4 ms·

Can we please lump the data leaks of Equifax and the like in with the need for these new laws that shift user data from something companies are mining to someth

Can we please lump the data leaks of Equifax and the like in with the need for these new laws that shift user data from something companies are mining to something they are protecting and disclosing?

lithos 9y ago
ISPs are planning to get into the data game. They aim to have laws that limit SV type startups, rather than increase their future liability.
- 908087 9y ago
  ISPs are going to have a hard time competing with the data gathered by Google Analytics and similar services given the accelerating push towards most sites being encrypted. If DNS encryption becomes more prevalent (edit: and users start taking advantage of privacy-conscious DNS providers outside of the control of their ISPs), they'll have an even harder time still. <User> connected to <IP> and transferred <this much data> at <date/time> just isn't that valuable compared to the highly detailed usage and interaction data gathered by GA and similar services. Even if you ignore the DNS point and add "<User> looked up <hostname>" to the above, it still doesn't come close to what GA/etc are able to collect. Edit: Why the downvotes? Isn't this supposed to be a site full of technically skilled people (many of whom work in "ad tech") who should know that what I said is accurate? Would any of the downvoters care to explain themselves instead of using downvotes as an "I don't like this post" button? This site is starting to feel more and more like Reddit.
  - testvox 9y ago
    Because it doesn't make sense. Why would they ISPs care that you are encrypting your dns requests in transit? The vast majority of people still use whatever DNS servers their ISPs tell them to use. So the ISP controls the other side of the encrypted communication, making the encryption useless for preventing them from reading it.
    - 908087 9y ago
      I specifically said "If DNS encryption becomes more prevalent". Obviously this point becomes null if the user is using the ISP's own DNS servers. I guess I should have said, "If DNS encryption becomes more prevalent and users start taking advantage of privacy-conscious third party DNS providers". You've also chosen one very specific part of my post and used it to attempt to claim the entire post doesn't make sense. What about the rest? Even if you ignore the entire DNS-related portion of my post, there's no way you can claim that ISPs are able to access anywhere near as much data as GA/etc when users are mostly accessing encrypted sites.
- mortenjorck 9y ago
  The only good outcome will be for this to backfire spectacularly with privacy protections that limit ISPs just as much as the tech companies. The ISPs are already playing a dangerous game. Unlike their buddies at the FCC, congress is elected, and with enough popular pressure (and midterms coming up), they can be persuaded to do the right thing.
  - aerotwelve 9y ago
    Particularly since the perceptions of the telecom industry are not exactly positive as a whole. It's worth raising a question -- do the executives at AT&T/Comcast/Mediacom/Verizon really think that the public is on their side?

Can we please lump the data leaks of Equifax and the like in with the need for these new laws that shift user data from something companies are mining to something they are protecting and disclosing?

lithos 9y ago

ISPs are planning to get into the data game. They aim to have laws that limit SV type startups, rather than increase their future liability.

908087 9y ago
ISPs are going to have a hard time competing with the data gathered by Google Analytics and similar services given the accelerating push towards most sites being encrypted. If DNS encryption becomes more prevalent (edit: and users start taking advantage of privacy-conscious DNS providers outside of the control of their ISPs), they'll have an even harder time still. <User> connected to <IP> and transferred <this much data> at <date/time> just isn't that valuable compared to the highly detailed usage and interaction data gathered by GA and similar services. Even if you ignore the DNS point and add "<User> looked up <hostname>" to the above, it still doesn't come close to what GA/etc are able to collect. Edit: Why the downvotes? Isn't this supposed to be a site full of technically skilled people (many of whom work in "ad tech") who should know that what I said is accurate? Would any of the downvoters care to explain themselves instead of using downvotes as an "I don't like this post" button? This site is starting to feel more and more like Reddit.
- testvox 9y ago
  Because it doesn't make sense. Why would they ISPs care that you are encrypting your dns requests in transit? The vast majority of people still use whatever DNS servers their ISPs tell them to use. So the ISP controls the other side of the encrypted communication, making the encryption useless for preventing them from reading it.
  - 908087 9y ago
    I specifically said "If DNS encryption becomes more prevalent". Obviously this point becomes null if the user is using the ISP's own DNS servers. I guess I should have said, "If DNS encryption becomes more prevalent and users start taking advantage of privacy-conscious third party DNS providers". You've also chosen one very specific part of my post and used it to attempt to claim the entire post doesn't make sense. What about the rest? Even if you ignore the entire DNS-related portion of my post, there's no way you can claim that ISPs are able to access anywhere near as much data as GA/etc when users are mostly accessing encrypted sites.
mortenjorck 9y ago
The only good outcome will be for this to backfire spectacularly with privacy protections that limit ISPs just as much as the tech companies. The ISPs are already playing a dangerous game. Unlike their buddies at the FCC, congress is elected, and with enough popular pressure (and midterms coming up), they can be persuaded to do the right thing.
- aerotwelve 9y ago
  Particularly since the perceptions of the telecom industry are not exactly positive as a whole. It's worth raising a question -- do the executives at AT&T/Comcast/Mediacom/Verizon really think that the public is on their side?