Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden

["Elmar K. Bins" <elmi () 4ever de>]

Ferg, you asked for it.

> I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- but I'd love
> to know how ISP operations folk feel about this.
>
> Links here:
> http://www.vnunet.com/news/1162720


Schneier has a profound interest in the ISPs being forced to buy his
(or his competitors) security gear to fulfill the customers' dreams
of a "clean Internet connection". Pretty biased, if you don't mind.

What he lacks to understand is the reasons why ISPs don't do it.
It's not just lazyness (only part) or lack of responsibility; it's
more like that it's expensive and nobody would pay for it - no, not
the customers; they like to get everything for free, remember?

The most prominent reason keeping ISPs from filtering their clients'
data streams is - tada - jurisdiction. It's simply not allowed in
countries that don't officially harvest everything they can get their
hands on. There is something called "privacy rights". Nobody may
legally interfere with the data stream that reaches my boxes, and
nobody - not even my boss! - must fiddle with my email if not expressly
allowed by myself. So it is a damn good sign of the ISP's responsibility
if it does _not_ place filters in the data stream.

But then, my sympathies for Bruce have long evaporated, so I am of
course biased as well.

Elmar.

--

"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
                          (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 () ID-31 news uni-berlin de>)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---