This post is primarily motivated by this article. Basically, in an attempt to fight botnets, a US ISP is diverting traffic intended for suspected botnet addresses to "safe" addresses. So far, a noble goal? Except off course, if the suspected botnet address is actually a legitimate address - i.e. a false positive. This is when things get complicated, because customers get angry and companies loose business.
There is a ton of products out there that can be used by ISPs to control network traffic and block access to certain sites. Most of them work at the DNS level (which largely makes sense) by blocking out DNS entries; although others go the extra mile and block out reverse lookups also. Primarily the products cite controlling/blocking porn and phising as the primary motivation, but at an ISP level?
Should any network provider have any control over what the customer wants? Even if it is illegal? Even if it is against the customer's best interest? It is a tough legal question; but it all really revolves around who controls these lists? And can these lists be reviewed by the public?
In the battle for safety, giving the control over safe areas of the network to an ISP, while easier for the general public, is one step closer to Big Brother in many ways. What is the difference between this and the big China firewall? In both cases, if you can't see it - it doesn't exist! "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" ... it is equally applicable to virtual world as it is to the real world.
No comments:
Post a Comment