http://www.nodecity.com/empower
D. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Larry Seltzer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> How many ISP's *actually* do DPI in order to provide *security* for > their subscribers? > > Lots of them do security functions. They scan for malware, they scan for > spam, and to do any of this they have to look at the data inside > packets. > >>> Actually reading the article, it sounds like what Boucher wants is a > "Thou shalt not Phorm thy users without their consent" law. > > A cursory reading might give you that impression, but I suspect it's > wishful thinking. Consider the testimony before the committee of Leslie > Harris of the CDT: " It is important to stress at the outset that all > applications of DPI raise serious privacy concerns because all > applications of DPI begin with the interception and analysis of Internet > traffic." > > There are definitely those agitating to turn ISPs into simple conduits > of data, the electric companies of data. Ironically at the same time > they want to make the grid smart they want to make the networks dumb. > (hey, I have to use that line.) > > Larry Seltzer > eWEEK.com Security Center Editor > http://security.eweek.com/ > http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/ > Contributing Editor, PC Magazine > [email protected] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 12:38 PM > To: Thomas Raef > Cc: Larry Seltzer; funsec > Subject: Re: [funsec] When they outlaw deep packet inspection... > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:37:29 CDT, Thomas Raef said: > > (OK, Boucher is my congresscritter, since I live in the Virginia 9th > district).. > >> Why don't politicians stay out of something so technical and stick to >> what they do best - take bribes and sell Senate seats (Blago - >> Illinois)? > > Actually, Boucher is probably one of the *more* technically clued guys > in Congress - among other things, he's the one who's been actually > trying to get the damned DMCA anti-circumvention clause fixed (by adding > an exemption if the data you're extracting would itself be usable under > "fair use" or other rights). > >> On Behalf Of Larry Seltzer > >> I should add that at the same time the Senate is considering a bill >> mandating security standards for large parts of the Internet to follow > >> it seems as if the Senate is about to ban security > > (Noting s/Senate/House/ second time around). > > How many ISP's *actually* do DPI in order to provide *security* for > their subscribers? (And no, "block ports 137-139 and refuse to contact > the user when it's obvious they're botted" doesn't count). Now compare > that to the number of ISPs that want to do DPI in order to monetize the > data (Phorm, etc)? > > Actually reading the article, it sounds like what Boucher wants is a > "Thou shalt not Phorm thy users without their consent" law. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. > -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Donal ( http://bsdosx.blogspot.com/ ) "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
