Re: DPI and my testimony to Congress today

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Paul Hubbard [phubbard () gmail com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:42 PM
To: David Farber
Cc: ip
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   DPI and my testimony to Congress today

> From: Matthew Tarpy [tarpy () tarpify com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:06 PM
> To: David Farber; ip
> Cc: dpreed () reed com
> Subject: RE: [IP] DPI and my testimony to Congress today
>
> > deal.  It may concern your readers as well. What gives the ISPs
> > (Charter, Embarq, BT, ...) the right to read every packet that every
> one
> > of their users sends, analyze the data, modify the responses, etc.?
>
> I'm going to channel my inner Brett (apologizes to Brett) and say, if
> it's in their ToS that's what gives them the right; it IS their
> network
> after all, you're choosing to transverse it. Don't like it, do
> business
> with someone else. To be fair, the ISPs do need to be more upfront
> about
> what they're doing, but I see little difference between DPI and Tivo
> monitoring what's paused, played, and recorded and providing that
> aggregate to interested parties.

There is a difference here between packet inspection and packet
modification. Your comment addresses the first but not the second. My
disagreement with your argument can be explained with a related
metaphor: Would it be acceptable to you if the resurgent Ma Bell did
the same for voice? After all, analysis of what products were being
discussed would undoubtedly have great value.

If not, why are IP packets less privileged than voice?

I'd be curious to hear your opinion of packet editors such as Phorm
and NebuAd; I find them unacceptable.

-Paul




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com