NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Comcast using Sandvine to Interfere with P2P
> A railroad is a common carrier, but it has the right to stop a robber on the > train. It also has a right to insist that passengers remain orderly > and not (for example) commit vandalism or harass other passengers. > Likewise, a power company is a common carrier, but it has the right > to insist that customers not steal power or damage its lines. To > claim that ISPs have no right to monitor their networks is akin to > saying that a railroad has no right to have a conductor on the train > who might keep you from robbing other passengers or vandalizing > the train. Your argument about a railroad and robber is a straw man. Of course, we all agree that a robber should be prevented from robbing the train. However, there are several problems with your example. One, who is the robber? The only comparable example I can think of is a server that subverts the normal flow of traffic from an ISP customer so that it can introspect the payload and steal the contents which may or may not be valuable. Are you maintaining that ISPs are guaranteeing traffic delivery such that the contents of the communication have not been stolen by some other entity within your network? If this is the case, and it is not, this does not invlove packet introspection or tools that shape traffic. Two, who defines what is abusive/criminal? Normally, that falls on the public's shoulders for public resources like the internet. Does an ISP act in the public's interest? Of course an ISP does not act in the public's interest; ISPs act on behalf of their owner's interest. Three, the act of being able to introspect traffic and use discretion as to which traffic will flow over the common carrier is power. In the railroad example, that amounts to the railroad searching each of their customers to determine their business for using the common carrier, a power they do not have the prerogative for, just the luxury of since they service the network/railroad. However, this is power that is given to a sheriff, a publicly elected official that is invested with protecting the interest of the public. I do not think there is such thing as altruism on the part of ISPs since they are generally for profit businesses, therefore there is a conflict of interest with an ISP monitoring and shaping their own traffic. ISPs are the gateway to the internet, not the gatekeepers. The power that the railroad owner should have is determining rate for passengers and freight. The railroad should not have the power to introspect for the purposes of determining "lawful" traffic. There are governmental agencies that are trusted to act in the public's interest and have the right to inspect freight to determine criminality. Four, there is an issue of privacy. ISPs do not have the right to inspect the contents of my communication with another party whether it is for benign reasons like shaping traffic or not. To know the intent of an IP datagram requires inspecting the datagram to determine the type of payload and then opening the payload to extract the port if the payload is a TCP packet. This seems to be very similar to opening other people's parcels and making their business your business. Five, I believe that if a third party opens parcels between two parties that act is considered criminal; in other words, I do not have the prerogative to open other people's mail unless granted authority. Since ISPs want to be gatekeepers, are they responsible when packets get through that are criminal? After all, if ISPs can identify robbers, they have a duty to report to a law enforcement agency if a crime is being committed. If they were not to report known criminal activity, and not knowing how to identify the latest and greatest robber is no excuse, that would be considered conspiracy. What good is a railroad that sometimes identifies robbers correctly? Should ISPs be responsible for false-positives? Dan