On 11/23/2014 3:26 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
If they did something that Microsoft hadn't requested then I'm pretty sure somebody would both notice AND care. This is all in the context of attacking the security of Internet communications via a MITM attack. If Microsoft (one of the two parties communicating in this example) authorized it, then it isn't MITM. Whether it
Ahh. I see what you mean, now. Your argument, that because Microsoft /did/ authorize MarkMonitor to act as an intermediary makes any interception not MITM since it's not an unauthorized party listening in, has merit. But then, the NSA is authorized by law to do the same thing. Right now, almost the entirety of Internet communications is controlled by a handful of corporate entities which have even more power than the NSA to eavesdrop on communications.
The biggest concern that I have isn't that MarkMonitor and its competitors will eavesdrop. It's that they'll receive national security letters ordering them to shut everything down.
-- Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
