[194237] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Mar 28 22:12:21 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <1466975642.4813.1490738299811.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:12:15 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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 =E2=80=9Cwe are done here=E2=80=9D. Would =
that you were so lucky.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> Why am I supposed to care?=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
>=20
> Midwest Internet Exchange=20
>=20
> The Brothers WISP=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>=20
> From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk@gsp.org>=20
> To: nanog@nanog.org=20
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:45:25 PM=20
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and =
engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal=20
>=20
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:45:04PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote:=20
>> The claim oft presented by people favoring this customer abuse is =
that=20
>> the sold data is anonymous. But it's been well-established that very=20=
>> simple data aggregation techniques can develop signatures that reveal=20=
>> the identity of people in anonymized data.=20
>=20
> This needs to be repeated loudly and often at every possible =
opportunity.=20
> I've spent much of the past decade studying this issue and the most =
succinct=20
> way I can put it is that however good you (generic "you") think=20
> de-anonymization techniques are, you're wrong: they're way better than =
that.=20
> Billions, and I am not exaggerating even a little bit, have been spent=20=
> on this problem, and they've been spent by smart people with =
essentially=20
> unlimited computational resources. And whaddaya know, they've =
succeeded.=20
>=20
> So if someone presents you a data corpus and says "this data is =
anonymized",=20
> the default response should be to mock them, because there is a very =
high=20
> probability they're either (a) lying or (b) wrong.=20
>=20
> Incidentally, I'm also a signatory of the EFF document, since of =
course=20
> with nearly 40 years in the field I'm a mere clueless newbie and =
despite=20
> ripping them a new one about once every other month, I'm clearly a =
tool=20
> of Google.=20
>=20
> ---rsk=20
