[opendtv] Re: F.C.C. Proposes Privacy Rules for Internet Providers - The New York Times
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:07:29 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
In theory the Feds had to go to the FISA court to get a warrant to look
at this data,
This means that people were not doing their job. It does not mean that
government snooping is not regulated. As opposed to ISP snooping, which Craig
claims should be allowed to go unchecked.
No Bert. The sharing was clearly happening and there were discussions
with the FCC about whether they would regulate it.
No, Craig. We are talking about "deep packet inspection," which is the exact
equivalent of tapping into your telephone conversations. In principle, for
transitting packets (as opposed to packets directed to ISP nodes themselves),
the only part an ISP should concern themselves with is the IP header. That
header contains all the info needed to route the packet on its merry way. And
just btw, "metadata" can be gathered by tracking this packet header alone.
"Metadata" consists of who communicates with what (or who), when. That's all
"metdata" needs.
Deep packet inspection means that the ISP is looking all the way into the
payload, and using that information for whatever the heck they please. The
equivalent of tapping into your phone conversations, which requires a court
order.
What is different about that and what Google is doing?
Does Google read your emails? Google tracks your searches, which they can do
because you address specific packets to their servers, when you do a search.
Which is bad enough. But the ISP can look at everything that crosses your
broadband link. Not just packets addressed to a search engine.
The metadata that the NSA and now the Telcos are collecting does not
include the content;
Nor does it require deep packet inspection.
We are moving to devices that use encryption at the hardware and
OS level to protect the device.
It's very simple, Craig. If I open a session with a server in the cloud, that
server may or may not be using encryption. As a user, I have no way of forcing
that server to use encryption, if it's not set up to do so.
If I write an email, the only way I can use encryption is if the party I'm
writing to is set up with that encryption algorithm, appropriate certificate,
and so on. I cannot decide unilaterally that I'll use encryption.
This is exactly the same as encrypted telephone lines. Sure, you can use
encrypting devices for voice, but only if the other side is similarly set up.
So it's not sensible to tell people that everything they say on the phone can
be tapped, no problem, because they can use encryption.
Arguing for the right position in these debates does not
automatically mean arguing for government regulation.
Nothing "automatic" about any of this, Craig. I said, in matters of net
neutrality and in matters of broadband privacy, just like in telephone privacy,
you would have a heck of an uphill battle to argue for greedy SOBs to have a
free for all. You will lose, Craig. The FCC should be regulating this, every
much as they do tapping into your telephone conversations.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
