Slashdot Mirror


Will ISPs Be Driven To Spy On Their Customers?

bs0d3 writes "In regards to the new 'voluntary' graduated response deal (where no one really knows how ISPs will track and accuse customers of copyright infringement), according to CNN, it may be the ISP directly spying on their customers. 'But now that they're free from individual blame, there's also the strong possibility that the ISPs will be doing the data monitoring directly. That's a much bigger deal. So instead of reaching out to the Internet to track down illegally flowing bits of their movies, the studios will sit back while ISP's "sniff" the packets of data coming to and from their customers' computers.' This could be a problem for people who use U.S.-based internet services. If the U.S. wants to be an internet savvy country, they still need the competition in the marketplace that's always been missing, and a digital bill of rights that isn't a sneaky anti-piracy measure."

133 comments

  1. short answer by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Informative

    yes

    1. Re:short answer by game+kid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Though it seems like an exception to that headline law, it doesn't count because we already knew they already spy on us or allow direct use of their facilities to do so.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:short answer by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      yes

      Will ISPs Be Driven To Spy On Their Customers?

      That's not a drive, that's a putt.

    3. Re:short answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its still ILLEGAL, just because they do it doesnt make it right, either. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT of 1920 FORBIDS MESSAGE INTERCEPTION between two parties sent over ANY communications means.

      The act of being a terrorist doesnt change this, though the govt would have you believe otherwise.

  2. Just use SSL for everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Computers are fast enough... there's barely any CPU overhead anymore.

    1. Re:Just use SSL for everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time Warner doesn't resolve ip addresses to places they don't think you should be.

    2. Re:Just use SSL for everything by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do they also block access to all other DNS servers?

      In any sane world this would be sarcasm, but you never know these days.

    3. Re:Just use SSL for everything by nurb432 · · Score: 2

      Perhaps, ( not a TW customer ) but that isn't really what the subject was about. Encryption would prevent spying on arbitrary data transmission.

      Preventing access to 'unauthorized addresses', that is a different discussion.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Just use SSL for everything by amiller2571 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have Time Warner and I used to use their DNS, but I had trouble with them not resolve some IP addresses. I switch to Google DNS and now I have had no trouble at all.

    5. Re:Just use SSL for everything by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Even if you use an external DNS, your traffic is still going through your ISP. There is no getting around that.

    6. Re:Just use SSL for everything by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think most ISP have enough common sense not to try that. All it would take is for some 3rd party DNS provider to stuff a NAT statement into their iptables such that 80 -> 53. Doing DNS on TCP is not to much overhead for modern hardware.

      At that point they'd have to start doing inspection to make sure all 80 traffic looks like http. That would even get somewhat more complicated if the SSL port were used. Its game over once people implement local stub DNS resolvers that actually call a web service somewhere over https to do queries.

      Unless ISP are prepared to essentially deploy Websense or something like it with SSL intercept and block any protocol including VPNs etc, that is not http, https, possibly ftp, and does not appear to some other protocol implemented on top of those its impossible. I don't think consumers would stand for it.

      *What do mean I can't connect to my companies VPN?
      *WOW and all my old games wont work any more, I have to buy new ones that use webservices and have shit latency thru your proxy!
      *No more VOIP

      That dog won't hunt.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:Just use SSL for everything by kesuki · · Score: 1

      there are a few problems with saying isps have to monitor everything non politicians transmit. because of course the law won't apply to them or their corporate buddies. first off is encryption. encryption is only vulnerable on the host when it is about to encrypt data, except in the bizzare case where two computers use the same encryption keys, and access to both streams encrypting the same data, and then it is like a lucky shot to correlate the data and bring it to the attention of users looking for that exploit. unencrypted data is searchable but again see how hard google and the like have finding things, it is not easy, do you want the full emails of billions of people? even if servers can scan in one language people speak in several thousand languages. it becomes harded and harder to track languages especially when they start using unnoficial slang uses of foreign words. so now you need to scan in at least the top 12 languages? i know computers are widespread, but do we really want to say in law every email has to be grepped? got it? this is n hard stuff here, are you going to target people for suicide watchs becuase their home pc detected them pasting depressed songs? or are we just going to make computers so hard to use that no one uses them?
      so lets hypothetically say we can overcome the technical hurdles we can make computers to catch all the 'terrorists' who don't speak in riddles? do you realize what that means? then we can have what a society where people are all so clean and neat that no one knows how to relax by a friend as the camera/computer monitors what they say, like in 2001 a space odysey.

      there is a problem with would be police states. life isn't worth living if you are too afraid of breaking the law to live. life has risks.

    8. Re:Just use SSL for everything by kesuki · · Score: 1

      the onion router, virtual private networks... there are ways of getting access to computer your isp has blocked with a firewall.

    9. Re:Just use SSL for everything by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      That's quite true. However, your traffic is STILL going through your ISP. There literally isn't any way around that.

      Which is precisely why we must not allow ISPs to monitor.

    10. Re:Just use SSL for everything by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The only thing(s) I'm not encrypting anymore is DNS queries and some assorted web traffic, including /. Now I suppose I could go ahead and encrypt and proxy those 2, just to make it even more difficult.

      I agree with you on the other points, though - ISPs won't be able to shift traffic to a specific protocol - VOIP, VPNs, and games are too prevalent at this point for that switch to be acceptable.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  3. Fantasy by irving47 · · Score: 1

    "a digital bill of rights that isn't a sneaky anti-piracy measure."

    Dream on.
    I regularly dream of leaving this industry because of nonsense like this.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
    1. Re:Fantasy by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Don't I know the feeling. I am saving up, hopefully a few years from now I can move to Maine and run a Christmas tree farm. I am getting tired of even thinking about this nonsense.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  4. Finally, by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    Freenet will get more users!

  5. You mean they don't do it already? by stanlyb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really? Anyone? Really believes that the ISP are protecting you? Your privacy? With claws and fangs?

    1. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think anyone believed that many (if any) ISPs were fighting the good fight, as it were. The assumption was more that ISPs are typical businesses, which do not incur costs unless required to do so. Setting up infrastructure and staff to monitor subscriber traffic costs money and effort. Without some well-defined, monetary gain in doing so, ISPs simply won't bother.

      So to answer your title - no, most ISPs probably haven't monitored traffic already, because it was a waste of time and resources to do so.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    2. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, the only monitoring ISPs will do is due to either government mandated crap, or government-sponsored lawsuits (RIAA/MPAA) due to their horribly outdated intellectual "property" laws.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

      With claws and fangs?

      Get the holy hand grenade!

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    4. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? Anyone? Really believes that the ISP are protecting you? Your privacy? With claws and fangs?

      No, I think they're covering their own asses by making sure they know absolutely nothing about anything I do or don't do. If they start flagging copyright infringements for one company I'm sure they'll get sued by a bunch of other companies for secondary infringement or criminal negligence or being co-conspirators as they let all the other infringements pass. And not just copyright infringement but everything else too, the user is sending SPAM and they let it pass? Sue the ISP. Internet fraud? Sue the ISP. Hacking? Sue the ISP. If anyone can show the ISP "knew" the customer was doing something illegal but continued the subscription to turn a profit, they could get in all sorts of legal shit. Either you're reading the bits or you're not, you can't both do that and claim ignorance at the same time.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Only if it means they will lose all their customers by not acting would they do something to protect us.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISPs don't care about your privacy actually, they never did!

    7. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 2

      Actually, at the last local industry expo I went to, the Sonicwall rep told me about their really new, really expensive, ISP grade router that came complete with deep packet inspection, white and black lists, and real-time data stream analysis. So I could push it to my clients to "stop those pirates downloading warez and movies".
      Companies don't spend any more than they have to, true. But smart companies plan for shifts in the market, and having to spy on their users definitely is a market shift. Buy the equipment now, use the increased capabilities to make happy customers, and have the gear halfway amortized when the spying mandate comes down. Profit!

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    8. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      Except if they want to force you to not use your bandwidth, or your cap limit, or this or that site that are producing a lot of traffic, or with other words, the ISP business is the only one that does not give 100% of your speed, and does encourages you to NOT use your cap limit. In fact, it is even worst, when they promote for example 3MBs, with 30GB limit, what they mean is that the regular Joe would use only 1/10th of this speed and only 1/10th of this limit. As a result, if their cable has the maximum capacity of 3MBs, then they will sell this same speed to 10 customers (with the hope that it will work out....somehow).
      And yes, in most cases it WORKS. But as the users become more and more computer savvy, and are demanding more video and audio, and more Netflix like services, the final result is that this approach DOES NOT WORK OUT anymore.
      So, to answer your question, what a sane business entity as ISP could and would do in this case?
      1.Monitor the traffic and do anything possible to throttle down the "bad" users.
      2.Upgrade their network.
      Please, don't answer me, we all know the answer...

    9. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If not, how else do they catch/arrest/question the hackers, paedophiles, terrorists, etc, etc. But I do appreciate moves to make them honest about it.

    10. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about locking up all the available broadband and cell spectrum in the hands of 3 or 4 giants, at most, for one thing? That enough monetary gain for you? ;-) They and the content "owners" are double-teaming to create a pay-per-view world. A pay-per-view per user world. Only $19.95 per month (for the 1st 12 months, additional charges may apply, etc., offer not valid in combination, requires voice service contract, etc.)

      Yep, it doesn't make much sense for anyone else, though. Especially since tax money is already recording all packets anyway, or will be soon.

    11. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. And that's the way it should be, under common-carrier theory, as long as you're not interfering with the operation of the network. And even then, well, let's just say the network has ways of taking care of itself. CALEA, DMCA, Lawful Access, "Computer Crime" statutes wherein standard tools and procedures gain criminality at the whim of cluelessness, prejudice, and the normative dickheadedness of legislators, prosecutors and judges, foul the normal happy anarchy of networks up, beyond all recognition, to the general detriment of absolutely *everyone*.

      So they just pretend that torts don't exist, but preemptively punish those they think they can pass them off on. Utter bullshit. Apparently people are credulous enough to buy it, though, and get what they deserve.

      Ask me why I even give a shit.

    12. Re:You mean they don't do it already? by pantaril · · Score: 1

      Really? Anyone? Really believes that the ISP are protecting you? Your privacy? With claws and fangs?

      Well can't speak for all ISP's but i for one work for small local ISP (cca 50k customers) and we try to protect our customers as much as possible. Often police try to get some info about our users without proper court order and we reject them regulary. Also, i made a decision when i started to work there that i would not support any censorship attempts if they are not required by law and would quit the job if the management ever tried to introduce such practises

      Also at least in europe and australia, there are often cases of ISP's fighting some censorship requests from media companies at court (piratebay etc) so i don't realy think that ISP's are all that bad. Remember, that most of the network engineers working for ISP's have positive relation to linux and OSS and are generaly anti-censorship.

  6. wow, cool way to advertise your web site by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1, Troll

    On port 82, too! Hopefully you'll get some comments over there...

  7. Free Market, Informed Customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody who understands the issues and has any kind of forum has a responsibility to use that forum. Expose ISPs that behave unacceptably. Let informed customers leave the ones that deserve to be left and go to the ones that want money and are willing to act accordingly.

    1. Re:Free Market, Informed Customers by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2

      That only works when you have more than one to choose from. Where I am at you have the cable monopoly and AT&T who couldn't even keep dial-tone service working 3 days in a row let alone dsl (which caps out at 128 up 768 down!).

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    2. Re:Free Market, Informed Customers by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      I have plenty of choices. Let's see... Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast! Oh, and Comcast, too! Unfortunately, AT&T isn't in the area yet, but there are still plenty of choices!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  8. "anti-piracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    more like anti-privacy

  9. Are you fucking serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is the most blatantly sensationalist piece of shit article I've seen in recent memory. The time article they source pretty much explains it all:

    An Internet user downloading media illegally gets flagged by the copyright holder

    Implying that nothing is changing, the media companies will continue outsourcing the scraping of public bittorrent swarms and notify ISP's that one of their IP's was sharing x content at y time and ISP's will send a letter based on who was addressed that IP at the time informing you why it's wrong.
    The only thing that might change is that they'll probably give your information to the MAFIAA after you've "shared" their content more than six times, or something else. More likely however, is that this won't happen at all because of sensationalist articles posted by incompetent journalists that can't even get the facts straight. So maybe it's worth thanking Douglas, but he still sucks at his job.

  10. NO !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ISPs don't need to be driven anywhere !! ISPs are alreay there, doing it NOW !! TWC ?? YES !! ALl Your Bases Are Belong To TWC !!

  11. Why? by Mathias616 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can understand why the RIAA and MPAA would be interested in this happening, by why would an ISP want to do this? The act of monitoring the activity of their customers requires a lot of dedication to packet capturing and inspection which would cost a lot of money. From a business standpoint, embarking on this conquest to monitor every single customer is a bad idea because no revenue will be generated by doing this. The only reason I can think of for ISP's to do this is that they are being paid to do so by the RIAA and MPAA, that is the only way they would spend money on this program when it does not generate more revenue from their customers. So what is happening here is two big industries are paying members of another industry to violate the privacy of their customers for financial gain. I wonder where we will see this next if this succeeds. Perhaps the porn industry will pay ISP's to track their customers porn habits so that they can effectively market to those individuals. There is a wide variety of possibilities so long as they isn't illegal. You could argue that pirating is illegal and that is why this differs from other situations, but who the hell made the RIAA and MPAA into legal institutions? They aren't getting court orders to have ISP's snoop on customers, there is no court system here.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't, the writer is just looking for hits and feigning ignorance about how they'll monitor infringers. The only thing that's changing is the ISP's may put a system in place that keeps track of how many times firms complain about an address sharing their content. The MAFIAA is still going to oursource other companies to scrape bittorrent swarms, monitor other p2p protocols and send C&D's to direct download services.

    2. Re:Why? by Eil · · Score: 1

      I can understand why the RIAA and MPAA would be interested in this happening, by why would an ISP want to do this? The act of monitoring the activity of their customers requires a lot of dedication to packet capturing and inspection which would cost a lot of money.

      Not really. I work for a company that sells solutions to ISPs (and others) for detailed analysis of the traffic on their network, right down to the application level. Unless you're subscribed to some local mom-and-pop DSL provider, your ISP already know exactly what you do with your Internet connection. The hardware and software to do this is not terrifically expensive anymore. And usually, it has the ability to do things like DDoS mitigation and on-the-fly load balancing as well. (We sell boxes that can do deep packet inspection at a rate of 40 gigabits per second. And if you need more than that, all you have to do is buy more boxes!)

      As long as your ISP is collecting data about the applications its customers are using, it's not at all difficult to monitor traffic for certain payloads or destinations, and then log the IPs of all traffic that matches. The better question to ask is: what are the ISPs getting out of this? Especially after SOPA and PIPA failed, what's in it for them?

  12. Short answer: No (the correct answer) by gavron · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fact:
    First, there is no law requiring any action on the part of any ISP.
    Disclosure: I participate in running an ISP, but not one of the ones involved in this.

    Fact:
    Some large national carriers have agreed to do some things. "Agreed" and "partnership" have no legal meaning. "An agreement is yet to be signed." is in the OP's link and that gives us an idea that in the future there MAY be an agreement. For now, should it happen, it's voluntary.

    Fact:
    No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA.

    Opinion:
    It would be counter to the AOL decision (Zeran v AOL) that an ISP is responsible for either monitoring content, taking action based on content, or being liable for content or failing to take action based on content. That's a fourth-circuit decision that makes it likely that any ISP that doesn't want to join the "partnership" with the MPAA/RIAA can easily not opt-in to their program. Note that I didn't say "opt-out" because that would beg the question of whether there's a requirement to join.

    Looking forward, I can guess that our "friends" in the MPAA/RIAA will continue their program to CHANGE THE LAW through spending lots of money, lobbying, using the influence of former senator Dodd, etc. If they can get the law to require ISPs to do so, and thereby trump the 4th circuit's AOL decision, then there will be a concern.

    However, as Sonic.net's CEO Dane Jasper said ISPs should keep as little logs as possible, preferably under two weeks. That would make it difficult unless they are doing real-time DPI, analysis, investigation, and sending out C&D letters for any of this to have meaning.

    While the resources necessary for ISPs to provide access under CALEA are minimal ("Here's your Ethernet port, have a nice day, Feds") the requirement to do DPI for hundreds of gigabits-per-second of data is beyond onerous -- if even achievable. Consider -- it's not just that an ISP has to monitor their "upstream" pipes, but also customer-to-customer. The amount of bandwidth inside each ISP's core is immense.

    Sorry to be long-winded, but having read the other responses, I see a lot of D&G and nay-saying. I agree that the landscape is pretty harsh, and the earth is getting scorched. I see hope because I see that we have defeated SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, (and yes I know the TPP is still alive) and we can likely continue to teach our congressional non-representatives that when the majority of the country doesn't want something ... it's likely not something they should support in our name.

    Ehud

    1. Re:Short answer: No (the correct answer) by jftitan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I had any point, I would have given them all to you in some form or fashion. Thanks for your input, and you clearly have insight as to what this 'agreement' really means.

        I have heard random opinions about this situation, and most of them resemble your opinion as well. ISP will not be directly monitoring User's traffic, do so, violates a few other laws in palce. the AOL case, is a prime example WHY we will not have ISPs jumping onto the bandwagon to help MPAA/RIAA prosecute customers. From a business perspective, it would be detrimental for ISPs to be caught "snitching' on their users.

        The moment a ISP is labeled as a 'snitch', customers may change in droves to competition, thus killing a ISP in the process. I highly doubt this, because if Warner Brother wanted to go after its viewers and customers, then Time Warner would have been sending notices of impending doom to customers long ago. When ISP are forced to monitor customers' traffic, it will be FORCED. Non-compliance would result in fines, and penalties from the Government. Currently the government isn't the group of people trying to punish others right now.

      Again this is about partnership. MPAA/RIAA being allowed direct investigation connection through the ISP. With this passing, it would only cheapen the process in which the RIAA/MPAA uses to catch users and send infringement letters.

      --
      "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
    2. Re:Short answer: No (the correct answer) by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA."

      Fact: CALEA applies only to telephony; to date, it does not apply to the internet at all.

      Congress has introduced some bills that would make CALEA -- or something very like it -- apply to the Internet. So far without success.

    3. Re:Short answer: No (the correct answer) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Telco/Cableco are content producers themselves (at least in Canada). It is to their advantage to protect their outdated business model of selling contents. Having their customers cutting cord and switch to internet service only means less money for them.

    4. Re:Short answer: No (the correct answer) by pgn674 · · Score: 1

      "An agreement is yet to be signed." is in the OP's link and that gives us an idea that in the future there MAY be an agreement.

      That article is from June 23, 2011. A final agreement called the Momorandum of Understanding (PDF) was written on July 6, 2011. It's an agreement between MPAA, RIAA, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable. I don't know if it was actually signed on the lines, and I haven't heard of anyone leaving or entering the agreement.

    5. Re:Short answer: No (the correct answer) by gavron · · Score: 1

      MoUs are nonbinding and have no force of law.

      Nobody can "leave" or "enter" an agreement. They are either "bound by it" by executing it, or they are not.
      Something that hasn't been signed by the parties can hardly be called a "final agremenet".

      Cheers,

      Ehud

  13. The US is not a free market by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

    That is all well, but the US is not a free market when it comes to ISPs because the government gave out massive amounts of moneys to large corporations to "modernize" the US which means that in many areas there are only 1 or 2 ISPs, both megacorporations and no other ISP can compete with them either by law or because they already had such a large competitive advantage by having all the infrastructure basically paid for by theft (taxes). We need to not make this mistake again and cut off all taxpayer support to ISPs and other private companies in order to allow the free market to work, otherwise you have a mess like we have today.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:The US is not a free market by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Even absent government-granted monopoly, ISPs are a perfect example of a natural monopoly: Once one ISP has an area cabled up, it's no longer financially viable for another to move in. They'd have the huge up-front wireing cost only so they could compete with an incumbent.

    2. Re:The US is not a free market by amiller2571 · · Score: 2

      When it comes to cable internet, in my area we only have Time Warner. I hate them with all my hart, they charge out the ass for crappy speeds. I know some people who are play they same amount as I am and have 4 to 5 times the speed.

    3. Re:The US is not a free market by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which is why the physical infrastructure should be nationalized and leased by the government to private businesses who must then compete with each other. This would lower the barriers to entry and open up competition. And laying all that fiber will create a lot of jobs too.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    4. Re:The US is not a free market by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Once one ISP has an area cabled up, it's no longer financially viable for another to move in."

      That's why some smart communities have decided to let the city or county build the cable infrastructure, using tax dollars. Then they rent the infrastructure to data providers.

      Not only do they save money, they are not subject to coercion by monopolies.

    5. Re:The US is not a free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My home town was going to do that and the two options pretty much squashed the idea, one promised to have faster service out soon, it took them 7 years to do it and only after they were bought by a company that made it their regional headquarters and the other just gave a generic blah, blah, blah, self regulation, blah, blah, blah free market statement.

      In other parts of the country the ISPs have actually sued to get it stopped.

    6. Re:The US is not a free market by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      It's simpler than that. Just handle it like the phone lines - the cable owner has to allow others to offer services on their infrastructure.

      The howling would be awesome.

    7. Re:The US is not a free market by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is financially viable for many small players to move in this area. But unfortunately, the good government is having so many little nasty and expensive regulations, that only some big player with a lot of money and connections could manage somehow to be a competition to the existing ISPs.
      As a friend of mine, who is in this business, said once to me, all he needs are 1000 customers, and with this user base he could provide them with a fiber cable. To every single home. Literally. In a matter of 1 to 2 years (depending of the population density). But of course all these regulations are too expensive to follow, and the final result is MONOPOLY.

    8. Re:The US is not a free market by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Agreed. But it is hard to explain how this works to people who are not familiar with the concept. They tend to think it is a "government takeover" of private enterprise and/or property.

      There is a very high correlation (outside the U.S., which hasn't tried it so it's irrelevant) between regions that have required leasing of backbone bandwidth, and those that have not. Those that have mandated sharing deliver remarkably high bandwidth at astoundingly low prices, compared to those that do not.

      So, although it seems counter-intuitive to many people, mandating the sharing of the infrastructure actually promotes free-market capitalism. And I'm all for it. We just need to kick some Congressional asses and get it done.

    9. Re:The US is not a free market by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Well it is something of a loss in rights to treat it as your exclusive property, so I have some sympathy for the howling.

      However that sympathy is well tempered by the abusive treatment that the monopoly cable owners inflict on their customers.

      Ultimately the monopoly situation is really just unreasonable.

      I happen to be in an area served by a traditional cable company as well as FIOS, so I have personal experience with both a monopoly situation and having competition. Competition is much nicer.

    10. Re:The US is not a free market by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Competition is much nicer."

      Amen, brother.

      (Note: I am not particularly religious; it just seemed a simple way to express my agreement.)

    11. Re:The US is not a free market by f3rret · · Score: 0

      Taxes aren't theft homie.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    12. Re:The US is not a free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The smart communities have put up barriers to entry to competition to get the sweet sweet kickback checks from the monopolies.

      You can tell there is corruption without looking very far.

    13. Re:The US is not a free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO, because then Chris Dodd will be spending Millions for the RIAA/MPAA to control the internet that the government would control.

    14. Re:The US is not a free market by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can list some of these regulations? The only one that comes to mind for me is wiretap access.

    15. Re:The US is not a free market by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Just for the sake of the argument go outside and try to dig your fiber from your home to your neighbor across the street.

    16. Re:The US is not a free market by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      It is not counter-intuitive. The opposite, the idea here is that a real monopoly is not only when you are the only player, but also if you hold the knife and the bread, so to say. Or with other words, the company/entity that holds the physical network (the cable, fiber, whatever) MUST NOT be allowed to hold the virtual one. And of course in order to avoid hidden monopoly like sharing the fiber only to our guys, that's why the "sharing" principle was implemented. As simple as that.

    17. Re:The US is not a free market by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I think it's entirely reasonable for the government to require some form of permit process before letting people dig trenches across the road.

    18. Re:The US is not a free market by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      By "some form of permit" you mean what? A little innocent squirrel, or a big, giant whale, that only some big, giant monopoly could afford to move?
      For you man, there is this saying: Free as a free beer.

    19. Re:The US is not a free market by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Or with other words, the company/entity that holds the physical network (the cable, fiber, whatever) MUST NOT be allowed to hold the virtual one."

      I, and a lot of other people in the US, also agree with this. But it wasn't the point I was making.

      "And of course in order to avoid hidden monopoly like sharing the fiber only to our guys, that's why the "sharing" principle was implemented."

      Fine. But whatever the reasoning behind it, the simple fact is that there is a strong correlation between forced sharing of backbone resources, and actual competition in the market.

      I don't know about where you live, but there is also the issue that much of those backbone resources make use of public right-of-way, or government (and therefore taxpayer) grant of the rights to use certain public facilities. Very little of it was built entirely with private money with no use at all of public resources.

      There is a lot of public sentiment that nobody should be able to exclusively profit when using public resources.

  14. UK has beaten USA to it by Wowsers · · Score: 1

    The UK is leading the charge once again in destroying freedom and democracy http://www.channel4.com/news/black-boxes-to-monitor-all-internet-and-phone-data , with their plan to install "black boxes" in all internet providers.. it's for your protection you see, so many nasty terrorists out there http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134333/Why-allowed-spy-Facebook-Twitter-Whitehall-intelligence-chief.html If you don't allow your internet connection to be spied up, you'll be killed....do you want that? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159041/Snoopers-Charter-matter-life-death-says-Met-Police-chief-Home-Secretary-unveils-plans-monitor-website-use.html

    The UK already said they will allow access to the information to the USA and to Brussles (EU). Think of all the other crooks, I mean corporations that could do with this information. See, now YOU have to PAY the corporations to prove you're innocent...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18594105

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
  15. Re:USPS by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The difference is the USPS is a government sponsored monopoly where legally you cannot compete with them. If they decide to increase the price of stamps to $15 a piece, they can do that and there's not much that anyone can do about it since it is illegal to deliver mail except by the USPS.

    In fact, a guy named Lysander Spooner made a competitor to the US post office called the American Letter Mail Company, it did everything better than the USPS, faster delivery, cheaper rates, less waste, etc. but it was shut down because of the monopoly that the USPS has.

    ISPs are not the same. While arguably many have monopoly status due to the fact that the government gave them massive amounts of money to "modernize" the US, there is nothing preventing me from starting a better, more privacy friendly ISP aside from the startup costs.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  16. Hmm by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 0

    What is this future tense bullshit? They already do. If they didn't spy on you, how would they know what you were browsing/downloading to issue the 'strikes' now available to them?

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't in fact; media companies hire third parties to scrape bittorrent swarms and if you're stupid enough to be in one of their swarms then you'll get a letter from your ISP because those companies say they caught your IP address sharing their content at whatever time. ISP's know it's you because of DHCP addressing databases.

    2. Re:Hmm by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They depend on external monitoring companies, which in turn are hired by the copyright holders.

      1. Copyright holder hires investigator company.
      2. Investigator company finds some infringers (Easily done)
      3. Investigator company contacts infringer's ISP on copyright holder's behalf.
      4. ISP looks through their logs to see who had the specified IP at the specified time.
      5. Strike.

    3. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which in turn are hired by the copyright holders

      Sounds trustworthy. I can only hope all the 'evidence' they present is discarded... but then again, all they do is blackmail people.

    4. Re:Hmm by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Which amounts to allowing a third party to interfere in my private contract, without my consent... which is very much against the most basic contract law.

    5. Re:Hmm by Rainbowdash · · Score: 0

      The big question is why you let your ISP give out your private information for something that's indeed illegal but to someone that is not actually an law enforcer?
      That if ANYTHING is inhuman.

      Take this scenario for a fact:

      I meet you (you're a pretty girl in this scenario!) online.
      We chat up and I fall in love.
      You see my picture and you go like ewwwww /.'er!1!11
      I got your IP cuz I had you look at my picture via my fileserver, got yo IP logged betch.
      You stop talking with me.(due to the picture)
      I contact your ISP with ur IP claiming to be a person such as this.
      I get your home address.
      I break into your house and rape you cuz I'm a sick person.



      Disclaimer, I would never do anything like this - but we all know the scenario could exist.

  17. Re:USPS by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    Big startup costs. Unlike in Europe where our regulators can to some extent compel it, no existing ISP is going to let you use their cables - so you'd have to get roads dug up and cable laid. After which you are left competing with an incumbant, so you're already at a disadvantage: Switching ISPs is a hastle, and people already on the established provider will need a very compelling reason. You are free to start up your own ISP - but only a fool would invest in it.

  18. Wheres the beef? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The CNN link is an opinion piece where the author dreams up a scenario of ISP content inspection not supported by any external evidence.

    I can sit on my lazy ass all day and dream shit up too. This does not mean I should be expected to be taken seriously.

    Where is the actual evidence this is being implemented or even seriously contemplated by any stakeholder?

    In the interim I'm just going to sit back and wait for the lawsuits to start flying against ISPs for cutting off their paying customers without due process.

  19. That's only one front by no-body · · Score: 2

    The other is the back-doors on every incoming hub http://www.cablemap.info/

    1. Re:That's only one front by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      That is a really cool map! Thanks for posting! :)

  20. Deep Packet Inspection Is Illegal by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Has everybody somehow forgotten the ruling of several years ago? Comcast was forced by the government to stop its deep packet inspection that it used for throttling traffic.

    If it goes that route again, it's just going to get slapped down again.

    1. Re:Deep Packet Inspection Is Illegal by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Its a different situation, one the feds approve of, due to the mass payoffs ( err, donations ) of the *AAs.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Deep Packet Inspection Is Illegal by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      "Its a different situation, one the feds approve of, due to the mass payoffs ( err, donations ) of the *AAs."

      Yes, it's a different situation, but that does not change the law. Deep packet inspection is illegal. It doesn't matter WHY you are doing it, unless it's called for by a judicial warrant.

    3. Re:Deep Packet Inspection Is Illegal by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Funny how often I have gotten modded "over-rated" or sometimes "troll", and then received a reply to by a certain Anonymous Coward.

      Hint, guy: You aren't as anonymous as you seem to think.

    4. Re:Deep Packet Inspection Is Illegal by 1s44c · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's a different situation, but that does not change the law. Deep packet inspection is illegal. It doesn't matter WHY you are doing it, unless it's called for by a judicial warrant.

      You misunderstand. It's illegal if You or I do it, it's not illegal if any part of the government does it.

    5. Re:Deep Packet Inspection Is Illegal by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      My ISP is not part of the government.

      Perhaps I should have written, "illegal without a warrant or subpoena".

  21. Re:USPS by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

    The difference is the USPS is a government sponsored monopoly where legally you cannot compete with them.

    Are you forgetting about UPS, FedEx, DHL, and within large cities, numerous small courier services?

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  22. would cost a lot of money by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That just gets passed along to the consumer.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  23. Re:USPS by bobbutts · · Score: 1

    Here's some research from the USPS Wikipedia Article:

    "The USPS has exclusive access to letter boxes marked "U.S. Mail" and personal letterboxes in the United States, but still competes against private package delivery services, such as UPS and FedEx."

    "Due to the postal monopoly, they are not allowed to deliver non-urgent letters and may not directly ship to U.S. Mail boxes at residential and commercial destinations. However both companies have transit agreements with the USPS in which an item can be dropped off with either FedEx or UPS who will then provide shipment up to the destination post office serving the intended recipient where it will be transferred for delivery to the U.S. Mail destination, including Post Office Box destinations."

    "Many of the thousands of courier companies focus on same-day delivery, for example, by bicycle messenger."

  24. Re:USPS by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
    I am familiar with the Spooner situation. (And just as an aside, I think everybody should read Spooner's essay, "Vices Are Not Crimes.)

    However, there is an issue here:

    "... there is nothing preventing me from starting a better, more privacy friendly ISP aside from the startup costs."

    Yes, there is. In my town, the City Council is required every year to evaluate and vote on service providers. And every year, so far, they have voted to NOT allow competition in the cable business, because (so they say) of problems with overhead cabling (telephone poles, etc.).

    Clearly their reasoning is bullshit, and they are just engaging in Crony Capitalism (which is not real capitalism at all). Nevertheless, so far they have managed to get away with it, and the only alternatives to the one cable company are DSL, which is inferior, and satellite, which has high latency.

    As a result, in this community we CAN get good cable service, but it probably costs about 3 times what it should. Bandwidth has been getting ever cheaper for the ISPs, but they have been steadily increasing their prices. There is no correlation between their cost, and their prices.

  25. CALEA DOES apply to ISPs and Internet Comm. by gavron · · Score: 4, Informative

    CALEA applies to Internet communication.

    Pen/Trace - asking for email headers and IP headers but not content.
    Full detail - asking for actual dump of bidirectional communication from a specific IP address or address-range.

    See ISPs can be requested to forward all traffic...
    or a company that helps ISPs comply...
    or this has been a law since 2007...

    To find these things check out this link.

    Fact: I appreciate your copying my style. However, when doing so, please ensure that after the word "Fact:" comes a fact.

    Ehud

    1. Re:CALEA DOES apply to ISPs and Internet Comm. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2
      I appreciate that you appreciate my sarcasm.

      However, my comment assumed the CONTEXT that you used in your own comment; your reply abandoned that context.

      Fact:
      No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA [askcalea.net].

      According to the EFF (which has actually been involved in litigation of this matter, and is a source I trust far more than your liberal University professors or journalists), CALEA does NOT require monitoring of content, which was the matter under discussion. CALEA only requires recording of header data: times of activity, etc.

      But the context here was CONTENT, which you seem to have forgotten in your reply.

      CALEA does not apply to internet CONTENT, at all. It does not, in itself, allow Law Enforcement monitoring of the content of internet traffic. It DOES allow that for telephony.

      From the EFF website: "CALEA requires communications carriers to be capable of providing both "call-identifying information" (CII) and call content to law enforcement. In the circuit-switched world of traditional telephony, the meaning of CII was clear: telephone numbers are CII, and the conversations are content. But in the packet-mode world of the Internet, communications are encapsulated (see 16 below â" link), and each protocol layer is associated with different "signaling information." Whether a component is "signaling information" or "content" depends on which layer is reading it. Thus CII on the Internet is not a clearly defined concept, although it is in traditional telephony
      ...
      Law enforcement is now attempting to broaden CALEA by requiring communications service providers to design their networks to make it easy and fast for law enforcement to perform wiretaps, pen-register, and trap-and-trace surveillance on a large number of people."


      In simple terms: it ain't done yet. And maybe it never will be.

    2. Re:CALEA DOES apply to ISPs and Internet Comm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the most straw-grabbingly pathetic rationalisation I've seen you come out with in the face of being demonstrably wrong on slashdot to date, and you do that very regularly.

      I look forward to being arbitrarily dismissed in a self-contradictory bit of face-saving where you spend time going out of your way to post a response to an anonymous coward in which you claim to not care what anonymous cowards think/refuse to respond to one.

    3. Re:CALEA DOES apply to ISPs and Internet Comm. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      "This is the most straw-grabbingly pathetic rationalisation I've seen you come out with in the face of being demonstrably wrong on slashdot to date, and you do that very regularly. "

      Haha. Go ahead. ASK the EFF if this is "straw-grabbing". They've used it -- successfully -- in court.

      And if you say "I do it regularly", why are you posting as Anonymous Coward, you sockpuppet asshole? No balls?

    4. Re:CALEA DOES apply to ISPs and Internet Comm. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      Come on, answer me. Why should I pay attention to someone who doesn't even live here, who spouts opinions about MY laws, and doesn't even have the stones to stand up and give a name?

      Do you really think that deserves any respect?

  26. Tax avoiders in time of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The RIAA & MPAA use offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes in time of war.

    The RIAA & MPAA use some of the same banks that drug dealers, terrorists and Mitt Romney uses.

    They have been found guilty of bribing police in the US and Sweden. They have also been exposed for improper payments to congressmen and judges (unrealistic advances on meritless songs, books and scripts).

    The people that run them should be proscribed as threats to national security.

  27. Re:USPS by westlake · · Score: 1

    The difference is the USPS is a government sponsored monopoly where legally you cannot compete with them.

    The U.S. mail box is protected.

    It was one way our town was able to fight back against the distribution of poison pen letters and cobbled together tabloid news sheets by a corrupt and vicious faction that taken control of our local school board ---

    a faction too clever to be caught paying postage, but not quite clever enough to avoid being spotted on the road.

    For a courier service, cherry-picking the big metro markets has always been easy and profitable. Universal postal service --- affordable flat rate delivery anywhere in the fifty states and territories --- is a very different beast.

  28. Re:USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I got modded down - whoosh!

  29. Enough Please by gavron · · Score: 2

    This so off-topic as to be absurd.

    Jane Q Public: You wrote "Fact: CALEA applies only to telephony; to date, it does not apply to the internet at all. "
    Note: You didn't say "content" but later you clarified you meant it in context to imply content.

    That's fine. Now go back and read my response where I pointed out that Federal agencies HAVE and DO request
    [with court orders] pen/trace on email headers and IP packets.

    I also appreciate that you labeled the three links I gave and a google search result (which has many more)
    as "liberal University[sic] professors and journalists" but your ad-hominem attack only detracts from any claim you might have.

    I know the EFF is wonderful, and I support them financially and use their 4th am. packing tape to seal my packages.
    Unfortunately your lack of knowledge and insisitence that the EFF is the only source of knowledge despite "liberal
    University[sic] professors and jounralists] is of no positive value in this discussion.

    Finally, having personally been presented these court orders (and no, these were not National Security Letters;
    these were plain old "Tap this, send us this" orders) by US three-letter agencies, I know it to be fact.

    Stick to the facts, maam*.

    E
    * The real facts, not opinion, not ad-hominem attacks, not straw-man arguments, not anything.
    My goal was to prevent disinformation -- THE EXACT THING YOU ARE NOW DOING. Stop it please and go time out.

    1. Re:Enough Please by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Note: You didn't say "content" but later you clarified you meant it in context to imply content."

      YOU first mentioned "content". YOU set the context and topic, not me, and it is ridiculous for you to come back and try to chastise me for discussing the very topic you mentioned. Your reasoning here seems to be a bit skewed.

      Now go back and read my response where I pointed out that Federal agencies HAVE and DO request [with court orders] pen/trace on email headers and IP packets.

      Of course they do. That is not even remotely any kind of evidence that these are covered by CALEA. Court decisions, in fact, contradict the idea that they are.

      "I also appreciate that you labeled the three links I gave and a google search result (which has many more) as "liberal University[sic] professors and journalists" but your ad-hominem attack only detracts from any claim you might have."

      I will concede that the one comment could have been considered "ad hominem" (and it wasn't intentionally meant that way), but nevertheless, I still place more credibility on those who have actively been litigating these matters, over those who could in all generosity might be called bench-warmers.

      "Unfortunately your lack of knowledge and insisitence that the EFF is the only source of knowledge..."

      This is a mis-statement. I did nothing of the sort. I simply stated that they had practical experience in the field; nowhere did I try to claim they were the only authority. Get your own facts straight.

      "Finally, having personally been presented these court orders (and no, these were not National Security Letters; these were plain old "Tap this, send us this" orders) by US three-letter agencies, I know it to be fact."

      Your interpretation of the law, when presented with official papers, is anecdotal evidence AT BEST, and entirely subjective. If you were to show me a competent attorney's analysis of such paperwork, I might be convinced. However, I am guessing that there is about a 95% probability that you never bothered to get any. You simply took their word for it.

      Ehhhhhh... (sound of an obnoxious buzzer). Your position lacks evidence. I have given you source for mine.

  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Sliding scale by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    To those who think that it's not all that bad and it's just voluntary, etc. etc.: this is a sliding scale. This is how it starts. Just sending a few notices to naughty customers. It will end in full-blown surveillance: deep packet inspection and anything that smells like encryption to other-than-whitelisted-approved-sites will be dropped.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    1. Re:Sliding scale by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      I knew it was all going to turn to shit the first time I saw an advert on the internet.

      Should the governments of the world start blocking encrypted connections there will be no choice but to replace the internet with something better. A worldwide mesh net might be possible by then.

  32. ISPs Spy On US 24/7/365-6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ISPers are already creating databases on each user in order to cash-in when the US Federal Government wants detailed information.

    Thank the line of Presidents of the USA (starting with Nixon and ending with Obama, mostly Obama by the way) for that bit of naughty-naughty.

    Strange that Nixon and Obama are ... Book Ends!

    LoL

  33. Re:USPS by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

    So as long as they're not tampering with US Government property (mailboxes) you are allowed to run a competing mail services. The government went through the trouble of setting up and paying for all those mailboxes with taxes, so the government mail system gets exclusive use of them. Seems fair to me.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  34. What's the workaround? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    posting AC for obvious reasons...

    The privacy/security environment is getting more complex every day. What's a person who is not at the cutting edge of computer privacy.security technology supposed to do if he/she wants to (while located in the USA):

      search the Web anonymously;
      send/receive email anonymously;
      post a comment to a discussion anonymously?

    I get the feeling that it's no longer possible to do these things unless you have pretty much full time to devote to the effort. I can't be the only one in the world who wants a measure of privacy that governments and corporations are increasingly unwilling to tolerate. It isn't that I'm not smart - I solve very complex engineering and scientific problems for a living, I follow infosec discussions and sites to the extent that my life and duties permit, but I no longer feel I understand, nor as a practical matter, *can* understand the details and complexities of staying in the dark while continuing to seek information.

    And it has made a difference in what I look for on the Web - I no longer search on topics that have extreme political valence here in the US, because I don't trust my ISP or search engine not to dump my search history to HSA or NSA or other such agencies that have the power to put me on a no-fly list, imprison me without a warrant, etc. This makes me less informed, and a poorer citizen and asset to my nation.

    So what's available to those of us who want a modicum of privacy because we want to learn about the world without gratuitous retribution? Tor? Truecrypt? Anon proxies? Or is it just hopeless, Citizen?

  35. CALEA applies to Internet communication. by nhtuyenbk · · Score: 1

    At that point they'd have to start doing inspection to make sure all 80 traffic looks like http. That would even get somewhat more complicated if the SSL port were used. Its game over once people implement local stub DNS resolvers that actually call a web service somewhere over https to do queries.cong ty dich vu bao ve hanh tinh cung cap dich vu bao ve chuyen nghiep, Cong ty bao ve dia diem ngan hang, cong trinh, co quan, van phong, biet thu, nha rieng, van chuyen tien, tai san, tu diem ca nhac, giai tri

  36. Tor Discussion Forums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We need an official Tor discussion forum.

    I didn't see this issue mentioned in Roger's *latest* notes post, so for now, mature adults should visit and post at one or both of these unofficial tor discussion forums, these tinyurl's will take you to:

    ** HackBB:
    http://www.tinyurl.com/hackbbonion

    ** Onion Forum 2.0
    http://www.tinyurl.com/onionforum2

    Each tinyurl link will take you to a hidden service discussion forum. Tor is required to visit these links, even though they appear to be on the open web, they will lead you to .onion sites.

    I know the Tor developers can do better, but how many years are we to wait?

    Caution: some topics may be disturbing. You should be eighteen years or older. I recommend you disable images in your browser when viewing these two forums[1] and only enabling them if you are posting a message, but still be careful! Disable javascript and cookies, too.

    If you prefer to visit the hidden services directly, bypassing the tinyurl service:

    HackBB: (directly)
    http://clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion/

    Onion Forum 2.0: (directly)
    http://65bgvta7yos3sce5.onion/

    The tinyurl links are provided as a simple means of memorizing the hidden services via a link shortening service (tinyurl.com).

    [1]: Because any content can be posted! Think 4chan, for example. onionforum2 doesn't appear to be heavily moderated so be aware and take precautions.

  37. Switzerland Network Testing Tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    * https://www.eff.org/pages/switzerland-network-testing-tool
    * https://www.eff.org/testyourisp

    Switzerland Network Testing Tool

    "Is your ISP interfering with your BitTorrent connections? Cutting off your VOIP calls? Undermining the principles of network neutrality? In order to answer those questions, concerned Internet users need tools to test their Internet connections and gather evidence about ISP interference practices. After all, if it weren't for the testing efforts of Rob Topolski, the Associated Press, and EFF, Comcast would still be stone-walling about their now-infamous BitTorrent blocking efforts.

    Developed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Switzerland is an open source software tool for testing the integrity of data communications over networks, ISPs and firewalls. It will spot IP packets which are forged or modified between clients, inform you, and give you copies of the modified packets.

    You can download the latest release of Switzerland here. Before you run Switzerland, be sure to check out the notes about privacy, security, and firewalls. Switzerland is currently in alpha release as a command line tool. In other words, right now it is aimed at relatively sophisticated users. However, because it's an open source effort, we anticipate making it easier to use over time (please please please let us know by email, by IRC, or by filing bugsif you're running the client but it isn't working for you â" we've seen some clients reconnecting in cycles that makes us think there's a bug we should fix!).

    Switzerland is designed to detect the modification or injection of packets of data traveling over IP networks, including those introduced by anti-P2P tools from Sandvine (widely believed to be used by Comcast to interfere with BitTorrent uploads) and AudibleMagic, advertising injection systems like FairEagle, censorship systems like the Great Firewall of China, and other systems that we don't know about yet.

    The software uses a semi-P2P, server-and-many-clients architecture. Whenever the clients send packets to each other, the server will attempt to determine if any of them were dropped, forged, or modified (if you're interested in how it does that, you can read the design document here â" we'll try to continually revise that document so that it accurately describes the code, though inevitably it may lag a little behind). Switzerland is a much more sophisticated successor to the pcapdiff software that we released last year. It automates many of the things that had to be done by hand with the earlier code.

    One advantage this architecture has over other network testing toolsis that it can spot arbitrary kinds of packet modifications in any protocol â" it doesn't assume that the interference comes in the form of TCP reset packets or web page modifications, and it isn't limited to BitTorrent or any other specific application. In the future we expect it to offer a good platform for collecting statistics on bandwidth, bidirectional latency, jitter and other traffic performance characteristics that might be signs of prioritization of some applications over others.

    How do I run tests with Switzerland?

    There are a few different ways to run tests with Switzerland. Any packets exchanged between Switzerland clients connected to the same server will be tested automatically. The question is, how do you find other clients and talk to them using the protocols you want to test? For now, the easiest way to set up tests is to co-ordinate them through this wiki page.

    If you want to test whether BitTorrent downloads are working correctly, go to that page and find some torrents that others are seeding from test machines. If you want to test if your ISP is interfering with BitTorrent seeding, you can post a link to a torrent file on the wiki, seed that torrent while running a Switzerland client and other people can find it on the wiki and try

  38. DNSCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "That's quite true. However, your traffic is STILL going through your ISP. There literally isn't any way around that."

    Tor, or:

    DNSCrypt

    "In the same way the SSL turns HTTP web traffic into HTTPS encrypted Web traffic, DNSCrypt turns regular DNS traffic into encrypted DNS traffic that is secure from eavesdropping and man-in-the-middle attacks. It doesnâ(TM)t require any changes to domain names or how they work, it simply provides a method for securely encrypting communication between our customers and our DNS servers in our data centers. We know that claims alone donâ(TM)t work in the security world, however, so weâ(TM)ve opened up the source to our DNSCrypt code base and itâ(TM)s available on GitHub"

    https://www.opendns.com/technology/dnscrypt/

    - Download the right package for your Linux distribution:
    https://blog.opendns.com/2012/02/16/tales-from-the-dnscrypt-linux-rising/

    https://github.com/opendns/dnscrypt-proxy/blob/master/README.markdown
    https://github.com/opendns
    https://blog.opendns.com/2012/05/08/dnscrypt-for-windows-has-arrived/
    http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/dnscrypt-encrypts-your-dns-traffic-because-theres-always-someone-out-to-get-you/
    http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/DNSCrypt-a-tool-to-encrypt-all-DNS-traffic-1392283.html
    http://blog.opendns.com/2012/02/06/dnscrypt-hackers-wanted/
    https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/debian-26/dnscrypt-930439/

    1. Re:DNSCrypt by Rainbowdash · · Score: 0

      You're STILL going via your ISP, regardless of how encrypted you are. In fact, I would say that the ISP could call you a "suspicious character" due to the fact that you're encrypting your connection - we don't know what these tools might come up with.

    2. Re:DNSCrypt by jthill · · Score: 1

      You're not getting it: with SSL-encrypted traffic the route is irrelevant. None of the transit nodes can see anything but impenetrable noise. Encrypted sessions aren't suspicious, they're ordinary. Encrypted http is widespread already; google defaults to it for anything that could conceivably be private. It defaults to it for news, maps, play, (gmail/docs/calendar of course,) probably more. There's nothing in the least remarkable about any site using https. DNS doesn't just serve IP addresses, it can and does serve private data too. There's nothing remarkable about the notion of encrypted DNS or any other protocol either.

      If you mean ISPs shouldn't be allowed to do traffic analysis, who you contact and when, that really would be forbidding access the government has warrantless access to, for example in phone conversations it's called "pen register" data and the various agencies only have to provide a count of the number of traps they set on those, total for the nation, and I think that's only at long-ish intervals.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    3. Re:DNSCrypt by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      You're not getting it: with SSL-encrypted traffic the route is irrelevant.

      no, i think you don't get it. the route is not irrelevant. spying doesn't necessarily have to be understanding what two parties are saying. you can follow someone, and regardless of what a person is doing or saying at their destination, you can infer a relationship between the person you're following and their destination, as well as others who share that destination.

      e.g., you could follow someone you think is cheating on you and discover that they are going to the hospital every thursday. what are they doing there? who knows? they could be volunteering to read to kids, they could be going in for test results, they could be getting recurring treatments, or they could be cheating on you with some nurse. with a little more observation of the traffic behavior (not the traffic contents) you could infer other things. how long did they stay? who else arrived at the same place at approx. the same time? who else left the same place at approx. the same time? one person? ten people? what other places do these same people frequent? do they frequent them at the same time, or do they both at least frequent them with a consistent pattern?

      without having to hear any dialogue between two people, you can determine a relationship between them and between them and their destination. i could follow someone (joe schmoe) to anywhere and wind up at a bar. then knowing that bars are places that guys usually pick up women, i could follow all the women who leave the bar at the same time the first guy i'm following leaves. i don't even have to follow them both at the same time going to the same location, but that would help my spying. all i would have to do is keep watching all the other places these two go on their own, and then see if they both overlap anywhere at any time, and decide if the other locations have significance. in this case, if one of the women who left the same bar as the guy i'm spying on appears at planned parenthood 3 months later, and so does this guy, i don't have to see them arrive or leave together at planned parenthood to infer they are there because of each other. i also have an idea what they might have been talking about and what problems they might be sharing. no phone calls or emails intercepted, nobody made aware they are being watched. i don't even need confirmation, just high probability.

      in real life we call this stalking (under legal auspices we call it investigation) but online it's called marketing. last i checked, stalking (and even investigation) is an invasion of privacy. it's not a big leap to apply "online marketing" techniques to online censorship either.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    4. Re:DNSCrypt by jthill · · Score: 1

      Look up "pen register," I gave you a link. The government already has warrantless access..

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    5. Re:DNSCrypt by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      the relevance of the routing is exactly why the pen register is so useful, but the pen register has little to do with the real concerns about ISP spying. the article is a scaremonger piece about digital piracy -- ISPs have already been spying for a few years now. what's really wrong with ISP spying is that they are selling your elastic asshole to the unholy cabal of online advertising, worse than facebook does. once this becomes accepted (i would almost say it already is accepted but it's not even really known about) it can also be used to apply censorship as one (anyone, government or corporation) sees fit, in a way that makes attempts to circumvent it futile. when advertisers target tv they have control over what gets broadcast. the money they spend on advertising on broadcast networks is used to influence what those networks broadcast, a form of censorship. the internet is a different beast than the tv or telephone because it's also a cheap, accessible, interactive personal printing press that users can control via plugins and browser features. the freedom of the press only applies to those that own one, and now we all can own one. but we don't all own an ISP.... mining data on online behavior at that level is like having someone stalking you. it's much more than an IP trace to see who's illegally sharing.

      http://trudalane.net/resources/node/424

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  39. Is that a question? by DocSparkle · · Score: 1

    But seriously, I think you mean "even more than they are currently FORCED to do?" ISPs are currently forced by law in many countries to keep certain records of their clients and to monitor certain content. This is only going to increase, not decrease. And in the US there is the "Patriot Act" which says "All your base is belong to us." So what was the question again?

  40. When you stoop to make fun of names... by gavron · · Score: 1

    "Ehhhhhh... (sound of an obnoxious buzzer)"

    When you make fun of my name, you drop yourself even lower than ad-hominem attacks.

    Please take your spewage elsewhere. This thread doesn't need more of your misinformation,
    and your attacks on my name are at best below the belt.

    Best regards,

    Ehud (sound of someone who has no tolerance for idiots)

    1. Re:When you stoop to make fun of names... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "When you make fun of my name, you drop yourself even lower than ad-hominem attacks."

      I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Does "gavron" have something to do with "buzzer"? I neither know nor care. In any case, I wasn't mocking anyone's name. I don't do that kind of crap.

    2. Re:When you stoop to make fun of names... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm... this is just a guess, but you somehow thought that "Ehhhhhh" was some kind of attempt to mock the name "Ehud"??? I really don't know, so I'm taking a stab at it here.

      I repeat that I do not do that kind of crap. But at the same time, it's a pretty big leap to conclusions on your part, to think that some random bit of onomatopoeia was some kind of personal attack. Paranoid much, are we?

      As for "misinformation": I cited my source, and not only does it have solidity and reputation, what it stated is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer. Your calling it "misinformation" does not make it so.

  41. Driven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, driven is a nice euphemism for *forced*, *threaten*, *put in a cage* or *killed* if they do not obey.

    We all knew it would come to this.

  42. Good Luck by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

    I'm behind 7 proxies...and several VPN's.

  43. Will isps be driven to spy on their customers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will?

    As in the future tense?

    Ummmm.....

  44. In the UK they already do this by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    Deep packet inspection is already happening in the UK. Don't believe me? Try a telnet to port 80 on a webserver you control from a domestic UK internet connection. Then enter 'HTTP \nHOST piratebay.org\n' Your connection gets hijacked at that point and the server sees a faked reset from your IP.

    Don't have a webserver? Try any website instead but if you use your own you can tcpdump both sides of the connection to see the hijacking happening.

    Between this, email and telephone snooping, stop and search without the suspicion of wrongdoing, and indefinite house arrest without trail the UK has already become a fascist prison.

  45. Credit where credit is due by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I would love to see simple fluorescent fliers start to show up in everyone's cable bills:

    Your bill has increased by $xx due to purchasing infrastructure required for the government monitoring of all your online activities and communications. Have a nice day.

  46. Re:USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government went through the trouble of setting up and paying for all those mailboxes with taxes, so the government mail system gets exclusive use of them.

    I bought my mailbox at Home Depot and set it up myself--poorly. Did the government subsidize the price or something?

  47. So much for "common carrier" status, due process, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reasonable expectation of privacy, etc.

    CALEA should have been the handwriting on the wall for ISP's. "Oh, that only applies to telcos; yes, we'll register with the Copyright Office in order to call ourselves ISPs and get liability waived.

    If they didn't fear getting sued into oblivion for customers' packets, why are they going along with all the lawful access and RIAA/MPAA self-policing crap?

    What's going to happen when AT&T or Verizon or Comcast gets sued because John Doe called up Jane Don't, made death threats, etc? You can't have it both ways.

    More philsophically, the contradictions here result directly from the service consumption model which seems the only thing the government and Wall Street can or will grok, due to the delusional zero-risk, no-liability, monopoly model of commerce and world domination they favor, wherein they get to have their cake and eat it too, at everyone else's expense, when in reality, everyone who owns a machine with a TCP/IP stack is an ISP and a network operator, whether anyone likes it or not. All so concerned about monetization, but could care less if you don't have a cent. Fuck 'em all, I say.

    Excuse me for giving a shit. No, ask me if I give a shit. Talk about your bastard operator from hell.

    Anybody else getting anxious calls about DNSchanger today? You know, the crap you dealt with eons ago, and you know your user's machines are clean? But no, the Fibbies are talking it up, so you have to feign concern and make a totally unnecessary effort to look diligent and reassuring. Christ.

  48. Suing the ISPs over lost business hours? by core_dump_0 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how this would fit in with corporate customers of the participating ISPs and the loss of business hours that could occur, since even if nobody is falsely accused by mistake, a lot of these copyright issues are subjective and are subject to the judicial system.

    Could the participating ISPs be held liable if a company's business is disrupted through no fault of their own (or if the company has a case and is willing to take the issue to court)?

  49. Yes, wait let me think about that, Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well there is this, story carried by slashdot: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/cell-carriers-see-uptick-in-requests-to-aid-surveillance.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all and this in Australia: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/308218,govt-mulls-cloud-social-intercepts.aspx And recently Telstra was caught channeling all of their traffic via a US organisation for "checking", apparently to provide a service in the future where users can purchase the option to have their internet access filtered for nasties. Via the US.... where everything is legally able to be seized, requested, call it what you want, under the Patriot Act. I'm just saying...