3 ms·

This is a somewhat misguided article. Your ISP does not have access to most of your communication, social media usage and searches as that runs thru https. Th

by chvid 9y ago

This is a somewhat misguided article. Your ISP does not have access to most of your communication, social media usage and searches as that runs thru https. That is why Facebook and others is completely blocked in China. Had the national carriers been able to surveil and block select communication they would have been asked to do so by the government. Secondly an ISP charges you a subscription and that is their revenue model. They are not incentivised to build an elaborate profile on your in order to deliver advertisement. Thirdly ISPs in most countries are required by law to support the police with surveillance information. That is done in transparent way (you can read the laws and ask your politicians). This police support has always existed sinces the days of the tele monopolies. However now that more communication runs via internet, https and social media, it creates this strange inbalance where the police cannnot get the same access to Facebook (or similar) communication as they can to SMS or voice communication. Also Facebook provides different level of access to the NSA, the police in Denmark and the police in Myanmar. And do that in a non-transparent manner.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> Secondly an ISP charges you a subscription and that is their revenue model. They are not incentivised to build an elaborate profile on your in order to deliver advertisement. That's exactly the opposite of how corporations work. Especially corporations in monopoly/duopoly markets. In fact, US ISPs lobbied heavily for the right to do exactly that, without user permission, and got their way. > Thirdly ISPs in most countries are required by law to support the police with surveillance information. That is done in transparent way (you can read the laws and ask your politicians). But that's not what this is about.
kraig 9y ago
came here to say this, surprised i had to dig so far to find this view
fiatpandas 9y ago
>Secondly an ISP charges you a subscription and that is their revenue model. They are not incentivised to build an elaborate profile on your in order to deliver advertisement. Please, everyone, stop saying things like this. Just because you pay a company money for a service does not mean you magically have a perfectly balanced relationship with them. They are in a position of extreme power and will not stop caring about aggregating what you do in a machine readable format in fine detail, all the while doing so behind a veil of legalese opt-out style tactics. Beyond the lobbying for more relaxed data collection / monetization laws, ISPs have been fined in the past for injecting tracking cookies to keep better record of your browsing habits. They’ve been caught selling IP identification api’s. No, they don’t care about delivering advertising to you, they just want to broker your data to companies who will.
wepple 9y ago
> Your ISP does not have access to most of your communication, social media usage and searches as that runs thru https. Access to TLS certs is plenty enough to sell. You hit pornhub.com at 2AM, or expecting-parents.com at 9am, or foxnews.com at midday? Each tells a significant story. I dare you to take a month of time stamped DNS requests and share with the internet. > Secondly an ISP charges you a subscription and that is their revenue model. They are not incentivised to build an elaborate profile on your in order to deliver advertisement. Are you trying to claim that a for-profit enterprise who has an opportunity to increase revenues using their current business model will decide against it, because it might be a bit of work? Explain to me who was responsible for the law change allowing ISPs to sell customer data? It sure wasn’t the customers. > Thirdly ISPs in most countries are required by law to support the police with surveillance information. That is done in transparent way (you can read the laws and ask your politicians LEA access is not what this article was about.

by chvid 9y ago

throwawayjava 9y ago

> Secondly an ISP charges you a subscription and that is their revenue model. They are not incentivised to build an elaborate profile on your in order to deliver advertisement. That's exactly the opposite of how corporations work. Especially corporations in monopoly/duopoly markets. In fact, US ISPs lobbied heavily for the right to do exactly that, without user permission, and got their way. > Thirdly ISPs in most countries are required by law to support the police with surveillance information. That is done in transparent way (you can read the laws and ask your politicians). But that's not what this is about.

kraig 9y ago

came here to say this, surprised i had to dig so far to find this view

fiatpandas 9y ago

>Secondly an ISP charges you a subscription and that is their revenue model. They are not incentivised to build an elaborate profile on your in order to deliver advertisement. Please, everyone, stop saying things like this. Just because you pay a company money for a service does not mean you magically have a perfectly balanced relationship with them. They are in a position of extreme power and will not stop caring about aggregating what you do in a machine readable format in fine detail, all the while doing so behind a veil of legalese opt-out style tactics. Beyond the lobbying for more relaxed data collection / monetization laws, ISPs have been fined in the past for injecting tracking cookies to keep better record of your browsing habits. They’ve been caught selling IP identification api’s. No, they don’t care about delivering advertising to you, they just want to broker your data to companies who will.

wepple 9y ago

> Your ISP does not have access to most of your communication, social media usage and searches as that runs thru https. Access to TLS certs is plenty enough to sell. You hit pornhub.com at 2AM, or expecting-parents.com at 9am, or foxnews.com at midday? Each tells a significant story. I dare you to take a month of time stamped DNS requests and share with the internet. > Secondly an ISP charges you a subscription and that is their revenue model. They are not incentivised to build an elaborate profile on your in order to deliver advertisement. Are you trying to claim that a for-profit enterprise who has an opportunity to increase revenues using their current business model will decide against it, because it might be a bit of work? Explain to me who was responsible for the law change allowing ISPs to sell customer data? It sure wasn’t the customers. > Thirdly ISPs in most countries are required by law to support the police with surveillance information. That is done in transparent way (you can read the laws and ask your politicians LEA access is not what this article was about.