more on Verizon "Broadband Router" the perfect Trojan Horse

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: June 29, 2006 8:41:12 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Cc: "'David P. Reed'" <dpreed () reed com>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Verizon "Broadband Router" the perfect  
Trojan Horse

Ideally NN is really an expression of basic antitrust principles. The  
problem is that the current Regulatorium has companies fund our  
common infrastructure by selling services. Were this an effective  
marketplace this wouldn’t be an issue because we wouldn’t have  
gatekeepers.

I see NN as a principle rather than as something that can be  
legislated. Ideally the FTC should be able to apply antitrust  
principles but the FCC is, in a sense, an anti-enforcer. The fact  
that the carriers control how we communicate or speech makes it also  
a free speech issue but we can put the emphasis on the antitrust  
principles.

This is why I keep arguing for infrastructure as the framing model –  
trying to legislate corporations’ internal behavior is impossible  
because the nature of the business is implicit in every decision. But  
NN is useful to emphasize that the carriers have a responsibility as  
long as they are given such control over our infrastructure.

The good news, as David notes, many of the worst excesses won’t for  
other reasons.

But … there is a big exception … the entire cellular industry started  
out smart software that has become smarter. They have control and, as  
I point out in http://www.frankston.com/?name=AssuringScarcity their  
fear is that they may lose their control once people realize they  
don’t need a gatekeeper in order to communicate. NN works best  
preventing new excesses than correcting old ones.

NN is a basically a parent saying “No No” to children who need to  
learn that the universe doesn’t revolve around them.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 19:45
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] more on Verizon “Broadband Router” the perfect Trojan  
Horse



and if some company finds a good use for the capability, under a NN   
law, who will decide if it violates the law—the FCC/FTC?

A wise company will not offer any capability that could be mis-used   
even if just someone just thinks of the possility.

Dave

Begin forwarded message:

From:   “David P. Reed” <dpreed () reed com>

Date:    June 29, 2006 6:22:35 PM EDT

To:       “David P. Reed” <dpreed () reed com>

Cc:       David Farber <dave () farber net>, Dewayne-Net Technology List

            <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>

Subject:            Re: Verizon “Broadband Router” the perfect Trojan  
Horse



Some of the reaction to my earlier note suggests that people thought  
I had discovered Verizon actually doing something bad.   I did not   
mean in any way to imply that, so I hope if you have forwarded my   
earlier note you will pass on this clarification.

My comment was based on studying the TR-069 standard, *in the context  
of the current “Net Neutrality” debate* in which both I and Verizon   
are involved, and noting that it is possible to exploit the features   
of that standard to redirect traffic and monitor traffic under the   
control of the access provider.

I do not mean that the router itself is a bad product, or that it  
has  no good purpose.   I also am not accusing Verizon of actually  
doing  those things that I worry about - I have no such evidence.

But the possibility is real, and we have no assurances from Verizon   
or other providers that they will not exploit those possibilities.     
(In fact, many in the Net Neutrality debate who claim to be acting   
for the Bells seem to be arguing that it will be necessary and   
appropriate for Verizon to do so.)

I would hope that Verizon would make a clear policy statement about   
what it will do to make sure that such features are not used   
inappropriately.

It is surely a good thing for router equipment to provide facilities   
for remote diagnosis and maintenence.   When communications  
equipment  is concerned, such tools need to be used with care,  
however.   The  data being carried is sensitive and personal, and is  
NOT the property  of the carrier of the data.   It may not even be  
the case that the  user has the right to disclose the data in  
question (as is the case  in HIPAA and European data protection  
regimes).

Thus features that redirect, block, and otherwise interfere with   
communications must be used carefully, with clear authorization from   
all concerned parties, and (here it is my opinion only) with   
recognition that the the users’ communications belong to the users   
and their counterparties, not the operator of the communications system.










You are subscribed as BobIP () Bobf Frankston com

To manage your subscription, go to

http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/