Slashdot Mirror
ISP Inserting Content Into Users' Webpages
geekmansworld, among other readers, lets us know that the Canadian ISP Rogers is inserting data into the HTTP streams returned by the Web sites requested by its customers. According to a CBC article, Rogers admits to modifying customers' HTTP data, but says they are merely "trying different things" and testing the customer response.
Let's get rational for a second here; the ISP is trying to inform you you're reaching your limit, so you don't overshoot it and start having to pay extra. Lets put arguments about limits aside (after all, you've agreed to a contract involving limits). It's in their interests _not_ to inform you, as you'd have to start paying them extra. But they're trying to find a more pervasive way of letting you know. How else can they do it? Via email? They'd just send it to the email address they provide you with. Who really uses isp-provided email these days? it's all webmail, so they need some window to get through to you, and maybe http is that window.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
I got your "customer response" right here.
Seriously, when it becomes acceptable for the phone company to break into my conversation with "Did you know that Geico can save you ton of money on car insurance?" then my ISP can screw around with my Web pages. Otherwise, get your sticky paws OFF me, you damn dirty apes.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So.... why aren't there any high profile lawsuits against Rogers yet?
First they throttle BitTorrent traffic. Then, when BitTorrent users encrypted their connections, all encrypted traffic was throttled, making VPN connections unbearably slow.
The only reason I can think of that they're getting away with this is that...uh...people in Ontario don't telecommute at all?
Why is everybody letting Rogers get away with these shenanigans? Rogers' practises must be costing some business users serious money. I simply don't understand.
This space left intentionally blank.
This is a dupe, but it's worth commenting on.
The fundamental problem I see with this is that the ISP is changing the content of webpages to suit their own interests. There are a myriad of problems here, regardless of whether or not the customer accepts it:
In light of the fact that a certain ISP blocked access to union websites, this is an alarming event indeed. Democracy depends on the free flow of information, and I'm thinking that it might be appropriate to make such a practice illegal, if only for the sake of preserving democracy. It will first be used for commercial gain, and later, leveraged as a political tool.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Good luck. I listen to Prime Time Sports with Bob McCown every day, and apparently even well-known, award-winning air talent doesn't have any level of access to Uncle Ted or the 10th floor of the Rogers building. McCown claims he's never met Ted Rogers in the ~10 years he's been working for him. I imagine his office is like something out of the movie "Sneakers".
Thing is, now you know they have the ability, equipment and willingness to modify your datastream...
Write again when a (non-free) ISP injects ads or blocks competitor's websites.
How would you know whether they are, or not?
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Now this is only the beginning. It is only a matter of time before other ISP's start doing the same thing, and you can't stop them. Here's why: 1. Comcast and other ISP's have more money they you do. Loads more. Sure, you may have a case on legal grounds, but they have the money. What are you going to do, stand in front of the CEO of comcast and say "pwease mr, don't do this!" Good luck with that. 2. Think you are going to drop whatever ISP is doing it and jump to the other one? Most places only have 2. It's not like tuna fish, where there are five different brands to choose from. 3. Why should any ISP listen to you, the consumer? See #2 above. 4. While this activity is wrong, no one is doing anything about it. The majority of the population thinks people with high speed are criminals anyway, so we deserve what we get. This isn't even news- if it comes up at all, it's buried after sports and the weather. Look at Comcast blocking bittorrent. Look at the RIAA lobbying in congress. We are screwed. 5. The only right way for an ISP to do things is the best way to make more money. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. I think the only answer is for a strong net neutrality bill. The ISP's are supposed to answer to the consumer, not the other way around.
Looks like it should. We probably also need a new standard for lightly encrypted pages. Light enough to not put undue strain on the server but heavy enough to make it impractical to modify pages on the fly.
Rogers are clearly not inserting content into users' web pages, as the title claims. They are inserting content into pages viewed by users.
So I have little faith in the claim that they are "intercepting http." What is more likely is that the default proxy server they provide is inserting the content. While it may make little difference to the average user, as the "normal" setup uses the proxy, it seems to me that there's a huge difference between supplying a proxy and intercepting and manipulating http traffic; that is, hijacking TCP port 80. The proxy I can easily avoid by using a direct connection to the internet; TCP hijacking, I can't.