DPI and Net Neutrality's Overseas Weak Spot
Ian Lamont writes "An unnamed source at an American ISP says staff there briefly considered using Deep Packet Inspection to comply with an order from Argentina's Department of Justice to block access to a local gambling site. The ISP ended up not going that route, owing to the cost, but some engineers at the company worry that DPI will eventually be implemented on the ISP's overseas network, thereby positioning it for an easier US rollout should Net Neutrality lose out in Washington. Besides being used for traffic-shaping, DPI can also monitor the traffic of ISP subscribers to supply targeted advertising."
So, we'll all have to implement some form of packet encryption so that our packets can't be inspected. It is sad that there's so much interest in our communications, whether it be for marketing, or government control, that we can no longer trust our old internet which transmits everything in the clear.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
How much extra resources are used in delivering a page by HTTPS instead of HTTP?
It no longer makes sense to have:
Before it is too late, before all governments make dpi as routine as China could ever hope for, the people need to get control of the governments.
Fortunately, the source of these issues also presents the solution: open source governance (and its cousin, radical transparency).
....thereby positioning it for an easier US rollout should Net Neutrality lose out in Washington...
Net Neutrality already lost in Washington. Wake up and smell the shit.
Net neutrality isn't about Internet protocols.
It's about social and political neutrality on the Internet.
That actually makes me wonder if the whole reason IPv6 adoption is so miserably low is that the government and communication companies know that when they adopt it wholesale, they lose the ability to do easy DPI and other such shenanigans.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
How and why do you trust those nodes? Unless it's a completely dark net there's an egress point, and that point can be coopted/coerced. At the very least all traffic going through that endpoint can be trivially sniffed by at least one person. If you're worried about the NSA or its cronies tapping your communications, why aren't you worried about someone exerting pressure on the weakest link in the chain?
If you're on a completely dark net, well, that's great... but won't the lack of content get boring after a while? (And again, the other humans will always be the weakest link)