TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits |  Hearings unlikely to get very far
The current admin is no different than the previous admin in wanting the ABILITY to tap in to the internet in the interests of national security. We can argue all day on whether the tech can be abused or not. But, ultimately the government will want the capability, even if court approvals are needed to use it.
So somehow I doubt this drive to prevent the rollout at all is going anywhere. There is a bi-partisan desire of the gov't to have spying capabilities available for use.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
avd706
insert annoying animated gif here
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Union, NJ
| said by TKJunkMail  :The current admin is no different than the previous admin in wanting the ABILITY to tap in to the internet in the interests of national security. You don't need DPI at the ISP level for that.
--
Team JON. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by avd706 :said by TKJunkMail :The current admin is no different than the previous admin in wanting the ABILITY to tap in to the internet in the interests of national security. You don't need DPI at the ISP level for that. No, but it will make it easier.
And the government(DARPA) is already looking at ways to interpret all the captured info:
»www.readwriteweb.com/archives/da···_web.php
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
While I agree with your points about governments desires there tk, this could be used for consumer privacy purposes. We all know the potential and actual abuses that dpi can cause. This could serve 2 purposes; it could curb current and future abuses, and it could also be used as a tool to inform the congress about dpi and it's possible uses. This way when Congress sees companies that abuse dpi, they can not say they never knew what it was!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
| said by S_engineer :While I agree with your points about governments desires there tk, this could be used for consumer privacy purposes. We all know the potential and actual abuses that dpi can cause. This could serve 2 purposes; it could curb current and future abuses, and it could also be used as a tool to inform the congress about dpi and it's possible uses. This way when Congress sees companies that abuse dpi, they can not say they never knew what it was! Amazing how it is brought into the spotlight now. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to TKJunkMail
At the moment, there seems to be some hesitancy to saying that the ECPA applies to DPI. (Why wouldn't it? I don't know.)
DPI is the internet version of wiretapping. Wiretapping has good and lawful uses and the permissions and restrictions for wiretapping are set in law. DPI is a useful tool for network maintenance and other lawful purposes, nobody wants to end those. What we do want is clarity over when its use on our communications networks crosses the line into inappropriate uses.
discl.: I am Chief Technologist of the Open Technology Initiative of the New America Foundation and I speak for them as well as myself on this issue. (As a long-time member of DSLReports, I usually speak only for myself and therefore don't use such a disclosure.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 |
|
RogerDucky
join:2002-01-04
Plano, TX
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by avd706 :said by TKJunkMail : You don't need DPI at the ISP level for that. No, but it will make it easier. Actually, no; since it's easier to interpret data if you got information from all sources collected into a central repository, which is then processed using state of the art packet inspection/data mining equipment, than getting however much information from disparate equipment you have no real control over from random ISPs. So, for "national security," what they'd really be after would be a method of getting a copy of the information stream, which they can analyze later and/or in relative "real-time." |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | reply to funchords
In Canada they want to make this the norm without court oversight.
What a great country for Internet |
|
inspectTHIS
@comcast.net
| Encryption Baby!
Once you start encrypting your packets there's not much to inspect.
You can tell its encrypted, you can (presumably) tell the protocol, and you know what the two endpoints are - that's about it.
Send all your data over https (or pptp, etc.) and DPI is pretty much defeated except for throttling, and you don't need DPI to throttle a protocol. Go ahead, _large ISP_, throw the baby out with the bathwater and just throttle everything!
So I don't see what all the fuss over DPI is about. You have to see the data to make any meaningful inspection of it. I think anyone embracing DPI has a tiger by the tail (except maybe for those certain agencies that have the computing mojo to crack your packets)! |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Except that the newer DPI devices are designed to detect and spoof compression and encryption handshakes if they sit at the ISP level, causing the sending machine to return files in plain text instead of encrypted (basically forcing the http to https). |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
1 edit | I wouldn't call it a "bogeyman"
Bogeymen are the fictional creations for children's consumption! When used, it generally is applied to an irrational fear.
So to say DPI is like a bogeyman is like telling us that it's no big deal: we're creating mountains out of molehills and have nothing to fear.
DPI is very real and very nasty. |
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| DPI is, indeed, a bogeyman.
It's being exhumed by lobbyists, in DC, who are trying to use it as an excuse to push regulation of the Internet. And each group has its own idea of how to do this regulation -- which somehow just happens to coincide with the interests of its biggest contributors.
For example, the "New America Foundation," which is effectively owned by Google (while it claims to be a "public interest" or "consumer" group), is lobbying to regulate ISPs so that users don't have to pay the cost of getting to Google's sites and services.
Don't believe the hype. |
|
