[IP] more on Verizon "Broadband Router" the perfect Trojan Horse
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 29, 2006 8:41:12 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "'David P. Reed'" <dpreed@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Verizon "Broadband Router" the perfect
Trojan Horse
Ideally NN is really an expression of basic antitrust principles. The
problem is that the current Regulatorium has companies fund our
common infrastructure by selling services. Were this an effective
marketplace this wouldn’t be an issue because we wouldn’t have
gatekeepers.
I see NN as a principle rather than as something that can be
legislated. Ideally the FTC should be able to apply antitrust
principles but the FCC is, in a sense, an anti-enforcer. The fact
that the carriers control how we communicate or speech makes it also
a free speech issue but we can put the emphasis on the antitrust
principles.
This is why I keep arguing for infrastructure as the framing model –
trying to legislate corporations’ internal behavior is impossible
because the nature of the business is implicit in every decision. But
NN is useful to emphasize that the carriers have a responsibility as
long as they are given such control over our infrastructure.
The good news, as David notes, many of the worst excesses won’t for
other reasons.
But … there is a big exception … the entire cellular industry started
out smart software that has become smarter. They have control and, as
I point out in http://www.frankston.com/?name=AssuringScarcity their
fear is that they may lose their control once people realize they
don’t need a gatekeeper in order to communicate. NN works best
preventing new excesses than correcting old ones.
NN is a basically a parent saying “No No” to children who need to
learn that the universe doesn’t revolve around them.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 19:45
To: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IP] more on Verizon “Broadband Router” the perfect Trojan
Horse
and if some company finds a good use for the capability, under a NN
law, who will decide if it violates the law—the FCC/FTC?
A wise company will not offer any capability that could be mis-used
even if just someone just thinks of the possility.
Dave
Begin forwarded message:
From: “David P. Reed” <dpreed@xxxxxxxx>
Date: June 29, 2006 6:22:35 PM EDT
To: “David P. Reed” <dpreed@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dewayne-Net Technology List
<dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Verizon “Broadband Router” the perfect Trojan
Horse
Some of the reaction to my earlier note suggests that people thought
I had discovered Verizon actually doing something bad. I did not
mean in any way to imply that, so I hope if you have forwarded my
earlier note you will pass on this clarification.
My comment was based on studying the TR-069 standard, *in the context
of the current “Net Neutrality” debate* in which both I and Verizon
are involved, and noting that it is possible to exploit the features
of that standard to redirect traffic and monitor traffic under the
control of the access provider.
I do not mean that the router itself is a bad product, or that it
has no good purpose. I also am not accusing Verizon of actually
doing those things that I worry about - I have no such evidence.
But the possibility is real, and we have no assurances from Verizon
or other providers that they will not exploit those possibilities.
(In fact, many in the Net Neutrality debate who claim to be acting
for the Bells seem to be arguing that it will be necessary and
appropriate for Verizon to do so.)
I would hope that Verizon would make a clear policy statement about
what it will do to make sure that such features are not used
inappropriately.
It is surely a good thing for router equipment to provide facilities
for remote diagnosis and maintenence. When communications
equipment is concerned, such tools need to be used with care,
however. The data being carried is sensitive and personal, and is
NOT the property of the carrier of the data. It may not even be
the case that the user has the right to disclose the data in
question (as is the case in HIPAA and European data protection
regimes).
Thus features that redirect, block, and otherwise interfere with
communications must be used carefully, with clear authorization from
all concerned parties, and (here it is my opinion only) with
recognition that the the users’ communications belong to the users
and their counterparties, not the operator of the communications system.
You are subscribed as BobIP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/