Internet diameter?

Sun Nov 25 17:08:01 UTC 2018

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 8:48 PM Hal Murray <
hgm+nanog at ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote:

>
> Keith Medcalf  said:
> > "just static content" would be more accurate ...
>
>   and using http rather than https
>
> > There were many attempts at this by Johhny-cum-lately ISPs back in the
> 90's
> > -- particularly Telco and Cableco's -- with their "transparent poxies".
> > Eventually they discovered that it was more cost efficient to actually
> > provide the customer with what the customer had purchased.
>
> One of the complications in this area is an extra layer of logging which
> could
> turn into privacy invasion.
>
> I'm pretty sure it was Comcast, but a quick search didn't find a good
> reference.  Many years ago, there were a lot of complaints when customers
>

did you mean the 'sandvine experiment' that happened ~10 yrs back?
or did you mean the plan verizon had to proxy all http/https traffic from
consumer (fios/dsl) links through their gear so they could replace ad
content and such?
or did you mean the various (barefruit/nominim/paxfire) dns fake-answer
companies that dropped your customer on their "search platform" for
monetization?

fairly much all of those are a wreck for consumer privacy :(

> discovered that their transparent proxy web site traffic was getting
> logged.
> Comcast said they weren't using it for anything beyond normal operations
> work,
> but nobody believed them.  Shortly after that, they gave up on proxying.
>
> I'm sure the general reputation of modern Telcos and Cablecos for privacy
> invasion didn't help.
>
>
it's a rough business to be in, they say... but invading privacy of their
users makes things seem a heck of a lot worse.

>
> --
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20181125/9fd817cf/attachment.html>