Finally, I find the kind of reaction to Comast's botnet-busting service
that I had expected to see when it was announced. Previously I had
checked the ISP-phobic DSL Reports web site for reactions, expecting to
see something along the lines of "let no good deed go unpunished." But I
was disappointed to find that the reactions were overwhelmingly
favorable to Comcast, congratulating them for implementing this service
and offering ideas on how to keep the pop-up message from being spoofed.
But David Reed has exceeded my expectations for immoderate reaction with
the message below, criticizing Comcast for deploying a system that's not
consistent with "the way the Internet was designed to work." This
explains a lot: the Internet was designed to work according to the
general principle that every attached computer must host botnet
services, whether it wants to or not, and anyone who messes with that
principle is a threat to the revolution who must be sanctioned and
criticized. Naively, I once thought the Internet was designed to work in
the interests of all its users, and now I discover that some users are
more important than others: the Internet was designed to host botnets.
You heard it here from the inventor of UDP, end-to-end arguments, and
Internet addressing.
Thanks for clearing that up, David.
RB
David P. Reed wrote:
I don't see where Comcast is being transparent about *how* they do
this, or giving customers a chance to opt-in or -out.
If I send a lot of email, why does that make me a "bot"? Maybe I just
send a lot of email.
If the contents of my communications are being "scanned", why is that
legal? Why does Comcast care?
I might choose (if it were explained to me what was happening and what
the risks are to my privacy or being accused of a crime or hauled off
as a "suspected child pornographer" because I sent pictures of my
naked child) to have this service, or not.
But to be honest, in most markets, Comcast is the only real choice,
and imposing their "features" on me might not be what I want, even if
they "market" it as a *good thing*. If there were serious competition
(multiple providers, and no special "franchise" deals with local
governments that block new competitors, perhaps customers would have a
choice. However, most do not have other choice for highspeed Internet,
except Hobson's: "take that or nothing at all").
I'm really not impressed by these moves by Comcast. Livingood already
sent out an email saying that they redirect DNS service to a service
that sends certain names to hosts that do not have those names
registered, but which will respond with advertising-only websites.
This is not the way the Internet is designed to work.
Comcast supposedly cleaned up its act. Now it's backsliding - forcing
secret and invasive services on customers. On day one, they will
"love it" (especially in the Comcast-authored press release).
[ I am personally willing to give Comcast the benefit of the
doubt for the moment on this project and see where it leads.
It could potentially be useful, but it would also be easy for
Comcast to overplay its hand.
A number of possible issues:
- How intrusive will monitoring be? Will packet payloads be
scanned?
If so, this likely is immediately a serious privacy problem.
- How often will their scanning operations trigger firewall
or other protective alerts that users already have
installed?
- False positives? Non-evil bots and other innocent
applications falsely categorized as evil bots?
- Legit e-mail sending daemons categorized as spam senders?
Notifications: The implication is that they plan a browser pop
up. That may mean interfering directly with the TCP/IP
stream. True, this shouldn't happen frequently to any given
user for such security notices, but once Comcast has such a
capability (if that is indeed their methodology) the
inclination to use it for other less critical purposes as well
could be strong.
I think the success of this project will depend largely on how
transparent Comcast is about exactly what they're doing and
how they react to any problems that their system may cause.
If Comcast takes a "We can't tell you exactly what we're doing
because that would reveal too much to the bad guys" approach
then we potentially could have a significant dilemma on our
hands.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
