It was more a plea to educate the list on why this matters vs. doom and gloom with a little more gloom and a little less Carmack. Instead I got more of the sky is falling.
Note that I don't intend to ever do this at my ISP, nor my IX. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patr...@ianai.net> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:12:15 PM Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal Mike: My guess is you do not. Which is -precisely- why the users (proletariat?) need to find a way to stop you. Hence laws & regulations. Later in this thread you said “we are done here”. Would that you were so lucky. -- TTFN, patrick > On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > Why am I supposed to care? > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rich Kulawiec" <r...@gsp.org> > To: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:45:25 PM > Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers > opposed to FCC privacy repeal > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:45:04PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: >> The claim oft presented by people favoring this customer abuse is that >> the sold data is anonymous. But it's been well-established that very >> simple data aggregation techniques can develop signatures that reveal >> the identity of people in anonymized data. > > This needs to be repeated loudly and often at every possible opportunity. > I've spent much of the past decade studying this issue and the most succinct > way I can put it is that however good you (generic "you") think > de-anonymization techniques are, you're wrong: they're way better than that. > Billions, and I am not exaggerating even a little bit, have been spent > on this problem, and they've been spent by smart people with essentially > unlimited computational resources. And whaddaya know, they've succeeded. > > So if someone presents you a data corpus and says "this data is anonymized", > the default response should be to mock them, because there is a very high > probability they're either (a) lying or (b) wrong. > > Incidentally, I'm also a signatory of the EFF document, since of course > with nearly 40 years in the field I'm a mere clueless newbie and despite > ripping them a new one about once every other month, I'm clearly a tool > of Google. > > ---rsk
