Hard to disagree djf DPI and my testimony to Congress today

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Tony Lauck [tlauck () madriver com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:36 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] DPI and my testimony to Congress today

What the market dictates or what the law permits are not to be confused
with what is right or just.  Those of us who want to stop deep packet
inspection do so because we know it is wrong. No professor of business
or law is going to convince us otherwise.

We differ in what we believe will be the most effective means to stop
DPI. Some advocate educating consumers to affect market demand. Others
recommend legislation. Others place more faith in encryption. This makes
for interesting as well as useful discussion.

Tony Lauck
https://www.aglauck.com



David Farber wrote:
> ________________________________________
> From: Gerry Faulhaber [gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:00 AM
> To: David Farber
> Subject: Re: [IP] DPI and my testimony to Congress today
>
> [for IP, if you wish]
>
> Well, DJF, I don't agree with DRP.  Here's why:
>
> In any commercial transaction (buying a car, haircut, or ISP services),
> parties are limited by the law, regulation, and the contract/terms of
> service.  Anything else is fair game; people can do what they want.
> Disclosure will occur if there are regulations/ToS requiring it; otherwise,
> it will be as the market dictates.
>
> Are there regulations regarding, say, US mail privacy?  Yes; see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence .  However, this has
> recently been under attack.  How about FedEx?  Can't find anything on this
> topic, so I would assume no.  E-mail privacy?  I think we all know the
> answer to that: NO.  Telephone privacy? Yes, as a matter of regulation/law,
> except of course with wiretaps.
>
> Is there a law/regulation against DPI?  No?  Well, then, expect it.  This is
> way different that "applaud [ing] criminals who rob people in dangerous
> parts of the city"; robbing people is illegal; but as far as I know, DPI
> isn't.
>
> Now maybe DPI is not a good long-run business strategy, and maybe people
> will demand privacy guarantees as part of the service.  But I haven't seen
> that happen yet in the online world (e.g., e-mail).
>
> So, yes, by all means protect yourself: e-mail, DPI, even FedEx if you think
> it necessary.
>
> Professor Gerry Faulhaber
> Wharton School, Penn Law



-------------------------------------------
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