Internet privacy is dead, redux
-
@izzion Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that analysis at face value--which we shouldn't, as you're improperly conflating peering between backbone ISPs and delivery to non-peer domestic ISPs, which I already pointed out way upthread, but whatever--what it boils down to is "Netflix's ISP wasn't charging Netflix enough for the data that Netflix was sending them to be profitable on it."
Why is that anybody else's problem?
-
@masonwheeler
EXACTLY!!!Which is why we shouldn't have government regulations forced down the throat of every single ISP in the country, simply because Netflix's transit provider made a bad business deal.
QED, Net Neutrality regulation is a sham!
-
@izzion Please don't twist my words. All I was pointing out is that your logic made no sense.
Again, Net Neutrality has nothing to do with Netflix, causally speaking. It was a big deal nearly a decade before any of this stuff with Netflix went down.
-
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
"The new rules also restrict an ISP’s ability to inform customers about innovative and cost-saving product offerings."
ComCast MITM with your threesome porn habits :--) now that is some ground-shattering innovation I am looking forward to see.
-
@anotherusername said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
so it's kind of silly (and a cop-out) to act like it couldn't have also imposed laws about physical privacy / surveillance if it didn't like the UK's police state level of monitoring
I wonder what country would have vetoed that. *scratches head*
Same for banking regulations after 2008. Without the UK, we'd probably have some actual regulations now.
-
hmm..... i now need to look into what it would take to have my Unifi Security Gateway appliance to connect to an OpenVPN VPN and force route all traffic through the VPN connection, blocking all other traffic in or out.....
because i'm getting the feeling that that's going to be super important to do soon.
-
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
hmm..... i now need to look into what it would take to have my Unifi Security Gateway appliance to connect to an OpenVPN VPN and force route all traffic through the VPN connection, blocking all other traffic in or out.....
because i'm getting the feeling that that's going to be super important to do soon.
See, that's what I don't get about this whole situation. We have tools to obfuscate connection metadata, and encryption schemes that were designed with the assumption of snooping. For the tech-savvy user, why should this be anything more than a minor nuisance?
-
@izzion said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Even if they didn't have to pull a new $300 per mile pair
They don't need new pairs. It's possible to put more down the existing pairs by switching to CWDM or DWDM.
-
@Groaner said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
For the tech-savvy user, why should this be anything more than a minor nuisance?
It's really the tech savvy user for whom this is a nuisance to begin with. Most people won't really care one way or the other.
-
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Most people won't really care one way or the other.
-
@loopback0 said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Most people won't really care one way or the other.
Ditto.
-
@Groaner said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
hmm..... i now need to look into what it would take to have my Unifi Security Gateway appliance to connect to an OpenVPN VPN and force route all traffic through the VPN connection, blocking all other traffic in or out.....
because i'm getting the feeling that that's going to be super important to do soon.
See, that's what I don't get about this whole situation. We have tools to obfuscate connection metadata, and encryption schemes that were designed with the assumption of snooping. For the tech-savvy user, why should this be anything more than a minor nuisance?
because the vast majority of people aren't tech savvy and don't understand the ramifications of what all this acually means.
these will be the ones that get screwed by this legislation, and they won't understand how or why until it's far too late.
-
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
because the vast majority of people aren't tech savvy and don't understand the ramifications of what all this acually means.
What are the ramifications of what all this acually means?
-
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
What are the ramifications of what all this acually means?
We might run out of tinfoil if we have that many hats to make!
-
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
because the vast majority of people aren't tech savvy and don't understand the ramifications of what all this acually means.
What are the ramifications of what all this acually means?
99% of the rammifications involve internet arguments about what the rammifications are.
the other 1% is spellar errors.
-
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
99% of the rammifications involve internet arguments about what the rammifications are.
This was my thought, but it was a serious question, even if the spelling wasn't.
-
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
99% of the rammifications involve internet arguments about what the rammifications are.
This was my thought, but it was a serious question, even if the spelling wasn't.
well if the questiuon is serious. the 99% stays the same and the 1% changes to be peoples information being sold by the ISPs and/or stolen from the ISPs and used to blackmail people or perpetrate identity theft against them or.... well basically the standard internet bad stuff that happens today, except now there's a new source of information that
canwill be leakedso, you know, other than the arguments not that much changes but that doesn't mean i like that fact that it does change in a way that benefits ISPs who STILL cannot give me completely uninterrupted service, and manage to provide what megre service they do provide for double or more the price of our EU counterparts..... on and they often don't even offer speeds as fast as EU residential lines can receive unless you pay exhorbitent amounts for "business class" internet.
but that's really not the sort of argument to be had here, not when i can be training armies of my fellow foxes to seek out fatcat CEOs and piss in their shoes.
-
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
peoples information being sold by the ISPs and/or stolen from the ISPs and used to blackmail people or perpetrate identity theft against them
OK, those sound like real possibilities. Well, maybe the blackmail thing...not sure how the identity theft would work.
I still disagree with the way the FCC butted in on this, though. From a purely good governance / rule of law perspective they needed to get their wrists slapped.
-
@accalia And this is where I'm glad to be in the EU, where this sort of thing wouldn't hap-
---BREXIT---
…bollocks.
-
@RaceProUK It's just as likely to happen in the EU as it is with UK on its own.
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
used to blackmail people
The people who should care are the people with something serious to hide?
We're back to most people probably don't need to care and anyone with something to hide is hopefully doing a better job of hiding it already.
-
@loopback0 Ah, yes, the old if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear argument.
Sod off.
-
@PleegWat said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Ah, yes, the old if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear argument.
If the concern is blackmail you probably don't.
-
@loopback0 said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@PleegWat said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Ah, yes, the old if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear argument.
If the concern is blackmail you probably don't.
Next up: Your insurance company buys this information to see if you ever googled for "Very Expensive Hereditary Disease".
-
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
ISPs who STILL cannot give me completely uninterrupted service
**grumblegrumble** Last night, while clicking Likes in front of the TV, uVerse decides to go to lunch. Good bye internet, phone, and TV. It always seems to happen around 7p... :shakes_fist: Back on in a couple minutes.
-
@Rhywden said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@loopback0 said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@PleegWat said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Ah, yes, the old if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear argument.
If the concern is blackmail you probably don't.
Next up: Your insurance company buys this information to see if you ever googled for "Very Expensive Hereditary Disease".
How well is that going to work when browsers force
https
these days?
-
@Groaner said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Rhywden said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@loopback0 said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@PleegWat said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Ah, yes, the old if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear argument.
If the concern is blackmail you probably don't.
Next up: Your insurance company buys this information to see if you ever googled for "Very Expensive Hereditary Disease".
How well is that going to work when browsers force
https
these days?given that google searches are via a GET request?
you tell me.
-
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Groaner said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Rhywden said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@loopback0 said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@PleegWat said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Ah, yes, the old if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear argument.
If the concern is blackmail you probably don't.
Next up: Your insurance company buys this information to see if you ever googled for "Very Expensive Hereditary Disease".
How well is that going to work when browsers force
https
these days?given that google searches are via a GET request?
you tell me.
My guess would be "not very well."
The entire request is encrypted, including the URL, and even the command (GET). The only thing an intervening party such as a proxy server can glean is the destination address and port.
-
@Groaner Good to know the whole request is encrypted
-
@Groaner said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Groaner said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Rhywden said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@loopback0 said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@PleegWat said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Ah, yes, the old if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear argument.
If the concern is blackmail you probably don't.
Next up: Your insurance company buys this information to see if you ever googled for "Very Expensive Hereditary Disease".
How well is that going to work when browsers force
https
these days?given that google searches are via a GET request?
you tell me.
My guess would be "not very well."
The entire request is encrypted, including the URL, and even the command (GET). The only thing an intervening party such as a proxy server can glean is the destination address and port.
how long till ISPs start "helpfully" HTTPs
MITMProxying traffic through them?...... actually probably quite a while now that i think of that..... at least so long as we don't pull a China.
-
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
I still disagree with the way the FCC butted in on this, though. From a purely good governance / rule of law perspective they needed to get their wrists slapped.
Seriously? What part of "Communications is right there in their name" don't you understand?
-
@RaceProUK said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Groaner Good to know the whole request is encrypted
My understanding of most of these "secure" protocols is that they're built on top of TLS/SSL and thus you have an encrypted line before the conversation begins.
-
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Groaner said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Groaner said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Rhywden said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@loopback0 said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@PleegWat said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Ah, yes, the old if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear argument.
If the concern is blackmail you probably don't.
Next up: Your insurance company buys this information to see if you ever googled for "Very Expensive Hereditary Disease".
How well is that going to work when browsers force
https
these days?given that google searches are via a GET request?
you tell me.
My guess would be "not very well."
The entire request is encrypted, including the URL, and even the command (GET). The only thing an intervening party such as a proxy server can glean is the destination address and port.
how long till ISPs start "helpfully" HTTPs
MITMProxying traffic through them?...... actually probably quite a while now that i think of that..... at least so long as we don't pull a China.
Exactly. The point when ISPs start issuing certificates and demanding that you use them is the point to break out the torches and pitchforks. Right now, we still have at least a couple layers of security.
-
@Groaner said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Rhywden said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@loopback0 said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@PleegWat said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Ah, yes, the old if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear argument.
If the concern is blackmail you probably don't.
Next up: Your insurance company buys this information to see if you ever googled for "Very Expensive Hereditary Disease".
How well is that going to work when browsers force
https
these days?Then make it: “Visited a health site.“
-
@accalia said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Groaner said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@Rhywden said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@loopback0 said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@PleegWat said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Ah, yes, the old if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear argument.
If the concern is blackmail you probably don't.
Next up: Your insurance company buys this information to see if you ever googled for "Very Expensive Hereditary Disease".
How well is that going to work when browsers force
https
these days?given that google searches are via a GET request?
you tell me.
In https, only the IP address and domain name are sent plain. And of course a guess can be taken at request size (to within ~16 bytes depending on cipher), response size, and server response time.
-
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
I still disagree with the way the FCC butted in on this, though. From a purely good governance / rule of law perspective they needed to get their wrists slapped.
Seriously? What part of "Communications is right there in their name" don't you understand?
Oh for fucks sake. Reading by keyword never ended well for anyone.
-
@boomzilla It's always been the FCC's responsibility; they just didn't do much about it until recently. This isn't a story about FCC power grabs; it's a story about lazy public servants not doing their job until Tom Wheeler (no relation) got the position and started taking things seriously and doing what his predecessors should have been doing for over a decade.
-
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
It's always been the FCC's responsibility
Only in a 1984 sort of way.
It literally was not until they recently decided to classify ISPs as common carriers.
-
@boomzilla ...which is what they should have been all along, from day 1. It was becoming more and more painfully obvious with every year that this was needed, until it finally couldn't be ignored.
-
@masonwheeler No, it still doesn't make sense to take that stuff from the FTC. Or maybe you think the FCC should also deal with ISPs' taxes, too? Because COMMUNICATIONS.
-
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
No, it still doesn't make sense to take that stuff from the FTC.
Tom Wheeler on plans to put that on the FTC:
It’s a fraud. The FTC doesn’t have rule-making authority. They’ve got enforcement authority and their enforcement authority is whether or not something is unfair or deceptive. And the FTC has to worry about everything from computer chips to bleach labeling. Of course, carriers want [telecom issues] to get lost in that morass. This was the strategy all along.
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Or maybe you think the FCC should also deal with ISPs' taxes, too? Because COMMUNICATIONS.
Now you're just being straight-up disingenuous. Obviously, how a communication company handles its taxes are not in the FCC's bailiwick. Just as obviously, how a communication company handles its communications is in the FCC's bailiwick.
-
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Now you're just being straight-up disingenuous.
If you think that then you understand how I see your statements.
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Just as obviously, how a communication company handles its communications is in the FCC's bailiwick.
Yeah, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what sort of stuff they're allowed to sell and what sort of stuff they're not allowed to release. Which is what that FTC link I sent was about.
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Tom Wheeler on plans to put that on the FTC:
Yeah...the FCC Chairman who decided to do this is a totally unbiased source. I'm not saying that he's absolutely and objectively wrong, but this bullshit about, "It's OBVIOUS" is just ignorant. FFS, that's two techniques from you in one thread!
-
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Yeah, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what sort of stuff they're allowed to sell and what sort of stuff they're not allowed to release. Which is what that FTC link I sent was about.
Who's talking about that? I thought we were talking about what they are and aren't allowed to do with communications data.
Yeah...the FCC Chairman who decided to do this is a totally unbiased source.
Granted, but on the other hand, he's a specialist in this area and has enough domain knowledge about this particular issue to be worth listening to. And when he says that the point of moving ISP enforcement from an agency that specializes in communications to a generalist agency with no rule-making authority, with much less in the way of domain knowledge, and that's already overworked, in the hopes that the problems will fall between the cracks... well, doesn't that kind of have the ring of truth to it?
-
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
And when he says that the point of moving ISP enforcement from an agency that specializes in communications to a generalist agency with no rule-making authority, with much less in the way of domain knowledge, and that's already overworked, in the hopes that the problems will fall between the cracks... well, doesn't that kind of have the ring of truth to it?
More or less than a ring of empire building? Also, your statement is misleading, since those guys were already covered by the FTC. Here's an improved restatement:
You're moving enforcement away from an agency that deals with data security and privacy to one that specializes in regulating communications.
In addition to that, I'd rather see less rule making authority for executive agencies than more, so that's another strike against this.
-
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
In addition to that, I'd rather see less rule making authority for executive agencies than more, so that's another strike against this.
Or another strike against you. That's a big part of the problem: you don't see the problem. Nothing you've said in any of these discussions gives any indication that you understand the concept of "market failure", the problems posed by monopolies, or the way "self-regulating industries" consistently fail to self-regulate.
Even Donald Trump's most rabid, ardently conservative supporters are disgusted by this. But you seem to think it's just fine, and that really says a lot more about you than it does about this situation.
-
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
That's a big part of the problem: you don't see the problem. Nothing you've said in any of these discussions gives any indication that you understand the concept of "market failure", the problems posed by monopolies, or the way "self-regulating industries" consistently fail to self-regulate.
Even Donald Trump's most rabid, ardently conservative supporters are disgusted by this. But you seem to think it's just fine, and that really says a lot more about you than it does about this situation.
Now you sound like you're not reading what I've been saying. Sure, I think this isn't a huge deal, personally, at least not on the level of hysteria that's going around. But my refusal to panic says nothing over anything about market failures or self regulation. This is all shoulder alien bullshit on your part.
Yes, it does say a lot about me: That I'm not a knee jerk moron who demands bad solutions because SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. (I'm a totally different kind of knee jerk moron.) I'm also capable of seeing past bad reasoning like what you've been saying.
-
@boomzilla said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Yes, it does say a lot about me: That I'm not a knee jerk moron who demands bad solutions because SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.
And neither are the people supporting this. They're saying "this what should be happening." An ISP should be a "dumb pipe." It should be a message delivery service and nothing more, and they have no business "going through my mail," as it were, without a warrant. This should be a self-evident statement that needs no explanation or justification beyond a basic, high school-level knowledge of civics.
This is an idea that enjoys broad support across the political spectrum. It is not in any way a partisan issue. Poll after poll shows that Republican voters like Net Neutrality and basic privacy protections just as much as Democratic voters do. It's only at the Congress level where the partisan divide appears, manufactured by lobbyists to buy corrupt laws.
The bad reasoning you're having trouble seeing past isn't mine.
-
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
The bad reasoning you're having trouble seeing past isn't mine.
Is it the strawman's that the rest of your post was?
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
Poll after poll shows that Republican voters like Net Neutrality and basic privacy protections just as much as Democratic voters do.
Like...how the hell did that even get in there? And are you really arguing that I should stop thinking about issues and trust the results of misleading questions asked of ignorant people?
-
@boomzilla I'm arguing that you're not thinking about issues; you're regurgitating fake industry talking points dreamed up by telcos in the attempt to manufacture a novel basis for them to get away with doing things that everybody knows they should not be doing. You've been duped. You've been taken in. You've been lied to, and you believed it.
That's what I'm saying.
-
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
I'm arguing that you're not thinking about issues
I know, and that's one way that I know you're not making sense.
@masonwheeler said in Internet privacy is dead, redux:
you're regurgitating fake industry talking points dreamed up by telcos in the attempt to manufacture a novel basis for them to get away with doing things that everybody knows they should not be doing. You've been duped. You've been taken in. You've been lied to, and you believed it.
LOL
-
I would like to formally apologize for inadvertently starting this.