There's a really simple solution to this problem... Let the muni provide L1/L2 network, and make sure that your L3 usage is entirely run over encrypted channels between you and your (non-muni) L3 service provider.
At that point, sure, the muni can see that you sent a lot of packets full of gibberish back and forth to your ISP. And? Owen On Jan 29, 2013, at 08:46 , Rob McEwen <r...@invaluement.com> wrote: > On 1/29/2013 10:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >>> From: "Rob McEwen" <r...@invaluement.com> >>> (C) The fact that the Internet is a series of PRIVATE networks... NOT >>> owned/operated by the Feds... is a large reason why the 4th amendment >>> provides such protections... it becomes somewhat of a "firewall" of >>> protection against Federal gov't trampling of civil liberties... but >>> if they own the network, then that opens up many doors for them. >> Regular readers know that I'm really big on municipally owned fiber networks >> (at layer 1 or 2)... but I'm also a big constitutionalist (on the first, >> second, fourth, and fifth, particularly), and this is the first really good >> counter-argument I've seen, and it honestly hadn't occurred to me. >> >> Rob, anyone, does anyone know if any 4th amendment case law exists on muni- >> owned networks? > > Good question. Here is another thing to consider regarding SOME muni > network... (at least where private citizens/businesses subscribe to that > network) > > When any government entity desires log files from an ISP, and if that > ISP is very protective of their customer's privacy and civil liberties, > then the ISP typically ONLY complies with the request if there is a > proper court order, granted by a judge, after "probable cause" of some > kind of crime has been established, where they are not on a fishing > expedition. But, in contrast, if the city government owns the network, > it seems like a police detective contacting his fellow city employee in > the IT department could easily circumvent the civil liberties > protections. Moreover, there is an argument that the ISP being stingy > with such data causes them to be "heros" to the public, and they gain > DESIRED press and attention when they refuse to comply with such > requests without a court order. In contrast, the city's IT staff and the > police detective BOTH share the SAME boss's boss's boss. The IT guy > won't get a pat on the back for making life difficult for the police > department. He'll just silently lose his job eventually, or get passed > up for a promotion. The motivation will be on him to PLEASE his fellow > city employees, possibly at the expense of our civil liberties. > > PS - of course, no problems here if the quest to gain information > involves a muni network that is only used by city employees. > > PPS - then again, maybe my "log file example" doesn't apply to the > particular implementation that Jay described? Regardless, it DOES apply > to various government implementations of broadband service. > > -- > Rob McEwen > http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ > r...@invaluement.com > +1 (478) 475-9032 >
