Quote:
Originally Posted by feesch
I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?
Isn't that how we will win?
|
Absolutely utterly and completely not. This must be stopped, and stopped completely.
We are talking here about the right to privacy, security, and integrity in data communication services.
ISPs have no business what so ever inspecting the content of those communications, particularly when those communications relate to services which they aren't even supplying (third party web sites).
There is no "acceptable line". ISPs are paid to provide a communication service. Mere conduits. End of story.
Think of it in terms of the Post Office. Should they be entitled to open my mail and insert ads if they think they can make money? No.
Data communications are no different.
I pay my ISP £24.99/mo to provide
30GB of peak traffic, 300GB off peak. They don't need to know what I send/receive or why. Its none of their business. The problem of cost only arises when customers are sold, and therefore expect, an 'unlimited' service.
If ISPs choose to sell an 'unlimited' service, then they only have themselves to blame for the consequences... not their customers. If "video is where the big money is" then the big money can fund its own network bandwidth.
But here's another thought too. How does an economy function if you can't guarantee the privacy, security, and integrity of communications?
The way it will function is by resorting to encryption, and suing for copyright infringement.
Where does that leave Phorm? It leaves Phorm with nothing to steal, and a business model that looks as rotten as a barrel of rotten apples.
ISPs have no right to access private communications, no right to corrupt communications traffic, and no right to steal copyright content.