DPI and my testimony to Congress today

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
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



----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
To: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:30 AM
Subject: [IP] DPI and my testimony to Congress today


Gads I agree with David djf

________________________________________
From: David P. Reed [dpreed () reed com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:31 AM
To: David Farber
Cc: ip
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    DPI and my testimony to Congress today

I find the ensuing discussion enlightening.  Without mentioning names
(you all know who they are) the justification of DPI is that:

a) people are fools for not encrypting their traffic.   I suppose
customers of FedEx are fools for not enclosing their shipped goods in
welded shut titanium boxes that will explode if x-rayed.

b) I'm good but they are bad.

These two themes seem intended to distract from the fact that ISPs are
trialing technology explicitly designed to scan all traffic.

The arguments of people replying seems to be that bad behavior is
*justified* by the ability to do it.

I'm tempted to wonder whether they applaud criminals who rob people in
dangerous parts of the city.  Or people who photograph their neighbors
through open windows.



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




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