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

[Mel Beckman]

I generally believe less government is better government. But government is 
still necessary for a few things, such as the military. And privacy. Because 
privacy invasion is a crime committed in secret, so economic "voting" doesn't 
work. Without a law prohibiting selling of browser data, ISPs will simply lie 
and say they don't do it (as many already have).

A VPN is no help. Every browser has to jump on the bare Internet somewhere, and 
where it does, data can be captured and then analyzed to identify individual 
user signatures. As the NSA (thank you Snowden) has so ably demonstrated.

A law gives victims access to the power of legal discovery, civil damages, and 
even criminal prosecution. Where data privacy is concerned, we must have it.

 -mel beckman

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:30 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> As I say often. Perhaps a better way of handling things is instead of running 
> to the government every time we get a tear in our eyes, vote with 
> feet\wallets. Support your local independent (well, the ones that believe 
> whatever it is you believe). 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Mike Hammett"  
> To: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
> Cc: "NANOG list"  
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:18:40 PM 
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers 
> opposed to FCC privacy repeal 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
> To: "NANOG list"  
> 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  wrote: 
>> 
>> Why am I supposed to care? 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - 
>> Mike Hammett 
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>> - Original Message - 
>> 
>> From: "Rich Kulawiec"  
>> To: 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 +, 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
> 
> 
> 

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

[Mike Hammett]

As I say often. Perhaps a better way of handling things is instead of running 
to the government every time we get a tear in our eyes, vote with feet\wallets. 
Support your local independent (well, the ones that believe whatever it is you 
believe). 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
Cc: "NANOG list"  
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:18:40 PM 
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers 
opposed to FCC privacy repeal 

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 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message - 

From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
To: "NANOG list"  
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  wrote: 
> 
> Why am I supposed to care? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Rich Kulawiec"  
> To: 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 +, 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 

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

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

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  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 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>   
>  
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
>   
> 
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" mailto:patr...@ianai.net>>
> To: "NANOG list" 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  > > wrote:
> > 
> > Why am I supposed to care? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - 
> > Mike Hammett 
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> > 
> > Midwest Internet Exchange 
> > 
> > The Brothers WISP 
> > 
> > - Original Message -
> > 
> > From: "Rich Kulawiec" mailto:r...@gsp.org>> 
> > To: 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 +, 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 

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

[Mike Hammett]

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 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
To: "NANOG list"  
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  wrote: 
> 
> Why am I supposed to care? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Rich Kulawiec"  
> To: 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 +, 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 

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

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

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  wrote:
> 
> Why am I supposed to care? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Rich Kulawiec"  
> To: 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 +, 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 

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

[Mike Hammett]

Yeah, I think we're done here. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mel Beckman"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:19:08 PM 
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers 
opposed to FCC privacy repeal 

What about bank robbery? Little ISPs could supplement their incomes using that 
immoral revenue stream too. The ends don't justify the means. Browsing history 
belongs to the user, not the ISP. Robbing users of this data is not justified 
just because it would give ISPs -- of any size -- a new revenue stream. 

-mel beckman 

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 6:14 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote: 
> 
> What about little ISPs? There are already monetization platforms out there 
> that can be resold to small ISPs. The company sells the aggregate data 
> upstream. Not that I would, but in a small ISP, that money makes a big 
> difference. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Mel Beckman"  
> To: "Hugo Slabbert"  
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:08:19 PM 
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers 
> opposed to FCC privacy repeal 
> 
> Hugo, 
> 
> That's a great find! I note in the article: 
> 
> "Not only is the price of the premier service (with ads) only $70 a month, 
> but it comes with a waiver of equipment, installation, and activation fees. 
> The standard service without ads is $99 a month..." 
> 
> So that's $29 a month to let AT&T track your Web browsing, but only for 
> targeting ads. ATT promises "And we won’t sell your personal information to 
> anyone, for any reason." 
> 
> I would guess that the ability to sell that data would be worth several times 
> the $29/month, so it's conceivable that a provider could offer $10/mo Gig 
> Internet in exchange for browsing history. 
> 
> But nobody does. 
> 
> Because they think they can steal it. 
> 
> I think this pretty well demonstrates the greed of the big-ISP executives who 
> lobbied for today's legislative atrocity, which lets them rob customers of 
> browsing history that even AT&T execs acknowledge users own. 
> 
> -mel beckman 
> 
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Hugo Slabbert 
> mailto:h...@slabnet.com>> wrote: 
> 
> Now, if ISPs want to PURCHASE browser data from customers directly, I'm 
> sure they'll get some takers. But that strategy has never appeared in 
> any business plan I've seen. 
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/att-offers-gigabit-internet-discount-in-exchange-for-your-web-history/
>  ? 
> -- 
> Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com 
> pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal 
> 

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

[Mel Beckman]

What about bank robbery? Little ISPs could supplement their incomes using that 
immoral revenue stream too. The ends don't justify the means. Browsing history 
belongs to the user, not the ISP. Robbing users of this data is not justified 
just because it would give ISPs -- of any size -- a new revenue stream.

 -mel beckman

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 6:14 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> What about little ISPs? There are already monetization platforms out there 
> that can be resold to small ISPs. The company sells the aggregate data 
> upstream. Not that I would, but in a small ISP, that money makes a big 
> difference. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Mel Beckman"  
> To: "Hugo Slabbert"  
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:08:19 PM 
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers 
> opposed to FCC privacy repeal 
> 
> Hugo, 
> 
> That's a great find! I note in the article: 
> 
> "Not only is the price of the premier service (with ads) only $70 a month, 
> but it comes with a waiver of equipment, installation, and activation fees. 
> The standard service without ads is $99 a month..." 
> 
> So that's $29 a month to let AT&T track your Web browsing, but only for 
> targeting ads. ATT promises "And we won’t sell your personal information to 
> anyone, for any reason." 
> 
> I would guess that the ability to sell that data would be worth several times 
> the $29/month, so it's conceivable that a provider could offer $10/mo Gig 
> Internet in exchange for browsing history. 
> 
> But nobody does. 
> 
> Because they think they can steal it. 
> 
> I think this pretty well demonstrates the greed of the big-ISP executives who 
> lobbied for today's legislative atrocity, which lets them rob customers of 
> browsing history that even AT&T execs acknowledge users own. 
> 
> -mel beckman 
> 
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Hugo Slabbert 
> mailto:h...@slabnet.com>> wrote: 
> 
> Now, if ISPs want to PURCHASE browser data from customers directly, I'm 
> sure they'll get some takers. But that strategy has never appeared in 
> any business plan I've seen. 
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/att-offers-gigabit-internet-discount-in-exchange-for-your-web-history/
>  ? 
> -- 
> Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com 
> pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal 
> 

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

[Mike Hammett]

What about little ISPs? There are already monetization platforms out there that 
can be resold to small ISPs. The company sells the aggregate data upstream. Not 
that I would, but in a small ISP, that money makes a big difference. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mel Beckman"  
To: "Hugo Slabbert"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:08:19 PM 
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers 
opposed to FCC privacy repeal 

Hugo, 

That's a great find! I note in the article: 

"Not only is the price of the premier service (with ads) only $70 a month, but 
it comes with a waiver of equipment, installation, and activation fees. The 
standard service without ads is $99 a month..." 

So that's $29 a month to let AT&T track your Web browsing, but only for 
targeting ads. ATT promises "And we won’t sell your personal information to 
anyone, for any reason." 

I would guess that the ability to sell that data would be worth several times 
the $29/month, so it's conceivable that a provider could offer $10/mo Gig 
Internet in exchange for browsing history. 

But nobody does. 

Because they think they can steal it. 

I think this pretty well demonstrates the greed of the big-ISP executives who 
lobbied for today's legislative atrocity, which lets them rob customers of 
browsing history that even AT&T execs acknowledge users own. 

-mel beckman 

On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Hugo Slabbert 
mailto:h...@slabnet.com>> wrote: 

Now, if ISPs want to PURCHASE browser data from customers directly, I'm 
sure they'll get some takers. But that strategy has never appeared in 
any business plan I've seen. 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/att-offers-gigabit-internet-discount-in-exchange-for-your-web-history/
 ? 
-- 
Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com 
pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal 

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

[Mel Beckman]

Hugo,

That's a great find! I note in the article:

"Not only is the price of the premier service (with ads) only $70 a month, but 
it comes with a waiver of equipment, installation, and activation fees. The 
standard service without ads is $99 a month..."

So that's $29 a month to let AT&T track your Web browsing, but only for 
targeting ads. ATT promises "And we won’t sell your personal information to 
anyone, for any reason."

I would guess that the ability to sell that data would be worth several times 
the $29/month, so it's conceivable that a provider could offer $10/mo Gig 
Internet in exchange for browsing history.

But nobody does.

Because they think they can steal it.

I think this pretty well demonstrates the greed of the big-ISP executives who 
lobbied for today's legislative atrocity, which lets them rob customers of 
browsing history that even AT&T execs acknowledge users own.

 -mel beckman

On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Hugo Slabbert 
mailto:h...@slabnet.com>> wrote:

Now, if ISPs want to PURCHASE browser data from customers directly, I'm
sure they'll get some takers. But that strategy has never appeared in
any business plan I've seen.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/att-offers-gigabit-internet-discount-in-exchange-for-your-web-history/
 ?
--
Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal

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

[Hugo Slabbert]

>Now, if ISPs want to PURCHASE browser data from customers directly, I'm
>sure they'll get some takers. But that strategy has never appeared in
>any business plan I've seen.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/att-offers-gigabit-internet-discount-in-exchange-for-your-web-history/
 ?
-- 
Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal

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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/28/17 17:17, Mel Beckman wrote:


Hmmm... I hadn't heard about the $10 Internet access with no contracts and free 
installation. I'm pretty sure that's a complete fantasy, and that every ISP on 
the planet makes sure they get a tidy profit from the contract fees that lock 
in customers, with zero advertising income. Money from stealing user browser 
data is just gravy. Not that I'm opposed to gravy, but not when I, as a 
customer, don't get any.



I'm mostly being speculatively facetious.

All I can say for sure is they do that NXDOMAIN thing unless you opt 
out, good for 1 year only, so remember to renew your opt out annually. 
But I just don't use their resolvers.


~Seth

Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

[Mel Beckman]

Is anyone else getting this message on every nanog post today?

"This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they appear 
to be. Learn about spoofing at 
http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSpoofing"

I don't know if this link itself is malware, as it goes to the MS store, or if 
something is broken in the Nanog Mail machine.

If it's just me, never mind. I'll figure it out.

 -mel beckman

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

[Mel Beckman]

Seth,

Hmmm... I hadn't heard about the $10 Internet access with no contracts and free 
installation. I'm pretty sure that's a complete fantasy, and that every ISP on 
the planet makes sure they get a tidy profit from the contract fees that lock 
in customers, with zero advertising income. Money from stealing user browser 
data is just gravy. Not that I'm opposed to gravy, but not when I, as a 
customer, don't get any. 

Now, if ISPs want to PURCHASE browser data from customers directly, I'm sure 
they'll get some takers. But that strategy has never appeared in any business 
plan I've seen.

 -mel beckman

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> 
>> On 3/28/17 16:08, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:51:43 -0700, Seth Mattinen said:
>> 
>>> Has there ever been a real survey that asks people where they think
>>> Google gets the money to support things like Gmail for "free"?
>> There's a difference.  Google only gets to aggregate data you pass to Google.
>> Your ISP gets to aggregate data you pass to *anybody*.  The difference 
>> matters.
> 
> 
> I know, I'm not picking on Google like the other post was, other than to 
> bring up that point that a lot of non-technical people don't connect that 
> free Gmail means something has to pay for it. When I talk to people they have 
> this expectation of free internet because ISPs charging for internet access 
> is greedy when most most everything online is free. The internet is just a 
> nebulous thing out there that's "free".
> 
> So ultimately you have ISPs that sell data to marketers so they can meet the 
> demands from sales/marketing to offer $10 gigabit internet access with no 
> contracts and free install.
> 
> ~Seth

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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/28/17 16:08, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:51:43 -0700, Seth Mattinen said:


Has there ever been a real survey that asks people where they think
Google gets the money to support things like Gmail for "free"?

There's a difference.  Google only gets to aggregate data you pass to Google.
Your ISP gets to aggregate data you pass to *anybody*.  The difference matters.



I know, I'm not picking on Google like the other post was, other than to 
bring up that point that a lot of non-technical people don't connect 
that free Gmail means something has to pay for it. When I talk to people 
they have this expectation of free internet because ISPs charging for 
internet access is greedy when most most everything online is free. The 
internet is just a nebulous thing out there that's "free".


So ultimately you have ISPs that sell data to marketers so they can meet 
the demands from sales/marketing to offer $10 gigabit internet access 
with no contracts and free install.


~Seth

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

[Eric Tykwinski]

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:08 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:51:43 -0700, Seth Mattinen said:
> 
>> Has there ever been a real survey that asks people where they think
>> Google gets the money to support things like Gmail for "free"?
> 
> There's a difference.  Google only gets to aggregate data you pass to Google.
> Your ISP gets to aggregate data you pass to *anybody*.  The difference 
> matters.
> 
> Consider this example from the EFF:
> 
> "They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your
> health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was
> discussed."
> 
> And the ISP is in that same position of being able to see all 3, and allowing
> anybody they sell the data to, to make conclusions.
> 
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters

My first thought was your 6 year old watching sesame street videos, and your 10 
year old playing minecraft.
Sounds like the various COPPA lawsuits that I’ve seen from the FTC lawsuits, 
but IANAL.

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

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> Has there ever been a real survey that asks people where they think Google
> gets the money to support things like Gmail for "free"?


doesn't their 10k say: "ads" ?

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

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:51:43 -0700, Seth Mattinen said:

> Has there ever been a real survey that asks people where they think
> Google gets the money to support things like Gmail for "free"?

There's a difference.  Google only gets to aggregate data you pass to Google.
Your ISP gets to aggregate data you pass to *anybody*.  The difference matters.

Consider this example from the EFF:

"They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your
health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was
discussed."

And the ISP is in that same position of being able to see all 3, and allowing
anybody they sell the data to, to make conclusions.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters


pgphN7zFCwVF2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/28/17 12:53, Mel Beckman wrote:

Quoting an Alexa spokesperson:

"We don't think we did anything wrong," Alexa Chief Executive Brewster Kahle said. 
"But instead of going all the way through the legal process, we thought this was the easiest 
way to go on with our business."

--

That capsulized the problem perfectly: providers don't get that they're doing 
anything wrong when they sell user's personal usage data.




Has there ever been a real survey that asks people where they think 
Google gets the money to support things like Gmail for "free"?


~Seth

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

[Mike Hammett]

Why am I supposed to care? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Rich Kulawiec"  
To: 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 +, 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 

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

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:45:04PM +, 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

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

[Mark Felder]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017, at 18:13, Brett Glass wrote:
> The first step is to support 
> S.J. Res 34/H.J. Res 86, the Congressional resolution which would 
> revoke the current FCC regulations that were written and paid for 
> by Google and its lobbyists. 

Please keep conspiracy theories off the list, thanks.

-- 
  Mark Felder
  f...@feld.me

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

[Mel Beckman]

Quoting an Alexa spokesperson:

"We don't think we did anything wrong," Alexa Chief Executive Brewster Kahle 
said. "But instead of going all the way through the legal process, we thought 
this was the easiest way to go on with our business."

--

That capsulized the problem perfectly: providers don't get that they're doing 
anything wrong when they sell user's personal usage data. 

-mel via cell

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Tim Pozar  wrote:
> 
> Alexa ran into this problem...
> 
> https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-unit-settles-privacy-lawsuit/
> 
> Tim
> 
>> On 3/28/17 11:45 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> No ISPs have any right to market our customers browsing history, and 
>> currently that practice is illegal unless the customer opts in. In my 
>> opinion, only a fool wants to relieve ISPs of this restriction.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> -mel beckman
>> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Rod Beck  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Last time I checked most European countries have stronger privacy 
>>> protections than the US. Are they also idiots? Mr. Glass, would you care to 
>>> respond?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Roderick.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: NANOG  on behalf of Brett Glass 
>>> 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 1:13 AM
>>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>>> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and 
>>> engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal
>>> 
>>> All:
>>> 
>>> It's worth noting that most of EFF's list consists of individuals
>>> and/or politically connected organizations, not actual ISPs. This
>>> is for good reason. EFF was founded with the intention of creating
>>> a civil rights organization but has morphed into a captive
>>> corporate lobbying shop for Google, to which several of its board
>>> members have close financial ties. EFF opposes the interests of
>>> hard working ISPs and routinely denigrates them and attempts to
>>> foster promotes hatred of them. It also promotes and lobbies for
>>> regulations which advantage Google and disadvantage ISPs --
>>> including the so-called "broadband privacy" regulations, which
>>> heavily burden ISPs while exempting Google from all oversight.
>>> 
>>> No knowledgeable network professional or ISP would support the
>>> current FCC rules. Both they AND the FCC's illegal Title II
>>> classification of ISPs must be rolled back, restoring the FTC's
>>> ability to apply uniform and apolitical privacy standards to all of
>>> the players in the Internet ecosystem. The first step is to support
>>> S.J. Res 34/H.J. Res 86, the Congressional resolution which would
>>> revoke the current FCC regulations that were written and paid for
>>> by Google and its lobbyists. So, DO contact  your legislators...
>>> but do so in support of the resolutions that will repeal the
>>> regulations. It is vital to the future of the Internet.
>>> 
>>> --Brett Glass, Owner and Founder, LARIAT.NET
>>> 
>>> At 05:05 PM 3/26/2017, Peter Eckersley wrote:
>>> 
 Dear network operators,
 
 I'm sure this is a controversial topic in the NANOG community, but EFF and 
 a
 number of ISPs and networking companies are writing to Congress opposing 
 the
 repeal of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, which require explicit opt-in
 consent before ISPs use or sell sensitive, non-anonymized data (including
 non-anonymized locations and browsing histories).
 
 If you or your employer would like to sign on to such a letter, please 
 reply
 off-list by midday Monday with your name, and a one-sentence description of
 your affiliation and/or major career accomplishments.
>>> 

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

[Mel Beckman]

No ISPs have any right to market our customers browsing history, and currently 
that practice is illegal unless the customer opts in. In my opinion, only a 
fool wants to relieve ISPs of this restriction.

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.

 -mel beckman

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Rod Beck  
> wrote:
> 
> Last time I checked most European countries have stronger privacy protections 
> than the US. Are they also idiots? Mr. Glass, would you care to respond?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Roderick.
> 
> 
> 
> From: NANOG  on behalf of Brett Glass 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 1:13 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers 
> opposed to FCC privacy repeal
> 
> All:
> 
> It's worth noting that most of EFF's list consists of individuals
> and/or politically connected organizations, not actual ISPs. This
> is for good reason. EFF was founded with the intention of creating
> a civil rights organization but has morphed into a captive
> corporate lobbying shop for Google, to which several of its board
> members have close financial ties. EFF opposes the interests of
> hard working ISPs and routinely denigrates them and attempts to
> foster promotes hatred of them. It also promotes and lobbies for
> regulations which advantage Google and disadvantage ISPs --
> including the so-called "broadband privacy" regulations, which
> heavily burden ISPs while exempting Google from all oversight.
> 
> No knowledgeable network professional or ISP would support the
> current FCC rules. Both they AND the FCC's illegal Title II
> classification of ISPs must be rolled back, restoring the FTC's
> ability to apply uniform and apolitical privacy standards to all of
> the players in the Internet ecosystem. The first step is to support
> S.J. Res 34/H.J. Res 86, the Congressional resolution which would
> revoke the current FCC regulations that were written and paid for
> by Google and its lobbyists. So, DO contact  your legislators...
> but do so in support of the resolutions that will repeal the
> regulations. It is vital to the future of the Internet.
> 
> --Brett Glass, Owner and Founder, LARIAT.NET
> 
> At 05:05 PM 3/26/2017, Peter Eckersley wrote:
> 
>> Dear network operators,
>> 
>> I'm sure this is a controversial topic in the NANOG community, but EFF and a
>> number of ISPs and networking companies are writing to Congress opposing the
>> repeal of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, which require explicit opt-in
>> consent before ISPs use or sell sensitive, non-anonymized data (including
>> non-anonymized locations and browsing histories).
>> 
>> If you or your employer would like to sign on to such a letter, please reply
>> off-list by midday Monday with your name, and a one-sentence description of
>> your affiliation and/or major career accomplishments.
> 

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

[Rod Beck]

Last time I checked most European countries have stronger privacy protections 
than the US. Are they also idiots? Mr. Glass, would you care to respond?


Regards,


Roderick.



From: NANOG  on behalf of Brett Glass 

Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 1:13 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers 
opposed to FCC privacy repeal

All:

It's worth noting that most of EFF's list consists of individuals
and/or politically connected organizations, not actual ISPs. This
is for good reason. EFF was founded with the intention of creating
a civil rights organization but has morphed into a captive
corporate lobbying shop for Google, to which several of its board
members have close financial ties. EFF opposes the interests of
hard working ISPs and routinely denigrates them and attempts to
foster promotes hatred of them. It also promotes and lobbies for
regulations which advantage Google and disadvantage ISPs --
including the so-called "broadband privacy" regulations, which
heavily burden ISPs while exempting Google from all oversight.

No knowledgeable network professional or ISP would support the
current FCC rules. Both they AND the FCC's illegal Title II
classification of ISPs must be rolled back, restoring the FTC's
ability to apply uniform and apolitical privacy standards to all of
the players in the Internet ecosystem. The first step is to support
S.J. Res 34/H.J. Res 86, the Congressional resolution which would
revoke the current FCC regulations that were written and paid for
by Google and its lobbyists. So, DO contact  your legislators...
but do so in support of the resolutions that will repeal the
regulations. It is vital to the future of the Internet.

--Brett Glass, Owner and Founder, LARIAT.NET

At 05:05 PM 3/26/2017, Peter Eckersley wrote:

>Dear network operators,
>
>I'm sure this is a controversial topic in the NANOG community, but EFF and a
>number of ISPs and networking companies are writing to Congress opposing the
>repeal of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, which require explicit opt-in
>consent before ISPs use or sell sensitive, non-anonymized data (including
>non-anonymized locations and browsing histories).
>
>If you or your employer would like to sign on to such a letter, please reply
>off-list by midday Monday with your name, and a one-sentence description of
>your affiliation and/or major career accomplishments.

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

[Tim Pozar]

On 3/27/17 4:22 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> I am somehow please that Mr. Glass does not find me a “knowledgeable
> network professional”. It feels like a badge of honor. Any other “not”
> knowledgeable network professionals want to come forward and accept
> this badge?

You will find me as cosignatory to the EFF's letter seen at:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/small-isps-oppose-congressess-move-abolish-privacy-protections

Not like I have any experience running an ISP, Datacenter, Content
provider, anti-spam provider, etc...

Tim

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

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

Having worked networks with massive bandwidth, networks with a single T1 (don’t 
ask, just Google what a T1 is, er, was), and now being somewhere in the middle, 
I agree that the large guys sometimes forget the little guys exist. However, I 
think the change in privacy being proposed hurts -all- users, and 
disproportionately helps the large guys.

A tiny ISP with < 1 Gbps upstream does not have enough user data to sell or 
otherwise “monetize”, while the top 5-10 ISPs have a ready and willing market 
for their users’ data.

Which is why this is so strange. Mr. Glass’ ISP isn’t even a nat on the ass of 
national broadband ISPs. Not an indictment, like I said, I’ve run tiny networks 
myself. However, this change does not help ISPs in his position. Yet he is 
claiming the EFF is fighting for the big guy by opposing this change.

Color me confused. But then again, I am a not knowledgeable network 
professional, so I am probably just confused.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> Many organizations clamor the FCC for regulation because they hate something 
> about the top 10, 20, etc. ISPs. There is certainly something to hate about 
> them, but almost every time, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water and 
> little ISPs are harmed along the way. Extremes on both sides are what get 
> attention, meanwhile nothing constructive for little ISPs gets done. The 
> policy community forgets them. 
> 
> That same sort of forget about the little guys happens in technical 
> discussions in NANOG as well. Most ISPs and most web hosts have less than 1G 
> of upstream and likely from a single provider. The technical community 
> forgets them. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
> To: "NANOG list"  
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 6:22:27 PM 
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers 
> opposed to FCC privacy repeal 
> 
> I am somehow please that Mr. Glass does not find me a “knowledgeable network 
> professional”. It feels like a badge of honor. Any other “not” knowledgeable 
> network professionals want to come forward and accept this badge? 
> 
> Personally, I find the FCC’s current rules to be sub-optimal. But saying a 
> gov’t regulation is sub-optimal is like saying water is wet. The question is 
> not whether the regulation could be improved. It is whether the proposed 
> changes are an improvement. 
> 
> To be 1% clear: I prefer the current privacy regime over the new one 
> being proposed. 
> 
> Oh, and I do not believe the EFF is just a shill for Google. But then, I’m 
> just a not knowledgeable network professional, so what do I know? 
> 
> -- 
> TTFN, 
> patrick 
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Brett Glass  wrote: 
>> 
>> All: 
>> 
>> It's worth noting that most of EFF's list consists of individuals and/or 
>> politically connected organizations, not actual ISPs. This is for good 
>> reason. EFF was founded with the intention of creating a civil rights 
>> organization but has morphed into a captive corporate lobbying shop for 
>> Google, to which several of its board members have close financial ties. EFF 
>> opposes the interests of hard working ISPs and routinely denigrates them and 
>> attempts to foster promotes hatred of them. It also promotes and lobbies for 
>> regulations which advantage Google and disadvantage ISPs -- including the 
>> so-called "broadband privacy" regulations, which heavily burden ISPs while 
>> exempting Google from all oversight. 
>> 
>> No knowledgeable network professional or ISP would support the current FCC 
>> rules. Both they AND the FCC's illegal Title II classification of ISPs must 
>> be rolled back, restoring the FTC's ability to apply uniform and apolitical 
>> privacy standards to all of the players in the Internet ecosystem. The first 
>> step is to support S.J. Res 34/H.J. Res 86, the Congressional resolution 
>> which would revoke the current FCC regulations that were written and paid 
>> for by Google and its lobbyists. So, DO contact your legislators... but do 
>> so in support of the resolutions that will repeal the regulations. It is 
>> vital to the future of the Internet. 
>> 
>> --Brett Glass, Owner and Founder, LARIAT.NET 
>> 
>> At 05:05 PM 3/26/2017, Peter Eckersley wrote: 
>> 
>>> Dear network operators, 
>>> 
>>> I'm sure this is a controversial topic in the NANOG community, but EFF and 
>>> a 
>>> number of ISPs and networking companies are writing to Congress opposing 
>>> the 
>>> repeal of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, which require explicit opt-in 
>>> consent before ISPs use or sell sensitive, non-anonymized data (including 
>>> non-anonymized locations and browsing histories). 
>>> 
>>> If you or your employer would like to sign on to such a letter, please 
>>> reply 
>>> off-list by midday Monday w

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

[Mike Hammett]

Many organizations clamor the FCC for regulation because they hate something 
about the top 10, 20, etc. ISPs. There is certainly something to hate about 
them, but almost every time, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water and 
little ISPs are harmed along the way. Extremes on both sides are what get 
attention, meanwhile nothing constructive for little ISPs gets done. The policy 
community forgets them. 

That same sort of forget about the little guys happens in technical discussions 
in NANOG as well. Most ISPs and most web hosts have less than 1G of upstream 
and likely from a single provider. The technical community forgets them. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
To: "NANOG list"  
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 6:22:27 PM 
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers 
opposed to FCC privacy repeal 

I am somehow please that Mr. Glass does not find me a “knowledgeable network 
professional”. It feels like a badge of honor. Any other “not” knowledgeable 
network professionals want to come forward and accept this badge? 

Personally, I find the FCC’s current rules to be sub-optimal. But saying a 
gov’t regulation is sub-optimal is like saying water is wet. The question is 
not whether the regulation could be improved. It is whether the proposed 
changes are an improvement. 

To be 1% clear: I prefer the current privacy regime over the new one being 
proposed. 

Oh, and I do not believe the EFF is just a shill for Google. But then, I’m just 
a not knowledgeable network professional, so what do I know? 

-- 
TTFN, 
patrick 

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Brett Glass  wrote: 
> 
> All: 
> 
> It's worth noting that most of EFF's list consists of individuals and/or 
> politically connected organizations, not actual ISPs. This is for good 
> reason. EFF was founded with the intention of creating a civil rights 
> organization but has morphed into a captive corporate lobbying shop for 
> Google, to which several of its board members have close financial ties. EFF 
> opposes the interests of hard working ISPs and routinely denigrates them and 
> attempts to foster promotes hatred of them. It also promotes and lobbies for 
> regulations which advantage Google and disadvantage ISPs -- including the 
> so-called "broadband privacy" regulations, which heavily burden ISPs while 
> exempting Google from all oversight. 
> 
> No knowledgeable network professional or ISP would support the current FCC 
> rules. Both they AND the FCC's illegal Title II classification of ISPs must 
> be rolled back, restoring the FTC's ability to apply uniform and apolitical 
> privacy standards to all of the players in the Internet ecosystem. The first 
> step is to support S.J. Res 34/H.J. Res 86, the Congressional resolution 
> which would revoke the current FCC regulations that were written and paid for 
> by Google and its lobbyists. So, DO contact your legislators... but do so in 
> support of the resolutions that will repeal the regulations. It is vital to 
> the future of the Internet. 
> 
> --Brett Glass, Owner and Founder, LARIAT.NET 
> 
> At 05:05 PM 3/26/2017, Peter Eckersley wrote: 
> 
>> Dear network operators, 
>> 
>> I'm sure this is a controversial topic in the NANOG community, but EFF and a 
>> number of ISPs and networking companies are writing to Congress opposing the 
>> repeal of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, which require explicit opt-in 
>> consent before ISPs use or sell sensitive, non-anonymized data (including 
>> non-anonymized locations and browsing histories). 
>> 
>> If you or your employer would like to sign on to such a letter, please reply 
>> off-list by midday Monday with your name, and a one-sentence description of 
>> your affiliation and/or major career accomplishments.