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 12:58:57 UTC 2017
I know Mr. Glass thinks of me as a not knowledgeable network professional, but I hope you know I’ve been doing “ISP stuff” for a couple decades. I know how to work the system. There really are not any other broadband providers in my area. Hell, LTE doesn’t even work well in my house, and I am less than a dozen miles from the center of Boston.
But more importantly, even if there were a second provider, how do you expect Joe & Mary User to find that provider if I cannot? (Not trying to be arrogant, just saying I am more experience in this field than the average consumer.)
Broadband competition in the US is a myth, at least for most people. At best, competition is the exception, not the rule. At worst, it’s a thinly veiled monopoly. Hell, they brag about it being a duopoly where they can, as if that’s a great thing. Comcast’s chairman brags that Time Warner & Comcast do not compete in any cities.
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> 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.
> 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 9:25:54 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.
More information about the NANOG