Forget Net Neutrality Laws; Just Strengthen Privacy Laws
from the interesting-idea dept
Here's an interesting idea from law professor Paul Ohm, suggesting that rather than focusing on net neutrality laws, if we just had stronger privacy laws, ISPs would be barred from doing any kind of deep packet inspection, since it would violate your privacy. This seems a lot more reasonable to me than focusing on new telco laws. While I support the principle of net neutrality, and believe it's important for the internet to thrive, I'm quite scared of any new telco regulations that hand more regulatory authority over the internet to a government agency. Plus, you know the legislation will create loopholes. But, more general privacy legislation could be much more interesting and could effectively guarantee net neutrality, without a special "net neutrality" law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: laws, net neutrality, paul ohm, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pull The Other One
When people make such a big noise about "privacy" and "freedom of speech", it always seems to be a thinly-veiled excuse to violate our precious copyrights and destroy legitimate, long-established business models. When will you realize that my powerful friends and I will never let you do that? Big Content is here to stay, and we own your ass, so get used to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would the ISP Would Still Know the Destination?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We donna need no stinkin laws
Laws are for the little people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How deep is deep?
So the sender, destination, port number, size, and so on could all be considered "public" information.
And deep inspection really isn't needed anyway. The primary reason to do deep inspection is to attempt to combat illegitimate P2P traffic, and that can be done without digging into the packet. Sending/recieving gigabytes of data to dozens, if not hundreds of destinations/sources in a short period of time is a pretty good "signature" that can't be disguised by encryption, nor does it need inspection.
For that matter, counting bytes is even simpler, and the basis for most of the recently announced bandwidth caps. Personally, I think they'd be better off placing much smaller caps on upstream traffic.
Doing so would have the least impact on most customers, while also not strangling newer technologies like "streaming" video and television. It would, however, have a major impact on P2P, which relies on "giving" more than you "get".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy Laws aren't bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like the idea too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]