Almost speechless - DPI the same as cookies?
How can anyone claim that Google which sees a small proportion of anyone's surfing is more intrusive than a system which sees 100% of your surfing?
The 'Google is Evil' has been around for a long time and getting people to hear that message is hard. The people who are in the know do not use AdSense (why host a script that drives visitors away from your site) nor do they use Google-analytics (why give Google access to all your visitor data, just so that Google can make more money by sending visitors to those sites that pay the most for adverts).
The DPI BTA suppliers like Phorm, FrontPorch and KindSight also take visitors away from websites and also use the data collected about website visitors to fund their revenue models. Million $$$ businesses exchanging a $10 script to 'protect' from phishing or malware in exchange for harvesting priceless marketing information from commercial websites: what a complete and utter con, perhaps the best (worst?) scam seen so far this century.
It is all about choice. Websites and surfers can choose to not use Google and block the tracking scripts and cookies. Neither websites nor surfers have any choice when a DPI system intercepts what should be private communications over the internet. How does a website know that the visitor is having their datastream intercepted and analysed by a DPI system and that data being sold to earn revenue which paying the website a licence for the use of their content? (At least AdSense and othe BTA script models pay websites for the use of their content.)
The article fails because it starts with the premise : "Other than the subscription fees that carriers collect for access to the Internet itself, the only reliable revenue stream the ’Net has ever generated is ad sales, which mostly depend on the advertiser having knowledge of the consumer’s tastes and interests."
The majority of internet businesses are not selling advertising. A few are and most people in the street could name maybe a dozen such sites. Most sites sell products: if you see an 'advert' on the site it will be for whatever the site sells and not be encouraging the visitor to surf off somewhere else.
A second misconception is: "Until now, the privacy debate has focused on particular ways of obtaining preference and stressed opt-in vs. opt-out. This approach is wrong-headed, as web spiders can extract more personal information from the Internet than DPI can."
Do not confuse rogue spiders that go everywhere from well behaved search engine spiders. And, no, I don't regard Google, MSN or Yahoo to have well behaved spiders as they visit and index https pages.
What a bad argument: there are a few rogue bots out there that have harvested personal data from electoral registers and phone books and made the data public so let's also allow DPI to harvest personal and private data.
Is it not better to track down rogue bots and fine them for invading privacy than to give up on any idea of ever having privacy? Websites spend a fortune protecting their content from rogue scripts and crawler bots sent out by students using university IP addresses or spoofing the useragent of search engines or human used browsers.
3rd party scripts invading privacy is one issue.
DPI invading privacy is another issue.
Rogue bots harvesting data is another issue.
The only common factor is the invasion of privacy and privacy is what should be being protected, not the method used to invade that privacy.