[194214] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon Mar 27 19:29:44 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <201703272314.RAA11157@mail.lariat.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:22:27 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I am somehow please that Mr. Glass does not find me a =E2=80=9Cknowledgeab=
le network professional=E2=80=9D. It feels like a badge of honor. Any =
other =E2=80=9Cnot=E2=80=9D knowledgeable network professionals want to =
come forward and accept this badge?
Personally, I find the FCC=E2=80=99s current rules to be sub-optimal. =
But saying a gov=E2=80=99t regulation is sub-optimal is like saying =
water is wet. The question is not whether the regulation could be =
improved. It is whether the proposed changes are an improvement.
To be 10000% clear: I prefer the current privacy regime over the new one =
being proposed.
Oh, and I do not believe the EFF is just a shill for Google. But then, =
I=E2=80=99m just a not knowledgeable network professional, so what do I =
know?
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
>=20
> All:
>=20
> It's worth noting that most of EFF's list consists of individuals =
and/or politically connected organizations, not actual ISPs. This is for =
good reason. EFF was founded with the intention of creating a civil =
rights organization but has morphed into a captive corporate lobbying =
shop for Google, to which several of its board members have close =
financial ties. EFF opposes the interests of hard working ISPs and =
routinely denigrates them and attempts to foster promotes hatred of =
them. It also promotes and lobbies for regulations which advantage =
Google and disadvantage ISPs -- including the so-called "broadband =
privacy" regulations, which heavily burden ISPs while exempting Google =
from all oversight.
>=20
> No knowledgeable network professional or ISP would support the current =
FCC rules. Both they AND the FCC's illegal Title II classification of =
ISPs must be rolled back, restoring the FTC's ability to apply uniform =
and apolitical privacy standards to all of the players in the Internet =
ecosystem. The first step is to support S.J. Res 34/H.J. Res 86, the =
Congressional resolution which would revoke the current FCC regulations =
that were written and paid for by Google and its lobbyists. So, DO =
contact your legislators... but do so in support of the resolutions =
that will repeal the regulations. It is vital to the future of the =
Internet.
>=20
> --Brett Glass, Owner and Founder, LARIAT.NET
>=20
> At 05:05 PM 3/26/2017, Peter Eckersley wrote:
>=20
>> Dear network operators,
>>=20
>> I'm sure this is a controversial topic in the NANOG community, but =
EFF and a
>> number of ISPs and networking companies are writing to Congress =
opposing the
>> repeal of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, which require explicit =
opt-in
>> consent before ISPs use or sell sensitive, non-anonymized data =
(including
>> non-anonymized locations and browsing histories).
>>=20
>> If you or your employer would like to sign on to such a letter, =
please reply
>> off-list by midday Monday with your name, and a one-sentence =
description of
>> your affiliation and/or major career accomplishments.
