| Is AT&T the ISP or AT&T the NSP planning on deploying this? This begs the question; is this being implemented by AT&Ts last mile to customers who use their Internet service, or on their network trunks, AKA part of the backbone of the Internet?
If it's the latter, what happens to all these people who peer off of AT&Ts network? Will any packet routed through the AT&T network, despite the fact that the parties on both ends of the connection aren't AT&T customers, be inspected and dropped if their little box decides that it's pirated? |
|
| This outrages me. I just spent 2 days at work identifying a black hole router and trying to get the SysAdmin of the network in question to fix it.
If AT&T just starts dropping my packets whenever they feel like it, I'll just stop paying them money every month and leave. |
|
|
|
| reply to NRHM
said by NRHM :
This begs the question; is this being implemented by AT&Ts last mile to customers who use their Internet service, or on their network trunks, AKA part of the backbone of the Internet? I strongly doubt this would be implemented on a larger scale than a headend or CO. It would take massive (and I do mean massive) computational power to do this kind of deep packet inspection on heavy duty optical backbone links.
As far as AT&T filtering their WAN peers' traffic, there's just no way that would be feasible.
This is just another reason why I will not use AT&T services (IP, telephony, etc). I value my privacy, and their track record in that area completely sucks.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by Done_Posting:As far as AT&T filtering their WAN peers' traffic, there's just no way that would be feasible. Not to mentioned that they'd seriously irritate their peers causing a huge sh!tstorm across the Internet.This is the Internet...you have no privacy. |
|
| said by openbox9:This is the Internet...you have no privacy. I disagree with this blanket statement but have no interest in arguing it.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:This is the Internet...you have no privacy. Please tell that to my secure credit card transaction pages.
There's a difference between "no privacy" and "expected privacy". For example, what people do in their own homes is expected to be private - regardless if you have visual/listening devices avaliable to do otherwise. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | You're right. I should have said, "this is the Internet...you have no expectation of privacy." |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| said by openbox9:You're right. I should have said, "this is the Internet...you have no expectation of privacy." Didn't a few court cases rule against your logic there? Last I checked (legally) you need a court order to supoena e-mails.
...and I still don't know how there is no privacy with encrypted messages. |
|
| reply to Enlightener
if NRHM is correct, where will you, me and quite a few other people go? |
|
