OPINION: To the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009, add work in the House on a privacy act that could end up banning security functions by ISPs. Government regulation at its best is coming to the Internet.
The early life of the Internet has, perhaps, suffered from an excess of
libertarian impulse, even from those who don't think of themselves as
libertarians. Fear that the government would impede freedom of individuals on
the Internet has led to opposition to just about any opening for law
enforcement on it. Now the pendulum has swung and we're heading 180 degrees in
the opposite direction. The new Democratic Congress seems determined to bring
regulation to every part of the Internet it can find.
First we had the Cybersecurity
Act of 2009, under consideration in the Senate, which envisions a vast
expansion of federal, and specifically White House, authority over the security
of large parts of the Internet and those who engage in the business of security
on it. Now we have Rep. Rick
Boucher and his Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet
considering privacy on the Internet and making noises about restricting the
use of DPI (Deep Packet Inspection).
Security people will recognize DPI as a very broadly applicable technique.
In the most general sense, it means examining the data contents of a packet
without being the intended recipient of that packet. If you read the news
reports (like the one I linked to above), you get the impression that this is
about new forms of targeted advertising in which ISPs use DPI to learn about
the interests of subscribers; the example everyone uses is that you figure out someone
is a dog owner and so you show that person ads for dog food. Sounds innocuous,
even helpful, no? But some are creeped out by the possibility, and it's not
hard to see why. If they can figure out I have a dog, what else can they figure
out about me?
There's a lot more to DPI, of course, such as spam filtering: You can't do
contextual analysis such as Bayesian analysis of spam without looking at the
contents of packets. You can't do malware scanning without looking at the
contents of packets. You can't do certain intrusion detection and prevention
functions without doing the same. In other words, unless we disagree on the
benefit of such functions, you can't do many security operations purely for the
benefit of the consumer without doing DPI.
But that's not what it's about, you're saying, it's about the advertising
stuff, right? Not according to Leslie Harris, president and CEO
of the Center for Democracy and Technology,
who testified before the subcommittee April 23. Harris'
prepared remarks (PDF) state:
It is important to stress at the outset that all
applications of DPI raise serious privacy concerns because all applications of
DPI begin with the interception and analysis of Internet traffic. Policymakers
must carefully consider each use of DPI and balance the perceived benefit of its
use against the risks to privacy and civil liberties, as well as to the
Internet's character as an open platform. CDT
believes that only rare uses of DPI will be acceptable after such a balancing.
Today, DPI applications include management of network congestion, detection of
network threats, content blocking for intellectual property protection and
child safety, behavioral advertising, and government surveillance.
Harris reminds me, DPI is also useful for prioritizing data that
is time or latency-sensitive. This is, at least arguably, for the benefit of
the user. The CDT pays brief lip service to
network maintenance and security, but clear sees that as a secondary concern.
The CDT even objects to content filtering that customers might want to protect
Larry Seltzer has been writing software for and English about computers ever since,much to his own amazement,he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1983.
He was one of the authors of NPL and NPL-R, fourth-generation languages for microcomputers by the now-defunct DeskTop Software Corporation. (Larry is sad to find absolutely no hits on any of these +products on Google.) His work at Desktop Software included programming the UCSD p-System, a virtual machine-based operating system with portable binaries that pre-dated Java by more than 10 years.
For several years, he wrote corporate software for Mathematica Policy Research (they're still in business!) and Chase Econometrics (not so lucky) before being forcibly thrown into the consulting market. He bummed around the Philadelphia consulting and contract-programming scenes for a year or two before taking a job at NSTL (National Software Testing Labs) developing product tests and managing contract testing for the computer industry, governments and publication.
In 1991 Larry moved to Massachusetts to become Technical Director of PC Week Labs (now eWeek Labs). He moved within Ziff Davis to New York in 1994 to run testing at Windows Sources. In 1995, he became Technical Director for Internet product testing at PC Magazine and stayed there till 1998.
Since then, he has been writing for numerous other publications, including Fortune Small Business, Windows 2000 Magazine (now Windows and .NET Magazine), ZDNet and Sam Whitmore's Media Survey.