Slashdot Mirror
Canadian ISP Shoulder Surfing
1nfamous writes "Canada's Largest ISP, Bell Sympatico, has informed its customers that it intends to 'monitor or investigate content or your use of your service provider's networks and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request.' The new customer service agreement is effective June 15, 2006."
If you are a capitalist and believe in "the magic of the marketplace", you have to believe that this trend will eventually result in ISPs who advertise the opposite: that they don't snoop, that they dump any logs within hours or minutes, and so forth. That is, if they are allowed to do so by law.
The chief difference between Canada and America? At least the Canadians get fair warning.
June 15th, the date this went into effect, was two weeks ago, and the Globe and Mail article was posted yesterday. So either Bell Sympatico told people with little to no warning, or the Globe and Mail didn't bother to run this until everything was said and done. Either way, this sucks.
The question is: if this ends up carving a huge dent in Bell's market (which it probably won't), will the lesson be "People don't like being monitored" or "People don't like knowing they are being monitored?"
"Shoot for the moon, even if you miss, you may hit a tree"
In general terms, they feel that mass monitoring, arresting people on security certificates and all the other things that I feel are an invasion of my privacy and liberty were perfectly acceptable.
It's "think of the children" applied to "think of our security".
I suppose it's human to fear the unknown. And the terror age we live in is filled with uncertainty.
After much discussion, I think they see my point of view, though they still maintain that "something" must be done. And if that "something" infringes on liberty that's still a cost they are willing to bear.
So, sadly, in my limited experience, the sheeple are not going to be bothered any time soon...
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Choose another ISP?
Yeah, so...here in Western Canada, I have my choice of 2 broadband ISP's (the two major players bought up all smaller competitors)... the cable company (Shaw) or the phone company (Telus).
I had a cable modem, but they overloaded the segment in my apt building and my FPS ping times went to hell (120+ms min, unplayable at all peak hours).
So, I switched to using DSL from the phone company.
So, in a case like this, if my ISP does such a think, and where I really don't like being monitored, my choice is to ?
The barrier to entry into such markets is *far* too high for any smaller competitors to get established.
Stating that you will disclose information that is required by law is obvious. But disclosing information that you are not allowed to disclose and do not have to disclose, makes no sense. I can see no benefit to the company. What gives?
Why can't more people see this clumsy manipulation for what it is?
Because it works every time. Century after century.
Unfortunately 99.99% of internet users have no clue about encryption, they have never heard of PGP, probably don't know when they are even viewing an https page. The mass bumbles along in ignorance and any attempt to educate them is blocked by an enourmous inertia of apathy.
It would take several years of media coverage about invasion of privacy and some high profile cases before the masses would rise from their slumber and do something about Bell Sympatico. It's the same as what the US government (and the UK government) are doing to strip away freedom in the name of security.
It's sad but true, if you understand the issues you are in a tiny minority. Don't expect and change anytime soon.
while sco {
wget -O
}
On a side-note - Stockwell Day is a bit of a dingleberry - a creationist who believes the earth was created 5000 years ago....the sharp swing to the right has begun in Canada....looks like the terrorists are winning when our freedoms start to get whittled away, bit by bit....
This legislation was first introduced by the liberals last year, so it isn't just because of the more right wing conservatives.
I suppose it's human to fear the unknown. And the terror age we live in is filled with uncertainty.
People like to say "everything changed on 9/11". Well, as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that changed on 9/11 is that a lot of people with a naieve and incorrect notion of security got a rude wake-up call. I've wondered since I was a teenager (back in the 70s) why such an obviously soft and much-hated target as the US had not had a significant terror attack in many decades. OK City got us started, and was more along the lines of what I was originally thinking; absolutely anyone could have done that.
People want their warm fuzzy fake security back. They can't have it of course, because it never really existed, but there are no end of people (in government and elsewhere) willing to exploit their desire to their own ends.
Exhibit B: The non-liberal candidates to choose from were selected by and, where it matters, will work for the elite.
"Conservative" Sock Puppet replaces "Liberal" Sock Puppet.
One of the easiest ways is to set things up so the candidates must spend large amounts of money on advertising to win an election. The second that happens, only corporate stooges will be among your choices.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.