[194247] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Wed Mar 29 06:48:17 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:48:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <D871B26E-A5FF-4A8D-B996-296692FEAFA2@beckman.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
What is lost if AT&T or Comcast sells my anonymized usage habits?=20
Quite frankly I think targeting advertising is a great thing. On TV I see a=
ll kinds of commercials for medicine for diseases I've never heard of, old =
people complications I won't have for another 40 or 50 years, etc. Waste of=
my time, waste of their dollars. Targeted advertising brings me Hurricane =
Electric advertisements, network gear, servers, etc. Things I'm likely to b=
e shopping for. Seems better in every way.=20
You'd have better luck getting regulation passed with precise language. The=
collected information can (or cannot) be used in these specific ways.=20
ISPs lying? Sounds like something for the courts, not capitol hill.=20
Otherwise it just sounds like whining. I don't like them either, but certai=
n groups will do whatever they can do "get back" at AT&T, Comcast, etc. reg=
ardless of what flag they're flying at the time (privacy, net neutrality, d=
oughnut selections, whatever).=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
The Brothers WISP=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org>=20
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:11:57 PM=20
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineer=
s opposed to FCC privacy repeal=20
I generally believe less government is better government. But government is=
still necessary for a few things, such as the military. And privacy. Becau=
se privacy invasion is a crime committed in secret, so economic "voting" do=
esn't work. Without a law prohibiting selling of browser data, ISPs will si=
mply lie and say they don't do it (as many already have).=20
A VPN is no help. Every browser has to jump on the bare Internet somewhere,=
and where it does, data can be captured and then analyzed to identify indi=
vidual user signatures. As the NSA (thank you Snowden) has so ably demonstr=
ated.=20
A law gives victims access to the power of legal discovery, civil damages, =
and even criminal prosecution. Where data privacy is concerned, we must hav=
e it.=20
-mel beckman=20
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:30 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:=20
>=20
> As I say often. Perhaps a better way of handling things is instead of run=
ning to the government every time we get a tear in our eyes, vote with feet=
\wallets. Support your local independent (well, the ones that believe whate=
ver it is you believe).=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: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
> To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>=20
> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:18:40 PM=20
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engine=
ers opposed to FCC privacy repeal=20
>=20
> It was more a plea to educate the list on why this matters vs. doom and g=
loom with a little more gloom and a little less Carmack. Instead I got more=
of the sky is falling.=20
>=20
> Note that I don't intend to ever do this at my ISP, nor my IX.=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: "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 engine=
ers opposed to FCC privacy repeal=20
>=20
> Mike:=20
>=20
> My guess is you do not.=20
>=20
> Which is -precisely- why the users (proletariat?) need to find a way to s=
top you. Hence laws & regulations.=20
>=20
> Later in this thread you said =E2=80=9Cwe are done here=E2=80=9D. Would t=
hat you were so lucky.=20
>=20
> --=20
> TTFN,=20
> patrick=20
>=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 engin=
eers 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 succ=
inct=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 t=
hat.=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 anonymiz=
ed",=20
>> the default response should be to mock them, because there is a very hig=
h=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
>=20
>=20
>=20
