15 ms·

I recently received a "terms of service" update from Comcast, with the notification that they can now "monitor and record anything going through the network. In

I recently received a "terms of service" update from Comcast, with the notification that they can now "monitor and record anything going through the network. Including, but not limited to: audio recording, video recording, ..." I don't even have an alternative in my area.

exabrial 9y ago
Yikes. I'd be sure to lodge a complaint here, note about the local monopoly: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us I'm curious where you are located [if you don't mind sharing]?
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Lodge a complaint with Pai’s FCC! Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 9y ago
    So many comments to the FCC ignored. Complaints won't go anywhere, either.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Comments were collected. No obligation existed to treat them as a vote. Very few contained new information to the FCC, so they weren't valuable. The entire "millions of comments" nonsense is wholesale irrelevant, because the process doesn't exist for the purpose of voting or conveying public opinion. Comments are collected in case there are scenarios the regulatory agency didn't consider. They considered them, and decided a way you didn't like.
  - SkyMarshal 9y ago
    You have to get this stuff on record in real-time so the adminstration after Pai's will have timestamped evidence to act on. Stop being so short-sighted and defeatist about this stuff, think strategically.
  - samstave 9y ago
    I’m not one for violence - but I challenge Pai to a public duel.
  - Bluestrike2 9y ago
    Well, yeah. But on the other hand, the complaint records aren't going to be deleted even under Pai. The complaints likely won't go anywhere anytime soon. But when Pai's successor is working to repair the damage, there's a decent chance that one of the things they'll have to do is go through the agency's records to figure out what was ignored. Having a record of the complaint will at least give them options in the future. So file the complaint, even if it's unlikely to matter in the short-term. :)
    - komali2 9y ago
      Why wouldn't they be deleted? They were stuffed with bot complaints, FCC could remove any and say it was a bot.
      - Bluestrike2 9y ago
        Federal record-keeping rules are pretty stringent. Generally speaking, you can't delete stuff. Especially important records. And public comments are a required part of federal rulemaking procedures--see 5 U.S. Code § 553(c) [0]--so they'd definitely fall into the "important" category. In fact, the FCC's response to the bot activity was to point out that they aren't permitted to delete the comments, though a former FCC special counsel was quoted as suggesting that the FCC "might have an obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act to remove fake comments from its consideration."[1] But "removing fake comments from its consideration" isn't the same as actually deleting them, so I'd imagine that just means labeling them as "likely fake" and ignoring them in their deliberations. The same would apply to official FCC complaints. The FCC might ignore them, but they can't outright delete them without violating the law. 0. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553 1. https://www.wired.com/story/fccs-broken-comments-system-could-help-doom-net-neutrality/ https://www.wired.com/story/fccs-broken-comments-system-coul...
jonny_eh 9y ago
Time to shell out for a VPN service.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Are VPN Routers a good option, or do you recommend VPN on each device?
  - ktta 9y ago
    Depends on the traffic from devices. If you don't have crazy high traffic, flash your router with openwrt and install wireguard. If the flash is too small, you can compile your own image with wireguard selected which doesn't need as much flash space. Next you can choose a cloud provider, which is metered (GCE, AWS, etc), or non-metered like OVH, or Digital Ocean(they don't charge you if you go over the 1TB for now). Or you can choose a VPN service provider like Mullvad who have wireguard option (PIA should be getting it soon), if you trust them. Be careful in choosing your provider since you might be annoyed with the latency over time, or just get used to it. There are tutorials for all this.
    - woah 9y ago
      Netflix and other video sites will be blocked from a lot of VPS providers. You may be better off going with a professional service that can keep their ips clean
      - ktta 9y ago
        True, but it can be mitigated by setting the routing table for Netflix IPs to avoid the tunnel. There's no standard way this can be done, but it's not impossible.
        rbritton 9y ago
        I did this for a while, and it was a decent headache to maintain. I had pfSense running at the Comcast edge and configured it to route all but specifically whitelisted traffic through a VPN I controlled. Speed was slower than max but acceptable due to choosing a VPS provider close to me, but the maintenance on the whitelist was cumbersome.
briandear 9y ago
That can potentially be a HIPAA violation unless medical providers/platforms get a Business Associates Agreement with the ISP. This could be a nightmare.
- amdavidson 9y ago
  The HIPAA violation would be on the care provider by transmitting in cleartext over the internet. If they're transmitting properly over TLS then no patient info would be divulged.
zackbloom 9y ago
What you can do is use a third party DNS resolver like 1.1.1.1, ideally over HTTPS or TLS, and use HTTPS for all your web traffic. That dramatically reduces what they can inspect. If that isn’t enough, your next option is a VPN or Tor.
- fencepost 9y ago
  Third party DNS is at best a very minor hiccup in the ease of an ISP monitoring where you're going, though in combination with things like HTTPS Everywhere it's a start - mostly if you're going to good-sized sites where most of your traffic actually goes to CDN providers. Hm, thinking about it as I write, I could see how encrypted DNS plus everything being encrypted and served via CDN could actually cut down a lot on what carriers can see. Still far from perfect, but not quite as bad as I was originally thinking. Edit: I wasn't familiar with Server Name Indication (destination hostname is unencrypted even though the rest of the URL and session are encrypted).
  - cwingrav 9y ago
    Without encryption, they can see who you talk to, what you are saying, the rate, the frequency, from where and when. With encryption (https), they can see who you talk to, the rate, the frequency, from where and when. They can't see the actual URL (just the hostname) or data (encrypted). With VPN, they see you are talking to a VPN, the rate, the frequency, from where and when. VPNs cut down on knowing who you are talking to (assuming they aren't logging or being monitored which they could easily do). Other services could be added to obfuscate rate, frequency and when I would assume, but even then those services would only be additive obfuscation (unless you cache packets for a short term... just thinking as I type). Someone check me if i'm off on this these points...
    - politician 9y ago
      You're close. There's actually well understood technology for obfuscating the rate and frequency - the field for manipulating these variables is called "traffic analysis". One simple technique is to always transmit X packets/sec where Y packets/sec are real and the other packets are dummy packets (Y < X). If the channel is encrypted, it's impossible to distinguish the dummy traffic from the real traffic, and if you're over a VPN, it's difficult to identify the destination. A slightly more sophisticated approach is to vary X over time, to make it shaped like streaming video, for example, to obfuscate the fact that you're using traffic analysis countermeasures.
ballenf 9y ago
I recently signed up for a promo from DirectTV Now where the promo was cheaper than the free AppleTV that came with it. Don't worry, I'm not promoting DirectTV Now because it sucks balls. I have ad blocking at the router level at home and DirectTV basically won't work because of it. Even when it does work the picture quality is awful, you can't easily skip commercials, changing channels is painfully slow. And there are ads everywhere. But, my main point is that a few weeks after getting it, I get a mailer from Charter asking me why would I want to pay for channel bundles (I get only internet from Charter)... the only way that mailer makes sense is if they were watching my traffic and seeing that I'm a subscriber to a channel package from their competitor. (I've never gotten a similar mailing and it doesn't make sense absent spying, otherwise they're kind of arguing against their own main cable service.) It really made me want to get VPN setup whole-house.
- lazerpants 9y ago
  I just received a similar mailer from Time Warner, and we use Sling. However, I think they are just trying to capture a market segment that they entirely missed the boat on, and that it is coincidental. I guess I could ask my neighbors if they received the same mailer.
- notyourwork 9y ago
  I think in your case its more likely they mass mailed a neighborhood minus their cable subscribers.
ians 9y ago
for anyone interested I pulled up the Terms and found what I believe the OP is referencing: `Monitoring and Recording. You agree that Comcast and its agents may monitor and record any telephone calls or other voice, data or image communications that are transmitted between: (1) Comcast and its agents and (2) you, your agents, any user of your Service(s) or Equipment, or any user of any phone numbers associated with your account.`
- savanaly 9y ago
  Well doesn't that just mean they're allowed to record the conversations between me and their tech support? How is that worrisome? I assumed the person you were replying to was asserting that Comcast had proclaimed its right to record all communications I had over the internet.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - seorphates 9y ago
    I don't know. I'm reading it differently. I'm reading it in a way that almost any other entity with the power to execute on a term like that probably would - liberally and with deference to their own interpretation of lawful. Not too mention the 100% murky scope of requests and behests of government. I read that the wire is owned by Comcast. Its agents roam free and everything traversing that wire is monitored. 100%.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      If you're going to read the language non-sensically, why even bother to point to the text? Why not just make up whatever you want? The numbering and the "and" clearly mean that one of the two endpoints must be "Comcast and its agents." The language is there to allow them to record customer service calls because otherwise in some states that would be a violation of wiretap consent laws.
      - 9y ago
aesh2Xa1 9y ago
Add an always-on VPN tunnel to your router with the tunnel exit on someone else's (not Comcast) network.
PeterStuer 9y ago
Aren't all ISPs required to comply with lawful intercept regulation that includes data retention?

exabrial 9y ago

Yikes. I'd be sure to lodge a complaint here, note about the local monopoly: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us I'm curious where you are located [if you don't mind sharing]?

Analemma_ 9y ago
Lodge a complaint with Pai’s FCC! Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 9y ago
  So many comments to the FCC ignored. Complaints won't go anywhere, either.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Comments were collected. No obligation existed to treat them as a vote. Very few contained new information to the FCC, so they weren't valuable. The entire "millions of comments" nonsense is wholesale irrelevant, because the process doesn't exist for the purpose of voting or conveying public opinion. Comments are collected in case there are scenarios the regulatory agency didn't consider. They considered them, and decided a way you didn't like.
- SkyMarshal 9y ago
  You have to get this stuff on record in real-time so the adminstration after Pai's will have timestamped evidence to act on. Stop being so short-sighted and defeatist about this stuff, think strategically.
- samstave 9y ago
  I’m not one for violence - but I challenge Pai to a public duel.
- Bluestrike2 9y ago
  Well, yeah. But on the other hand, the complaint records aren't going to be deleted even under Pai. The complaints likely won't go anywhere anytime soon. But when Pai's successor is working to repair the damage, there's a decent chance that one of the things they'll have to do is go through the agency's records to figure out what was ignored. Having a record of the complaint will at least give them options in the future. So file the complaint, even if it's unlikely to matter in the short-term. :)
  - komali2 9y ago
    Why wouldn't they be deleted? They were stuffed with bot complaints, FCC could remove any and say it was a bot.
    - Bluestrike2 9y ago
      Federal record-keeping rules are pretty stringent. Generally speaking, you can't delete stuff. Especially important records. And public comments are a required part of federal rulemaking procedures--see 5 U.S. Code § 553(c) [0]--so they'd definitely fall into the "important" category. In fact, the FCC's response to the bot activity was to point out that they aren't permitted to delete the comments, though a former FCC special counsel was quoted as suggesting that the FCC "might have an obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act to remove fake comments from its consideration."[1] But "removing fake comments from its consideration" isn't the same as actually deleting them, so I'd imagine that just means labeling them as "likely fake" and ignoring them in their deliberations. The same would apply to official FCC complaints. The FCC might ignore them, but they can't outright delete them without violating the law. 0. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553 1. https://www.wired.com/story/fccs-broken-comments-system-could-help-doom-net-neutrality/ https://www.wired.com/story/fccs-broken-comments-system-coul...

jonny_eh 9y ago

Time to shell out for a VPN service.

r00fus 9y ago
Are VPN Routers a good option, or do you recommend VPN on each device?
- ktta 9y ago
  Depends on the traffic from devices. If you don't have crazy high traffic, flash your router with openwrt and install wireguard. If the flash is too small, you can compile your own image with wireguard selected which doesn't need as much flash space. Next you can choose a cloud provider, which is metered (GCE, AWS, etc), or non-metered like OVH, or Digital Ocean(they don't charge you if you go over the 1TB for now). Or you can choose a VPN service provider like Mullvad who have wireguard option (PIA should be getting it soon), if you trust them. Be careful in choosing your provider since you might be annoyed with the latency over time, or just get used to it. There are tutorials for all this.
  - woah 9y ago
    Netflix and other video sites will be blocked from a lot of VPS providers. You may be better off going with a professional service that can keep their ips clean
    - ktta 9y ago
      True, but it can be mitigated by setting the routing table for Netflix IPs to avoid the tunnel. There's no standard way this can be done, but it's not impossible.
      - rbritton 9y ago
        I did this for a while, and it was a decent headache to maintain. I had pfSense running at the Comcast edge and configured it to route all but specifically whitelisted traffic through a VPN I controlled. Speed was slower than max but acceptable due to choosing a VPS provider close to me, but the maintenance on the whitelist was cumbersome.

briandear 9y ago

That can potentially be a HIPAA violation unless medical providers/platforms get a Business Associates Agreement with the ISP. This could be a nightmare.

amdavidson 9y ago
The HIPAA violation would be on the care provider by transmitting in cleartext over the internet. If they're transmitting properly over TLS then no patient info would be divulged.

zackbloom 9y ago

What you can do is use a third party DNS resolver like 1.1.1.1, ideally over HTTPS or TLS, and use HTTPS for all your web traffic. That dramatically reduces what they can inspect. If that isn’t enough, your next option is a VPN or Tor.

fencepost 9y ago
Third party DNS is at best a very minor hiccup in the ease of an ISP monitoring where you're going, though in combination with things like HTTPS Everywhere it's a start - mostly if you're going to good-sized sites where most of your traffic actually goes to CDN providers. Hm, thinking about it as I write, I could see how encrypted DNS plus everything being encrypted and served via CDN could actually cut down a lot on what carriers can see. Still far from perfect, but not quite as bad as I was originally thinking. Edit: I wasn't familiar with Server Name Indication (destination hostname is unencrypted even though the rest of the URL and session are encrypted).
- cwingrav 9y ago
  Without encryption, they can see who you talk to, what you are saying, the rate, the frequency, from where and when. With encryption (https), they can see who you talk to, the rate, the frequency, from where and when. They can't see the actual URL (just the hostname) or data (encrypted). With VPN, they see you are talking to a VPN, the rate, the frequency, from where and when. VPNs cut down on knowing who you are talking to (assuming they aren't logging or being monitored which they could easily do). Other services could be added to obfuscate rate, frequency and when I would assume, but even then those services would only be additive obfuscation (unless you cache packets for a short term... just thinking as I type). Someone check me if i'm off on this these points...
  - politician 9y ago
    You're close. There's actually well understood technology for obfuscating the rate and frequency - the field for manipulating these variables is called "traffic analysis". One simple technique is to always transmit X packets/sec where Y packets/sec are real and the other packets are dummy packets (Y < X). If the channel is encrypted, it's impossible to distinguish the dummy traffic from the real traffic, and if you're over a VPN, it's difficult to identify the destination. A slightly more sophisticated approach is to vary X over time, to make it shaped like streaming video, for example, to obfuscate the fact that you're using traffic analysis countermeasures.

ballenf 9y ago

I recently signed up for a promo from DirectTV Now where the promo was cheaper than the free AppleTV that came with it. Don't worry, I'm not promoting DirectTV Now because it sucks balls. I have ad blocking at the router level at home and DirectTV basically won't work because of it. Even when it does work the picture quality is awful, you can't easily skip commercials, changing channels is painfully slow. And there are ads everywhere. But, my main point is that a few weeks after getting it, I get a mailer from Charter asking me why would I want to pay for channel bundles (I get only internet from Charter)... the only way that mailer makes sense is if they were watching my traffic and seeing that I'm a subscriber to a channel package from their competitor. (I've never gotten a similar mailing and it doesn't make sense absent spying, otherwise they're kind of arguing against their own main cable service.) It really made me want to get VPN setup whole-house.

lazerpants 9y ago
I just received a similar mailer from Time Warner, and we use Sling. However, I think they are just trying to capture a market segment that they entirely missed the boat on, and that it is coincidental. I guess I could ask my neighbors if they received the same mailer.
notyourwork 9y ago
I think in your case its more likely they mass mailed a neighborhood minus their cable subscribers.

ians 9y ago

for anyone interested I pulled up the Terms and found what I believe the OP is referencing: `Monitoring and Recording. You agree that Comcast and its agents may monitor and record any telephone calls or other voice, data or image communications that are transmitted between: (1) Comcast and its agents and (2) you, your agents, any user of your Service(s) or Equipment, or any user of any phone numbers associated with your account.`

savanaly 9y ago
Well doesn't that just mean they're allowed to record the conversations between me and their tech support? How is that worrisome? I assumed the person you were replying to was asserting that Comcast had proclaimed its right to record all communications I had over the internet.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- seorphates 9y ago
  I don't know. I'm reading it differently. I'm reading it in a way that almost any other entity with the power to execute on a term like that probably would - liberally and with deference to their own interpretation of lawful. Not too mention the 100% murky scope of requests and behests of government. I read that the wire is owned by Comcast. Its agents roam free and everything traversing that wire is monitored. 100%.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    If you're going to read the language non-sensically, why even bother to point to the text? Why not just make up whatever you want? The numbering and the "and" clearly mean that one of the two endpoints must be "Comcast and its agents." The language is there to allow them to record customer service calls because otherwise in some states that would be a violation of wiretap consent laws.
    - 9y ago

aesh2Xa1 9y ago

Add an always-on VPN tunnel to your router with the tunnel exit on someone else's (not Comcast) network.

PeterStuer 9y ago

Aren't all ISPs required to comply with lawful intercept regulation that includes data retention?