[194238] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Tue Mar 28 22:18:47 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:18:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <373B8D77-0C6F-4192-8F6D-D6989591B9D3@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
It was more a plea to educate the list on why this matters vs. doom and glo=
om with a little more gloom and a little less Carmack. Instead I got more o=
f the sky is falling.=20
Note that I don't intend to ever do this at my ISP, nor my IX.=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
The Brothers WISP=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>=20
To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:12:15 PM=20
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineer=
s opposed to FCC privacy repeal=20
Mike:=20
My guess is you do not.=20
Which is -precisely- why the users (proletariat?) need to find a way to sto=
p you. Hence laws & regulations.=20
Later in this thread you said =E2=80=9Cwe are done here=E2=80=9D. Would tha=
t you were so lucky.=20
--=20
TTFN,=20
patrick=20
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:=20
>=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
>=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 engine=
ers 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 succi=
nct=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 th=
at.=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 anonymize=
d",=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
