4 ms·
> I expect any sane network to do the same. Why? Sane networks shouldn't block anything. Even super dangerous stuff like ports 135-139 and 445 are a morally gr
by josephcsible 3y ago
> I expect any sane network to do the same.
Why? Sane networks shouldn't block anything. Even super dangerous stuff like ports 135-139 and 445 are a morally gray area.
> The idea of uninspectable client traffic is somewhat unhinged, and is already heavily used by malicious actors.
How is privacy unhinged? Isn't that basically the same as the argument that we need to gut the Fourth Amendment because of terrorists and pedophiles?
- 4death4 3y agoI don’t think morals factor in to the decision to allow / disallow traffic on a private network. That’s definitely morally neutral and to suggest otherwise is immoral.
- josephcsible 3y agoI didn't mean private networks. I meant the ISPs that do that.
- ocdtrekkie 3y agoISPs are also private networks, unless operated by a government entity. And I would absolutely uphold the same expectation from an ISP as an organizational or personal network.
- d-z-m 3y ago> And I would absolutely uphold the same expectation from an ISP as an organizational or personal network. No. ISPs provide internet service to customers who pay them for it. The entire situation is different. The ISPs are under no obligation to break and inspect encrypted traffic. Owners and operators of home and corporate networks have an entirely different(and justifiable) set of concerns.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago[flagged]
- josephcsible 3y agoBy that logic, wouldn't every ISP have a moral obligation to MITM all of their customers' traffic? Obviously that's wrong.
- ocdtrekkie 3y agoSNI monitoring is a reasonable compromise, and I think a healthy one: Your ISP doesn't need to deep inspect your traffic to Microsoft because it accepts that Microsoft is doing something reasonable with it. It allows delegating authority which at least gives a path for investigation or blocking if necessary without seeking an extreme amount of transient information. I would say if ECH is implemented the correct response would unfortunately be to MITM it if too many providers implement it to just block it entirely. I suspect large companies won't force it to maintain a wide customer base, and again, any reasonable network operator should just block anyone who does. ISPs absolutely have all sorts of regulatory needs and network performance reasons to classify traffic. It's an unpopular view, but it's reality. (And I would encourage you to investigate who pays the people telling you otherwise, before someone links Mike Masnick here.)
- catiopatio 3y ago> SNI monitoring is a reasonable compromise, and I think a healthy one No, it’s not. ISPs have no right to know who I am speaking to or why.
- ocdtrekkie 3y agoI mean you have no right to use their networks either. You generally agree to terms as a condition of use of said networks.
- 3y ago
- jmprspret 3y ago> Why? Sane networks shouldn't block anything. Huh? What? Ever had to administer a corporate network for non-tech staff? Malware is everywhere. People are stupid. AND my assumption on a corporate network has always been that you have no expectation of privacy - its a work network, don't use it for personal stuff! Pretty simple.
- josephcsible 3y agoIf it's really a corporate network, then the company will own the endpoints and can do the inspection there.
- 3np 3y agoNot meaningfully so with ECH, the whole point of this subthread.
- capitainenemo 3y agoCorporate networks often use MITM master certs that employee browsers must accept.
- josephcsible 3y agoECH only makes network-level monitoring harder. Monitoring on the endpoint is still just as easy.
- Aaargh20318 3y ago> my assumption on a corporate network has always been that you have no expectation of privacy That certainly isn’t true in the EU. You cannot spy on employees computers without a cause.