EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal
nanog at ics-il.net
Wed Mar 29 10:35:50 UTC 2017
Are there really no others or are the ones that are there just marketing themselves poorly? Any nearby you could convince to expand?
Over my WISP's coverage, I have at least 13 WISP competitors, 7 broadband wireline and nearly that many enterprise fiber. I admit that may be exceptional.
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 9:25:54 PM
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal
Thanks, I was a bit confused why you said it, which is apparently because I was confused. :-)
I agree we need to do a better job educating users why this is important.
And just so my opinion is clear, if there were a true market, I would not mind ISPs who did this (with proper notice). Unfortunately, over half of all households in the US have one or fewer choices for broadband providers. I am one of them. What do I do if my ISP wants to collect my data? VPN everything?
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> 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 <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net <mailto:patrick at ianai.net>>
> To: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:rsk at gsp.org>>
> > To: nanog at nanog.org <mailto: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