Bangers 'N' Mash?
Don't forget to check the bangers info...
Paris because she bangs!
The dust-up over internet privacy has returned to Capitol Hill. The centerpiece of Thursday's hearing of the US House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet was - as it has been in the past - deep packet inspection (DPI), i.e. looking inside an internet packet to determine its contents …
Don't forget to check the bangers info...
Paris because she bangs!
The NSA pretty much do their own version of DPI and as far as I can tell this hasn't been debated much in Congress. At least they seem to be having some kind of debate rather than the lacklustre ones we're having over here. The long delayed consultation about the dreaded IMP seems to be finally be upon us next week; I hope the debate livens up.
ISPs have no need for DPI to know which web sites you visit. DPI is needed to decipher the content you exchange (though it's doubtful that even the NSA have the computing power to do that for everyone in the US) and, in particular, where the IP port is obfuscated to disguise traffic such as torrents.
As usual, if you want to exchange data over the Internet that you wouldn't write on the back of a postcard, use encryption. If you don't want folks to know the sites you're visiting, use Tor.
Presumably the idea is to have it running at the ISP, but that's a daft place. Given a half-reasonable lock-down on the child's machine, the parental control software could run there and this puts the processing burden on the machine requiring the service. Given a less satisfactory lock-down on the PC, put it on the domestic router. Both of these locations (well, the first certainly) also make it possible to DPI an encrypted packet, which the ISP cannot do.
Then there's the legal difference. The OS on my machine has been capable of DPI since forever. So has the machine at the other end of the conversation. But I own the former and if I didn't want the latter to read my packets I wouldnt have sent them there. Extending this idea of "endpoint" to include networks and routers wholly owned by the same two parties isn't a problem, either morally or legally. Extending it to third parties probably is. *I* may have *some* leverage with my ISP, but the person I'm talking to doesn't.
For years we've had AV software obnoxiously appending a "sig" line to emails proclaiming that they've checked this email for zillions of viruses (but curiously are never willing to warrant that it is virus free). Should we now append a note saying "My ISP uses DPI, so anything you may send in reply will be harvested mercilessly for their commercial gain, possibly at your expense. If you do not wish to be screwed over in this way, don't ever attempt to communicate with me again."? It might increase public awareness. Even better would be to automatically trigger bounce messages based on the destination IP address. That is: "Your ISP uses DPI, and I have no reason to trust their opt-out mechanism even if you've selected it, so I will not bother to read this email in case I am tempted to reply and thereby have *my* personal information harvested by your ISP for their commercial gain.".
... "It's none of your damn business" don't they understand...?
DPI is the digital equivalent of wiretapping. In the US, Law Enforcement needs a court order to do it legally. At present, in the US, wiretapping of 3rd party telephones by private entities is illegal. Why should private companies be allowed to wiretap simply because the information is transmitted in a digital carrier rather than an analog carrier?
DPI has been used for a while and will continue to be used in the future.
The Govt only wants to legitimise it.
They already know who visits BigNBouncyJubbs.com
It is naive in extremis to even imagine that DPI will not be used whenever it is needed, no matter what rules and regulations/safeguards and prohibitions are cooked up...... for it offers Stealthy Invisible Control aka Sublime Absolute Power. Although that is not to say that Everyone can Use It Effectively, for both Good and Bad/Black and White Hatted, for it may be the case that very Few can. And they won't be at all worried about anything which may be proposed.
Get used to IT being there, as an Intangible Facility......Planning Your Future and Driving Events. It is surely a lot more Comforting than Accepting the Alternative ...... that Everything is Run by Chaos and is Always Out of Control ..... for that would be akin to one accepting Madness is Leading and IntelAIgent Beings would never be Party to that Stupid Folly.
Welcome our Deep Packet Inspecting New World Order overlords to inspect my encrypted data.
Just as I [*CLICK!*] welcome [*CLACK!*] their attempts to obtain the keys.
The trendy leather one with the pockets full of shells and magical gunshot wound healing paracetamol.
Top rank spooks always have and always will be able to do more or less what they want. Middle ranking gauleiters across the spectrum from law enforcement to environmental health must look on them with envy. And governments would dearly love to have the opportunity to measure social trends that is available to ISPs and search engine hosts, and to map the patterns of discontent.in social networks.
Attempts to snoop the interwebs under the guise of controlling pr0n, BDSM etc. seem to be failing; mainly because enough people are prepared to be up-front that they want it or at least don't object to its availability. An alternative thin-end-of-wedge for governments is the need to disarm botnets, spam and DDoS attacks; and there is a real problem here.
Were it possible to run DPI to counter these threats using Open Source methods, where the software and the what and how it did its stuff was open to public inspection, this could provide part of a solution that doesn't significantly invade privacy. But for a variety of reasons this won't happen.
Perhaps the best way to head them off at the pass is to promote safe surfing, firewalls and anti-virus software. If the aim of tech-savvy members of the vanguard of freedom is indeed to prevent snooping rather than to axe-grind and bemoan the appalling cost of digital music, a bit of time and effort devoted towards educating the masses whose machines are open to infection might be a good investment.
DPI is in fact PRECISELY the same as phone wiretapping, as all the phone networks are digital now.
The majority of PABX are TCP/IP based, so I'd be quite surprised if the core exchanges weren't connected by something based on IP.
The international internet and phone backbones are the same glass, so probably some of the national backbones are dual-purpose as well.
***McSlarrow then went on to enumerate how DPI can help consumers.. ***
... surely consumers would be voluntarily rushing for the opportunity to be opting in? If this is so great there would be no need to force upon consumers an "opt out" claus approach then from the DPI interest group?
... oh wait.
If they allow ISP's to inspect content, why not allow a phone company "inspect" the voice channels (voice recognition is improving) and sell the "keywords" found to telemarketers. It IS equivalent.
Of course, "inspection" on voice channels is VERY illegal, and wouldn't be tolerated by anyone, so why would digital information be any different.
In a word: DUH!
This technology is only for use against Terrorists, criminals and other socially undesirables and can only be authorised by a high ranking tea boy at the local council.
We do embark on this type of mass snooping lightly. Its for your own protection. The only reason we sell the information is so the tax payer doesn't have to subsidised the 'War of Terror'
...the 'Think of the Children!' line will win this, just as it has and will continue to erode our civil liberties. It cannot be argued with: it's an impregnable, grand-standing argument used ruthlessly by self-serving politicians and legislators to get their agendas into the statutes. When you hear a politician or a policeman or a pressure group using this argument, or that of 'anti-terrorism', will any of you be brave enough to stand up and call them to account..?
No. I thought not. And that's how they will keep right on winning. They know you have been cowed into submission over a subject you are not permitted to discuss. It's a beautiful plan - and it's working.
"When you hear a politician or a policeman or a pressure group using this argument, or that of 'anti-terrorism', will any of you be brave enough to stand up and call them to account..?
No. I thought not. And that's how they will keep right on winning. They know you have been cowed into submission over a subject you are not permitted to discuss. It's a beautiful plan - and it's working." ..... By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 27th April 2009 08:30 GMT
Err, excuse me, AC, but the beautiful plan appears to be in Meltdown, with their Simple Artificial and Corrupted Controls being Aired and Shared for Public Peer Review and Increasing Outrage...... and between a Rock and a Hard Place and in CyberSpace is there Nowhere to Hide and Claim Safe Haven and Safe Harbour Protection.
Is there a Plan B or C or D or E or.......... does an Arrogant Singular Stupidity Reign Supreme in Ivory Towers? And don't answer that Rhetorical Question for it is Obvious to even a Blind Man on a Galloping Horse.
Let start that I think I am loosing my mind, I actually understood what amanfromMars said. My meds must not be strong enough.
"McSlarrow then went on to enumerate how DPI can help consumers, including preventing spam and malware, etc."
Well he's right, but what has that got to do with targeted advertising? Shirley the thing to do is to attack the source not the message. It's not as if the 'merkins lack the technology. Why don't they do what they usually do and send in a couple of squadrons of B52's to bond the servers that are serving span and malware. The could call the operation "Righteous Email" or soemething like that and get CNN to cover it.
Paris, another bang….., oops, she's already been done,
Paris, another expert in handling sausage.
Paris, her packets have already been deeply inspected.
Possibly a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' in this instance?
Maybe with the addition of '...my friend...for now.'?
Doesn't mean they aren't very useful though...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017