Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter N
If Phorm's system adds, say, a 1% overhead, you then have to factor in all of the other points in the chain where such inspections can take place. Every picture hosted off-site could involve another scan and so it goes on. In a very short time span the internet would end up with 1% useful traffic and 99% interception which will leave the ISPs having to purchase far greater bandwidth than at present. The very systems that the ISPs believe will make them money will cost them many more times as much as they make from a few adverts or they will be forced to raise their charges to the end-users.
The authorities are looking at the situation in terms of one interception per data request. That's not how it will happen and the internet will be massively overloaded within months unless action is taken to keep the internet open and free from any unnecessary interceptions.
|
'Network
Parasite Neutrality' as illustrated on parasitestxt.org;
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]
---------- Post added at 09:14 ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones
As people here will be aware, I'm always interested in what ISNT said, and what questions ARENT answered.
...
Now - anyone got any fairly simple legal or other technical questions of the sort that could be asked of BT (or VM or TalkTalk when it is their turn), and which they might not yet have answers to?
The sort of question I'm after is the sort that might make the BT "lawyer" or exec say "oh ***** we didn't think of that!" - or "oh ****** - we hoped no one would notice that!" - and cause a further delay.
Any thoughts anyone, and I'll compile a list.
|
So many its hard to know where to begin. Fundamentally, the question I'd like them to answer is "Are you insane? Have you completely lost your minds?".
Bearing in mind I think Phorm should be stopped on ethical/civil liberties/human rights/freedom of speech grounds... I'm not particularly interested in debating the tech detail with BT. There are much bigger issues at stake here than resolving tech trivia.
If you were willing to debate with BT however, examples of questions they will not address;
"What was the customer research that convinced you customers want this service?"
"Do you think eCommerce business will welcome the interception of their private, unencrypted communication data?"
"How do you propose to obtain consent for interception from 108 million web sites?"
"How do you propose to obtain copyright licences from 108 million web sites?"
"What are the black lists of web sites? White lists of user agents? How will customers be able to see them before making an 'informed decision' to opt in?"
"What are the demographic characteristics you will use to categorize customers, what are the 'channels', how can customers view this data to make an 'informed decision' to opt in?"
"How will you anonymise ambiguous text such as 'Kent is in the south east of England', or 'send me an IM, Dephormation99', or foreign language text such as 'Bei der Laterne wollen wir steh'n Wie einst Lili Marleen', and how about this '張九齡 感遇四首之一'?" (with apologies to people without Chinese language support installed).
"How will you account for the presence of cookies on sites which did not set cookies, and undertake never to do so?"
"How will you comply with DPA section 11 notices?" (
get yours here)
"If my privacy/security is breached, what level compensation will you pay me?"
"Why can't I have a phishing filter without being subjected to profiling? It works for child abuse, why not phishing too?"
Honestly, its such a ridiculous unethical stupid idea, I could probably go on for hours. I'll stop here. If its not enough, just ask
