nanog mailing list archives

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal


From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:25:54 -0400

Thanks, I was a bit confused why you said it, which is apparently because I was confused. :-)

I agree we need to do a better job educating users why this is important.

And just so my opinion is clear, if there were a true market, I would not mind ISPs who did this (with proper notice). 
Unfortunately, over half of all households in the US have one or fewer choices for broadband providers. I am one of 
them. What do I do if my ISP wants to collect my data? VPN everything?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

It was more a plea to educate the list on why this matters vs. doom and gloom with a little more gloom and a little 
less Carmack. Instead I got more of the sky is falling.

Note that I don't intend to ever do this at my ISP, nor my IX.



-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
 <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
 <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
 <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net <mailto:patrick () ianai net>>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:12:15 PM
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

Mike:

My guess is you do not.

Which is -precisely- why the users (proletariat?) need to find a way to stop you. Hence laws & regulations.

Later in this thread you said “we are done here”. Would that you were so lucky.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net <mailto:nanog () ics-il net>> wrote:

Why am I supposed to care? 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk () gsp org <mailto:rsk () gsp org>> 
To: nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:45:25 PM 
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal 

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:45:04PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: 
The claim oft presented by people favoring this customer abuse is that 
the sold data is anonymous. But it's been well-established that very 
simple data aggregation techniques can develop signatures that reveal 
the identity of people in anonymized data. 

This needs to be repeated loudly and often at every possible opportunity. 
I've spent much of the past decade studying this issue and the most succinct 
way I can put it is that however good you (generic "you") think 
de-anonymization techniques are, you're wrong: they're way better than that. 
Billions, and I am not exaggerating even a little bit, have been spent 
on this problem, and they've been spent by smart people with essentially 
unlimited computational resources. And whaddaya know, they've succeeded. 

So if someone presents you a data corpus and says "this data is anonymized", 
the default response should be to mock them, because there is a very high 
probability they're either (a) lying or (b) wrong. 

Incidentally, I'm also a signatory of the EFF document, since of course 
with nearly 40 years in the field I'm a mere clueless newbie and despite 
ripping them a new one about once every other month, I'm clearly a tool 
of Google. 

---rsk 


Current thread: