EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal
nanog at ics-il.net
Wed Mar 29 02:18:40 UTC 2017
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.
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog at 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
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.
More information about the NANOG