Hacker News Reader

Comment by mschuster91 | Hacker News Reader

Are you f..ing kidding me? If I pay for Internet access, I demand best-effort of the provider to transfer the data packets unmodified (except, for IPv4, NAT usage), shortest way, to the target IP address.

I do not pay and then want to get tracked so that the provider or some other dickheads can data-mine me and make even more money. If I want this, I can choose a free plan (e.g. unlimited 3G, but with tracking).

About time everyone switches over to HTTPS with HSTS (so that no provider can perform a SSL MITM attack using its own trusted certs).

View on HN

I continue to be baffled at this. It seems like we are just all ok with a communications provider manipulating data?

I was expecting the feds to bust their doors in. This is US Postal opening every package and rewrapping it to insert advertisements.

> This is US Postal opening every package and rewrapping it to insert advertisements.

No, because ISPs aren't common carriers. It's a pretty common political position (among those who care) that ISPs should be common carriers.

Frankly, I'm glad that Verizon is doing this, as it weakens their ability to argue that Title II net neutrality isn't necessary because no one is currently messing with traffic. Even better that they're doing it with their wireless network, since, as I understand it, they were given a bit more rope with which to hang themselves in the wireless ISP space.

excellent point.

Right. You know why people so want carriers to be regulated under Title II instead of the 'hybrid' approach?

Because Title II would put an end to all this shit.

That's exactly the problem. Having worked in telecom/voip space, it always baffled me how an ISP isn't a common carrier.

The common carrier designation solves an entire slew of problems that were previously experienced with other technologies as well. It addresses privacy, liability for what you are delivering, etc.

To hear the Cisco CEO tell it, placing the ISPs under Title II will take us back to 1950's voice and undermine innovation.

>liability for what you are delivering

While I fear further regulation may introduce unforeseen consequences or inhibit innovation, I also fear doing nothing is proving to have problems as well. Regulations need to be written by people with the knowledge to be very precise about how things are done; we don't want mandatory ISP deep packet inspection (I already get letters from my cable company about HBO torrents that I download).

Not sure that's accurate. From something posted on Cisco's website: "Apart from payment for the service, the carrier is absolved from liability regarding the content of the messages, and from the actions of the customers of the service. This form of social contract is the basis for the status of a common carrier."

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/i...

Effectively, common carriers are protected from liability unless they know that what they carry is not legal.

    <comment class="devils-advocate">

Given that logic, wouldn't it mean that an ISP is basically obligated to block traffic to, say, the pirate bay when they become aware of it?

Actually, no. First, there is some legit content on TPB. Secondly, however (and more importantly, in this context), for an ISP to block content in one illegal case implies (in a legal sense, rather than a technical one) the ability to block it in all such cases, which then exposes them to liability for the illegal content they didn't block.

Effectively, the only sustainable way to maintain common carrier status is to maintain a deliberate ignorance of the legality — or lack thereof — of any traffic they might carry.

Sadly the USPS stuffs your mailbox with advertisements now too. There is no opt out and they've actively discontinued working with third party services that would filter your mail for you.

By mail volume the USPS is basically a government subsidized advertising delivery service these days.

"stuffing mailbox with ads" is not in the same league as "opening packages destined to you and inserting ads"

Doesn't the advertising subsidize the rest of the business? And as I recall they receive no government money.

It doesn't subsidize it, such data "products" are a new revenue source for the ISPs. While I don't think it's wrong for them to want to make more money, it is wrong to alter a paid service and go directly against the best interests of their customers.

Er, we're talking about the postal service.

My bad, in this case I agree somewhat. Though it helps fund USPS, I'd rather see USPS be a true public service and be funded by taxes and not funky arrangements with spammers.

or, they should be funded by charging the customers of their service with a price that is profitable.

I can see that. I don't have much of an opinion on the ideal arrangement for USPS myself, although I do think it works fairly well at the moment and maybe we should leave well enough alone in that case. But really I just wanted to set the record straight in terms of what's actually subsidizing what.

I'm not okay with it, but still use Verizon for broadband. I basically have no other choice.

This is why, despite being a big fan of NN, I wonder if it's going to be enough. We need more competition in markets, so when ISPs do chickenfuckery such as this, we can all vote with our feet.

Yep it's time to just stop using plain HTTP. Unfortunately I think that the number of people who care enough about this to suffer the pain are not enough to change ISP behavior.

The people who care enough will begin to use VPNs anyway. A pity that enabling VPN on mobile equals massive battery drain :'(

And breaks custom HOSTS configurations.

Nobody has agreed to send your traffic the 'shortest way' to the target IP address (despite your demand). They routinely send it whichever way is cheapest for themselves, which leads to hot-potato routing among other things.

Does IE even support HSTS?

It's planned for IE 12.

https://status.modern.ie/httpstricttransportsecurityhsts?ter...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com