On 2010-10-29 14:45, Thomas Mangin wrote: > /me pass on the debate of what is acceptable as content inspect to protect > the innocent.
It is indeed a huge discussion, but the main point is that not providing transparency that it is happening, not notifying users of such a change and not providing an easy documented way to get it turned off is a really bad thing. And as obviously people who enforce the law require a judge to sign off on doing a tap, which this is also in a way just not a full one, one has to question if this ISP is thus standing above the law.... next to of course wondering what else they are doing with your traffic & data. >> - That the ISP is not doing content modification >> (eg there are ISPs who attempted to change Google Ads with their >> own! Although I have not heard about this yet for Switzerland) > > Why do you think google is pushing for opportunistic encryption on the > broswer. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscated_TCP > http://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/01/26/sts.html I am fully aware why, that is why I mentioned the example ;) Current partial solution: https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere Greets, Jeroen _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
