4 ms·

It's a pretty massive stretch to go from "ISPs are permitted to block illegal traffic" to "ISPs are required to perform deep-packet inspection to ensure the leg

It's a pretty massive stretch to go from "ISPs are permitted to block illegal traffic" to "ISPs are required to perform deep-packet inspection to ensure the legality of all traffic they carry".

AndrewHampton 12y ago
It is. It's just a concern I have since similar language seems to be everywhere, which makes me think including it is intentional.
- jstalin 12y ago
  You're right to be concerned. If they keep using the same language in these sorts of statements, you better believe it's for a reason. Look for any legislation or regulation to implement such language.
bushido 12y ago
Those two statements from a legal (writing) perspective are mutually exclusive, sort of. One is a Right and the other is a law. But both need to exist is some form to make the other possible. Also, they both require the same technology to be automated and possible. The main constraint for the latter is computational power.
- richardwhiuk 12y ago
  No they aren't. There is a difference between being required to do something by law, and being allowed to do something by law.
  - bushido 12y ago
    I agree they are different and stated that as such. Yet that regulation cannot exist without this Right. And the regulation is required to limit the abuse this Right can bestow on users. This is a tricky one, because the right and the law are both mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive.
dguaraglia 12y ago
On the other hand, just think about it: now you have the wedge in, there'll be a massive lobby (Hollywood, recording companies, 'big media' if you will) trying to use that wedge to push stronger legislation in. In fact, the government itself (NSA, FBI) will think 'hey, now that we have this, we might as well use it to Protect Our Children (tm)'. On the other hand, besides the ACLU and maybe a few people organizing over the internet, there will be no money spent in lobbying to tighten up definitions and improve privacy. So there, it's a 'pretty massive stretch' but by no means it's an unexpected thing.
- randomfool 12y ago
  SSL everything.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    You mean: "TLS Everything" ;-P
  - smsm42 12y ago
    Unless, of course, direct encrypted communication is prohibited. Because, you know, Internet is a public utility now, and if you are using public thing, you should abide by public's rules. Like connecting to SSL sites only using approved ISP SSL proxies that allow lawful intercept. After all, you accept that to drive on public roads you need a license. So, to browse on public internet, you need to follow the rules too. And the rules say law enforcement should be able to see what you are transmitting - given properly signed court order, of course - so that means you can not use non-interceptable encryption. See how this logic works?
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      I think that this creates both first and fourth amendment issues.
      - smsm42 12y ago
        I don't see 1st amendment issues if this is content-neutral (I don't think the Supreme Court would consider the choice of encryption scheme being speech by itself and thus protected expression) towards underlying data. As for 4th amendment, right now I think the prevailing position is that ability to collect data is not search until the data is actually collected, so providing capability for lawful intercept would not be considered 4th amendment problem. I don't like it too much, but that seems to be the state of affairs now.
emcrazyone 12y ago
Agree. ISP owner here. Not all web sites or IP addresses contain 100% illegal material. Virtual hosting (hosting more than one web site from same IP address) poses problems as does content among sub-domains. I don't have the resources to monitor and track such things and if I were forced into it, I would either go out of business or try to become a search engine.
- aragot 12y ago
  I don't see why the good old model of "Someone deposits a complaint against a website at a police station, then the server/website is investigated upon, then the fine is raised against the renter/owner of the server" isn't enough.
- arthurcolle 12y ago
  I've actually wondered how do you go about providing access to internet? I write a lot of code and spent a good amount of time on the internet and it's always made me wonder how exactly one goes about providing internet to customers. Really curious for any resources to read about this if you have any resources to read or just your personal experience!
  - macns 12y ago
    I don't think internet is what he provides, as an ISP (Internet services provider). He mentioned virtual hosting, so he's probably offering webhosting services.
  - corobo 12y ago
    Basically it's a reselling system no matter which way you go. You buy access into a bigger ISP's network and then provide services on top of it. If you've got a huge wallet you could run your own physical infrastructure but it would be hugely expensive for anything more than a small userbase [1]. If you went that way you'd make peering agreements with your closest internet backbone providers to hook into the rest of the internet (backbone providers being even bigger ISPs than those mentioned earlier, the ISP's ISP if you like) [1] It has been done in the past: http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/how-to-start-your-own-isp-699959 http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/how-to-start-your-own...

It's a pretty massive stretch to go from "ISPs are permitted to block illegal traffic" to "ISPs are required to perform deep-packet inspection to ensure the legality of all traffic they carry".

AndrewHampton 12y ago

It is. It's just a concern I have since similar language seems to be everywhere, which makes me think including it is intentional.

jstalin 12y ago
You're right to be concerned. If they keep using the same language in these sorts of statements, you better believe it's for a reason. Look for any legislation or regulation to implement such language.

bushido 12y ago

Those two statements from a legal (writing) perspective are mutually exclusive, sort of. One is a Right and the other is a law. But both need to exist is some form to make the other possible. Also, they both require the same technology to be automated and possible. The main constraint for the latter is computational power.

richardwhiuk 12y ago
No they aren't. There is a difference between being required to do something by law, and being allowed to do something by law.
- bushido 12y ago
  I agree they are different and stated that as such. Yet that regulation cannot exist without this Right. And the regulation is required to limit the abuse this Right can bestow on users. This is a tricky one, because the right and the law are both mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive.

dguaraglia 12y ago

On the other hand, just think about it: now you have the wedge in, there'll be a massive lobby (Hollywood, recording companies, 'big media' if you will) trying to use that wedge to push stronger legislation in. In fact, the government itself (NSA, FBI) will think 'hey, now that we have this, we might as well use it to Protect Our Children (tm)'. On the other hand, besides the ACLU and maybe a few people organizing over the internet, there will be no money spent in lobbying to tighten up definitions and improve privacy. So there, it's a 'pretty massive stretch' but by no means it's an unexpected thing.

randomfool 12y ago
SSL everything.
- Alupis 12y ago
  You mean: "TLS Everything" ;-P
- smsm42 12y ago
  Unless, of course, direct encrypted communication is prohibited. Because, you know, Internet is a public utility now, and if you are using public thing, you should abide by public's rules. Like connecting to SSL sites only using approved ISP SSL proxies that allow lawful intercept. After all, you accept that to drive on public roads you need a license. So, to browse on public internet, you need to follow the rules too. And the rules say law enforcement should be able to see what you are transmitting - given properly signed court order, of course - so that means you can not use non-interceptable encryption. See how this logic works?
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    I think that this creates both first and fourth amendment issues.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      I don't see 1st amendment issues if this is content-neutral (I don't think the Supreme Court would consider the choice of encryption scheme being speech by itself and thus protected expression) towards underlying data. As for 4th amendment, right now I think the prevailing position is that ability to collect data is not search until the data is actually collected, so providing capability for lawful intercept would not be considered 4th amendment problem. I don't like it too much, but that seems to be the state of affairs now.

emcrazyone 12y ago

Agree. ISP owner here. Not all web sites or IP addresses contain 100% illegal material. Virtual hosting (hosting more than one web site from same IP address) poses problems as does content among sub-domains. I don't have the resources to monitor and track such things and if I were forced into it, I would either go out of business or try to become a search engine.

aragot 12y ago
I don't see why the good old model of "Someone deposits a complaint against a website at a police station, then the server/website is investigated upon, then the fine is raised against the renter/owner of the server" isn't enough.
arthurcolle 12y ago
I've actually wondered how do you go about providing access to internet? I write a lot of code and spent a good amount of time on the internet and it's always made me wonder how exactly one goes about providing internet to customers. Really curious for any resources to read about this if you have any resources to read or just your personal experience!
- macns 12y ago
  I don't think internet is what he provides, as an ISP (Internet services provider). He mentioned virtual hosting, so he's probably offering webhosting services.
- corobo 12y ago
  Basically it's a reselling system no matter which way you go. You buy access into a bigger ISP's network and then provide services on top of it. If you've got a huge wallet you could run your own physical infrastructure but it would be hugely expensive for anything more than a small userbase [1]. If you went that way you'd make peering agreements with your closest internet backbone providers to hook into the rest of the internet (backbone providers being even bigger ISPs than those mentioned earlier, the ISP's ISP if you like) [1] It has been done in the past: http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/how-to-start-your-own-isp-699959 http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/how-to-start-your-own...