Slashdot Mirror
Deep Packet Inspection and Net Neutrality
EncryptKeeper writes "Ars Technica has an in-depth feature on deep packet inspection, and it's a disturbing read. ISPs are starting to turn to DPI to monitor their networks, and, more troubling, to look at how they can use it to shape, block, monitor, and prioritize traffic. 'The "deep" in deep packet inspection refers to the fact that these boxes don't simply look at the header information as packets pass through them. Rather, they move beyond the IP and TCP header information to look at the payload of the packet. The goal is to identify the applications being used on the network, but some of these devices can go much further; those from a company like Narus, for instance, can look inside all traffic from a specific IP address, pick out the HTTP traffic, then drill even further down to capture only traffic headed to and from Gmail, and can even reassemble emails as they are typed out by the user.'"
I've become more and more convinced that information sent over the internet should afford the same protections that federal mail does. Net neutrality is a step in that direction. But, it's just a step.
ISP's currently have no limits that keep them from violating the privacy of their subscribers. Well, nothing short of market forces. Which in this case is laughable. Since packets can travel through a number of networks before ending up at their destinations, there is no guarantee it won't travel through an ISP the consumer doesn't support financially.
Star Pirates
They can't sell this as adequate internet viral prophylaxis to anyone using Linux or a beefed-up Firefox and script-blocking configuration. It also won't fly as a means of managing streaming quantities because innovations in fiber optics technology will allow for greater amounts of data to be passed along existing "tubes." Maybe I'm just naive, but DPI won't stand up to free market capitalism. Anyone aware of the fact that their information is being closely scrutinized won't be as comfortable handing their money over to an ISP which condones the practice. I can imagine a "Googlenet" (or what have you) being created in response to market demand for a Net Neutral internet service provider. Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture, though.
Inserting [insert witty signature here] here does not constitute a witty signature.
If an isp wants to do this, I think they should simply loose any common-carrier status. that is, deep inspection means that they become responsible for content: accomplices in any crime committed via that traffic.
A. it isn't going to work on an HTTPS session.
B. it doesn't make sense to reassemble an email because eventually the whole email will be submitted.
C. Deep packet inspection is very expensive because it requires heinously fast hardware to inspect a 10 Gb/s data stream, and you need a lot of these at the network edges. The core networks are too fast to inspect.
D. AFAIK DPI isn't deployed anywhere. Only a couple of manufacturers have 10 Gb/s gear and they are trying to sell it now, which is what ARS picked up on.
E. There isn't a business case for it that I can find.
F. A lot of the applications Ars describes don't require deep packet inspection, only header inspection.
G. Many of these things run inline, which means there is a decrease in reliability due to insertion of the device. That means redundancy etc which drives costs up even more.
Ultimately I don't think there is any likelihood that carriers who are already facing capital expense and return on investment problems plus increasing demands for plant expansion due to video are going to buy this story. The current wisdom is that fast-dumb is what is scalable.
I'm rather dismayed by the number of people immediately chiming in and saying "well, fuck the ISP, I'll just encrypt everything." While that would address privacy concerns, it does nothing for the main issue, which is the traffic-shaping itself. Your encrypted packets will be unrecognized, and thus shunted to the lowest priority. Problem solved, from the ISP's perspective.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Deep packet inspection technology was developed by the likes of Cisco for the sole purpose of obtaining access to the Chinese market. The Communist Party wanted the power of the internet, but they also wanted the power to control it. With deep packet inspection and a suite of other related solutions, I think it's reasonable to say they got their wish. There are millions of Chinese internet users and the country is father from a revolution now that it was in 1989.
It's not just China. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are also taking advantage of this new technology, every byte of it developed by corporations right here in the "free" west.
And now? The technology is simply being marketed here to. Exported back into the west if you will. ISP, companies, governments are all being given the power to put the internet genie back in the bottle. Time was that corporations were developing technology to help make democracy stronger. Now they're simply giving democracy the rope it needs to throughly hang itself.
I'd like to be optimistic about our society, but frankly it's too tiring in this day and age of fear and surveillance. The worst part is the overwhelming acceptance, nay approval, of our loss of freedoms. The Net Neutrality debate is not an isolated argument. It's a symptom of the underlying shift in Western society, back into a dark age.
May the Maths Be with you!
The window of opportunity for the Internet to be saved as something resembling the free and open place it's been for the past few decades is closing rapidly. If we don't get some Net Neutrality laws in place soon, it's going to be too late. Once the current model of the Internet is gone and we have what AT&T would like us to have, I'm betting that just about all of us here at Slashdot are going to be very, very sad.
I fully expect that in about 5 years, the same people who are here today talking about how we should let the "free market" control the Internet will be whining about how much they miss the days when an individual could actually put up a web site that could compete with the "big boys" for the eyes of the World.
If there hadn't been a de facto "net neutrality" in place back in '97, there would be no Slashdot today. Nor would there be a You Tube or Craig's List or Wikipedia or just about any of our beloved sites.
If you want to know about what the Internet is going to be like if it's not protected with strong Net Neutrality laws, just picture AOL. Picture the entire Internet being AOL.
Have a nice day.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
In order to keep the internet open and free we have to.....let the government regulate it? You lost me somewhere in there. I think you've fallen for Google's propaganda campaign.
Creative Demolition
> Google doesn't do it by default. They're providing
> a service out of their good will knowing that only
> a very tiny minority of users will take advantage of
> it.
No company does anything out of ``good will''. Google
provide an HTTPS interface to retain those people for
whom it is important, otherwise they might lose ad
revenue if those people used an alternative provider.