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

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at ianai.net
Wed Mar 29 02:12:15 UTC 2017


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.


> On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> Why am I supposed to care? 
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> The Brothers WISP 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk at gsp.org> 
> To: nanog at 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 +0000, 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 

More information about the NANOG mailing list