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

Wed Mar 29 03:11:57 UTC 2017

I generally believe less government is better government. But government is still necessary for a few things, such as the military. And privacy. Because privacy invasion is a crime committed in secret, so economic "voting" doesn't work. Without a law prohibiting selling of browser data, ISPs will simply lie and say they don't do it (as many already have).

A VPN is no help. Every browser has to jump on the bare Internet somewhere, and where it does, data can be captured and then analyzed to identify individual user signatures. As the NSA (thank you Snowden) has so ably demonstrated.

A law gives victims access to the power of legal discovery, civil damages, and even criminal prosecution. Where data privacy is concerned, we must have it.

 -mel beckman

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:30 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> 
> As I say often. Perhaps a better way of handling things is instead of running to the government every time we get a tear in our eyes, vote with feet\wallets. Support your local independent (well, the ones that believe whatever it is you believe). 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net> 
> To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net> 
> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org> 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:18:40 PM 
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> 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 
> 
> Mike: 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> -- 
> TTFN, 
> patrick 
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 