to see how the industry finally wakes up when a name for technology comes along that helps people understand something technically in simpler words. DPI is a technology and really just a generalized name for systems with the ability to look into the payload of a packet. What is interesting is that this is not new and the commentary seems so one sided that this is always a bad thing. Without going down the path its technology and its about the use, is nobody sharp enough to pick up on the fact that this isn't new?
The industry seems to think SNORT is good and its a perfect example of a simple DPI system, but nobody ever called it DPI. Furthermore, we all seem to want our AntiVirus and if its done for us by an ISP or our email hosting provider, that seems even better than doing it all ourselves and it doesn't just look at a few parts of the data in packets but it reads the whole attachment using DPI and that is good too? I guess we can all be glad that somebody didn't call out SNORT as Snooping Network Owners Reading Throroughly "your data", otherwise we couldn't use intrusion protect systems with user defined rule sets anymore because some ISP might search for your email address and log the flow!
Get a a clue folks and worry about appropriate use of technology and not the technology itself! - Suricou, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2The official position of most ISPs implimenting DPI isn't hard to find - I recall a representative of Comcast once argued that their network would collapse under future load without DPI.
Critics accused Comcast of using DPI as a means to avoid having to make expensive upgrades. Rather than lighting more fiber to meet their users' bandwidth demands, they decided to just reduce demand. It's a lot cheaper to stick a few DPI boxes in than to pull cables, buy new telecom-level routers, and send fleets of engineer-trucks around the country to upgrade the edges. - inactive, on 04/06/2009, -2/+4This comment is about the United States to let you know how much they suck.
- sil00h, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3I have a feeling that this is become a more and more serious threat. I'm glad to see that the OPC is finally starting to take some of these cyber security issues seriously.
- steelreserve211, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2Coming from the Telecom side, its real. Thanks.
- pasher1221, on 04/08/2009, -0/+1Agreed.
- Licurgo, on 04/06/2009, -0/+1"let me see, two balls..."
- inc595, on 04/06/2009, -1/+2snort baby
- TrellSaracen, on 04/06/2009, -0/+1They better not be touching...
- FireStalker3150, on 04/06/2009, -0/+1Debbi does cisco
- RJ0534, on 04/06/2009, -1/+2Debbie does Deep Packet Inspection
- JonForTheWin, on 04/06/2009, -0/+1"I recall a representative of Comcast once argued that their network would collapse under future load without DPI."
Keep digging your own grave Comcast. - Ben1220, on 04/06/2009, -0/+1Its not called a debate when everyone except for an uninformed simple minded minority agree that the censorship is a terrible idea
- anquet, on 04/07/2009, -0/+1I note that Brooks Dobbs from Phorm has written an essay on that Canada site.
The things that should be noted in Phorm's article are the total failure to mention DPI, interception of communications or browser redirection.
Phorm love talking about and promoting their wonderful Open Internet eXchange at every opportunity but they blatently refuse to discuss Deep Packet Inspection, interception of communications, and browser redirection.
Has anyone noticed that virtually every other contributor on that Canadian government site talked about DPI, and Phorm blatently ignore it?
Why dont these governments, regulators and experts wake up and see what is happening before it is too late?
Hmmm.... I wonder?
Here;s an interesting site on this subject... www.nodpi.org - Onoskelis, on 04/06/2009, -2/+0Deep packet inspection really isn't "censorship".
It just throttles certain traffic. Needless to say, it's a stupid practice that needs to end. ISPs can easily upgrade their infrastructure, but they are greedy as usual. - Licurgo, on 04/06/2009, -6/+2i really dont care about privacy, i say the same in and and out of the internet, but in the internet no one can try to punch me
- Paulmeirense, on 04/06/2009, -5/+1Blame Canada.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is