4 ms·

On the other hand, he's also calling for it to be classified under Title II. Unless Title II is modified, that would prohibit ISPs from deep packet inspection.

On the other hand, he's also calling for it to be classified under Title II. Unless Title II is modified, that would prohibit ISPs from deep packet inspection. It would also prohibit ISPs from modifying responses in situ - like inserting tracking beacons gifs into HTML responses or returning a custom search page (with associated ad revenue) when a DNS lookup fails. Edit: So, with the 'if the content is legal' clause, Obama was probably referring to refusal to carry / illegal purpose court decisions. This can be applied only in very, very limited circumstances. A couple court decisions that are relevant: * Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957); carrier suspected caller of using the telephone for illegal gambling transactions and terminated their service. Court ruled that service should be reinstated: the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility." * Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945); "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required." * People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965; "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands."

AndrewHampton 12y ago
I hope you're correct and deep packet inspection is prohibited. The language being used still concerns me though. > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. This implies that ISPs would be permitted to block illegal content. How can they know traffic is legal without some form of traffic monitoring/inspection?
- warfangle 12y ago
  Going from the court decisions, they would know that traffic is illegal if a court tells them it's illegal. Again, refer to People v. Brophy: the common carrier is not "authorized or required" to investigate. Probably meaning they can aid in investigation (e.g., supply information to police) but not perform an investigation (analyze said information themselves). In addition, Title II would probably put internet traffic on the same level as wiretaps in terms of (non-DHS) data snooping. If anything, it would give internet users more protection for this sort of thing than they are granted now.
  - cortesoft 12y ago
    If a court decides it is illegal, they would need to tell an ISP to block... what? An IP address? Or the content? If the former, we have issues because IP addresses are transient. If the latter, we have issues because that would require deep packet inspection.
    - joshAg 12y ago
      It would probably be a specific url. Or an entire domain for something like a site dedicated to illegal gambling. Though why they wouldn't just go after the website to take it down like they do currently eludes me.
      - warfangle 12y ago
        Pretty much. If it's hosted in the US, they'll take it down. If it's not, they'll do pretty much whatever they can ... which boils down to seizing the domain. Usually with the kinds of sites people are typically worried about USGOV taking down, they leave up ... and watch the traffic. It's like in The Wire - they don't want the criminal's site (cell phone) to go down when they're watching the connections it's making. Title II combined with the 2nd amendment actually prevents things like The Great Firewall :)
    - warfangle 12y ago
      And deep packet inspection is pretty easy to get around with some rudimentary encryption technologies.
- feld 12y ago
  Usenet is a common carrier service. However, they do make content inaccessible if there's a takedown request for copyright. But they don't filter anything that gets uploaded or block your downloads.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    i don't think usenet is a common carrier service. if it were, it would be illegal to block or prohibit access to it... and currently a lot of ISP's explicitly block access to usenet.
    - cortesoft 12y ago
      Do they actually block it? I thought the issue was that ISPs stopped hosting usenet servers for their users. You can still access usenet hosted somewhere else.
    - feld 12y ago
      I've never seen an ISP block usenet. I've seen ISPs stop hosting their own free Usenet servers, but that's not blocking Usenet. I'm searching for an adequate source for this information but I'm failing to find anything to stand on its own. It's definitely been treated like common carrier for many years, but as for an official classification... I'm struggling to find one.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
vegedor 12y ago
>public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals Well of course they are, to a limited degree. They are not the sole carrier - I sometimes find it hard to express or notice the plural distinction - of moral, but neither is the justice system, although it likes to paint itself that way. As can be shown: lt. moralis: proper behavior of a person in society They have to decide a proper course of action for themselves. It would just be nice if it was in accordance with the censorship of the law. OTOH, i find the result proper. >nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands Clearly not authorized, but morally, they might be required to regulate, therefore to investigate, if possible without violating privacy rights, which with automation can be ensured to a degree. Even if warranted by a judge, or done by the police, it meant massive overhead for the providers, too. So it would be nice if we can go on without all that hassle. Maybe it would require relaxing some laws, that require those investigations; Or moving on as society, as calling on moral draws in a bag of huge implications. What if crack junkies buying crack on silkroad steal copper cables from the grid? The Telcos are indirectly affected by that, when the users get unsatisfied and directly they have to pay for replacement. The users are directly affected and responsible, so in first degree it's their responsibility. (not as implied, the court's or w/e).

AndrewHampton 12y ago

I hope you're correct and deep packet inspection is prohibited. The language being used still concerns me though. > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. This implies that ISPs would be permitted to block illegal content. How can they know traffic is legal without some form of traffic monitoring/inspection?

warfangle 12y ago
Going from the court decisions, they would know that traffic is illegal if a court tells them it's illegal. Again, refer to People v. Brophy: the common carrier is not "authorized or required" to investigate. Probably meaning they can aid in investigation (e.g., supply information to police) but not perform an investigation (analyze said information themselves). In addition, Title II would probably put internet traffic on the same level as wiretaps in terms of (non-DHS) data snooping. If anything, it would give internet users more protection for this sort of thing than they are granted now.
- cortesoft 12y ago
  If a court decides it is illegal, they would need to tell an ISP to block... what? An IP address? Or the content? If the former, we have issues because IP addresses are transient. If the latter, we have issues because that would require deep packet inspection.
  - joshAg 12y ago
    It would probably be a specific url. Or an entire domain for something like a site dedicated to illegal gambling. Though why they wouldn't just go after the website to take it down like they do currently eludes me.
    - warfangle 12y ago
      Pretty much. If it's hosted in the US, they'll take it down. If it's not, they'll do pretty much whatever they can ... which boils down to seizing the domain. Usually with the kinds of sites people are typically worried about USGOV taking down, they leave up ... and watch the traffic. It's like in The Wire - they don't want the criminal's site (cell phone) to go down when they're watching the connections it's making. Title II combined with the 2nd amendment actually prevents things like The Great Firewall :)
  - warfangle 12y ago
    And deep packet inspection is pretty easy to get around with some rudimentary encryption technologies.
feld 12y ago
Usenet is a common carrier service. However, they do make content inaccessible if there's a takedown request for copyright. But they don't filter anything that gets uploaded or block your downloads.
- Alupis 12y ago
  i don't think usenet is a common carrier service. if it were, it would be illegal to block or prohibit access to it... and currently a lot of ISP's explicitly block access to usenet.
  - cortesoft 12y ago
    Do they actually block it? I thought the issue was that ISPs stopped hosting usenet servers for their users. You can still access usenet hosted somewhere else.
  - feld 12y ago
    I've never seen an ISP block usenet. I've seen ISPs stop hosting their own free Usenet servers, but that's not blocking Usenet. I'm searching for an adequate source for this information but I'm failing to find anything to stand on its own. It's definitely been treated like common carrier for many years, but as for an official classification... I'm struggling to find one.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

vegedor 12y ago

>public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals Well of course they are, to a limited degree. They are not the sole carrier - I sometimes find it hard to express or notice the plural distinction - of moral, but neither is the justice system, although it likes to paint itself that way. As can be shown: lt. moralis: proper behavior of a person in society They have to decide a proper course of action for themselves. It would just be nice if it was in accordance with the censorship of the law. OTOH, i find the result proper. >nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands Clearly not authorized, but morally, they might be required to regulate, therefore to investigate, if possible without violating privacy rights, which with automation can be ensured to a degree. Even if warranted by a judge, or done by the police, it meant massive overhead for the providers, too. So it would be nice if we can go on without all that hassle. Maybe it would require relaxing some laws, that require those investigations; Or moving on as society, as calling on moral draws in a bag of huge implications. What if crack junkies buying crack on silkroad steal copper cables from the grid? The Telcos are indirectly affected by that, when the users get unsatisfied and directly they have to pay for replacement. The users are directly affected and responsible, so in first degree it's their responsibility. (not as implied, the court's or w/e).