ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to rantou
Re: Hmmm..
said by rantou  :Find me one ISP billing software that you search an IP address and it doesn't come back with a name. Go ahead! See if you can find one. That's just the whole problem. So it's unethical then to search out who a person is by the traffic coming from their IP address? Depends on why/what use you intend to make of that knowledge.
I never said anything about looking at URL history. I look at their traffic based solely on protocol and amount of traffic passed, which every ISP has to do these days. However, you identified certain of your users as intellectual property pirates. If you merely meant to say some percentage of an aggregate pool of users utilizing P2P protocols fell into certain demographic groups, that is quite different from identifying specific individual users as intellectual property pirates. The latter requires you to have inspected unencrypted packets to determine content, or to have made a stupendously egregious presumption.
If you want to see an ISP that does have relational data between URL history and who you are, look at AT&T, Verizon, and the many others that sell your clickstream data. That's what we were looking at in this thread; the unscrupulous activities of the major Telcos and Cablecos acting on behalf of out-of-control national security organizations, corporate intellectual property owners and their own desire to become the controlling portal monetizer/monitor/provider for/of all on-line content.
Sure, they're not selling the clickstream data with any kind of end user identification, but you know that they have that relational data in their systems, whether you like it or not. What makes you so sure that they don't, or, as importantly, they won't, in conjunction with the content filtering activities on behalf of intellectual property owners (read R.I.A.A., M.P.A.A., I.F.P.I.)?
I don't even sell clickstream data, nor have systems that would ever cache that information. For this, I applaud you!
The fact that I even know my customers is because, again, I work at a smaller provider where I do speak with my customers when they call in for technical assistance and I grab their calls, or because I even did their installations for them. I have tried to distance myself from customers by trying other methods with limited good results (bad contractors, bad language skills, etc.) and the bottom line is that if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself. I hope you are speaking of set-up, troubleshooting equipment, maintenance of network resources and customer relations, rather than of spying on your customers.
Do/would you agree that surveillance, content filtering, protocol throttling, DNS redirection, and the monitoring, collection and sale of clickstream data are inherently invasive practices detrimental to subscribers when they become the tools of aggressive, and oppressive, factional third party interests? |
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by ross :However, you identified certain of your users as intellectual property pirates. If you merely meant to say some percentage of an aggregate pool of users utilizing P2P protocols fell into certain demographic groups, that is quite different from identifying specific individual users as intellectual property pirates. The latter requires you to have inspected unencrypted packets to determine content, or to have made a stupendously egregious presumption. Or perhaps to have been called/written by content owners about the user's infringement?
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| said by wierdo :said by ross :However, you identified certain of your users as intellectual property pirates. If you merely meant to say some percentage of an aggregate pool of users utilizing P2P protocols fell into certain demographic groups, that is quite different from identifying specific individual users as intellectual property pirates. The latter requires you to have inspected unencrypted packets to determine content, or to have made a stupendously egregious presumption. Or perhaps to have been called/written by content owners about the user's infringement? Sorry wierdo, but that is extremely unlikely. In fact, it would be more likely that he made the whole thing up, rather than have been notified by content providers. |
