Consumer Groups Want Deep Packet Inspection HearingsIranian protests used for network neutrality debate... 01:01PM Monday Jun 29 2009 by Karl Bodetags: business · content · net-neutralityAs we noted last week, Iranian's use of deep packet inspection hardware to identify and censor Internet content has put the already-controversial technology back into the spotlight. The network sniffing gear has many uses, though its implementation over the last few years in behavioral advertising, P2P throttling, and ISP javascript banner injection has made it a bit of a bogeyman. A collection of consumer advocacy groups and lobbying outfits are now calling for a Congressional hearing on the issue. Operating under the "Open Internet Coalition" banner, the group consists of consumer advocacy groups like Free Press, but also of organizations like the New America Foundation (which has Google's Larry Page as a President and co-founder) the Writer's Guild and the ACLU. In a letter (pdf) to Congress, the group laments the use of the technology and urges Uncle Sam to monitor its abuses: ....the same technology that aids oppression abroad is currently being deployed here at home by U.S. telephone and cable companies. Network operators are installing deep packet inspection routers throughout their networks in the United States, giving them the same ability to monitor communications of users. They hope to use this controversial technology to inspect Internet communications in order to monetize such communications for advertising purposes or to charge Web sites for preferred treatment on their networks. The coalition of consumer groups and content-industry organizations is using the current political climate to get network neutrality legislation before the eyes of DC lawmakers, though their worries differ. Google doesn't want ISPs dictating which content gets preferential treatment, while outfits like the ACLU are more concerned with consumers retaining control over their personal browsing habits. Related:- AT&T Slammed For Wireless Streaming 'Double Standard'
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- Nobody's Complaining About Comcast's New Throttling
- Verizon's New Wireless Pricing Is An Insult
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- AT&T: Google Is The Enemy Of Nuns
- The RIAA Likes Net Neutrality
- Google: We're Blocking Fewer Nun Calls
|
 |  |   avd706 insert annoying animated gif here Premium join:2003-02-06 Union, NJ
| Re: Hearings unlikely to get very far said by GOLFnSUN :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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  RogerDucky
join:2002-01-04 Plano, TX
| Re: Hearings unlikely to get very far said by GOLFnSUN :said by avd706 :said by GOLFnSUN : 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." | |
|  |   S_engineer
join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| 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
| Re: Hearings unlikely to get very far 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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  backness
join:2005-07-08 K2P OW2 | Re: Hearings unlikely to get very far 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
| Re: Encryption Baby! 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. | |
|  | |  |
|
|