Bell Canada’s use of deep packet inspection triggers complaint over privacy
Bell Canada's use of deep packet inspection (DPI) technologies has resulted in a complaint raised over the potential invasion of privacy. The complaint was filed by the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) with Canada's Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart.
Bell asserts that it looks only at packet headers and does not actually peek into the contents, citing that "the content itself is not actually reviewed, analyzed or stored." The CIPPIC, on the other hand, contends that even IP addresses are personal information as they can be used to track visited websites, or be linked to particular search engine queries.
Indeed, current DPI appliances are sophisticated enough to reconstitute IM conversations, as well as peek at the contents of unencrypted data packets. Overall though, the issue here is less about IP addresses and more about privacy.
For more on deep packet inspection:
- check out this Ars Technica article
Comments (1) | Post a comment Rate it:
Comments
By Devil's Advocate | Posted 2:19pm | May 13, 2008
I just love the way these DPI-driven providers keep saying "We don't use this technology to examine the actual content, and we completely respect everyone's privacy."
If either statement was actually true, then WHY USE IT?!! (And, why the secrecy?) Why would a provider invite the inevitable legal problems the way Bell has in the last while?
Of all the ISPs that have begun to toy with the concept of "expanding the realm of a Common Carrier", I think Bell, by far, has been a monster. Bell has been consistently doing very questionable things, with apparent impunity...
1) Blatant Contract Law violations.
Vague, illegal, Sympatico contracts. Contracts are arbitrarily "revised" without proper disclosure and without regard to client agreement or acknowledgment.
2) Complete anonymity.
Bell, despite being a "publicly-owned" company, has successfully removed all administration and management from any public exposure, leaving only a half-assed, "front line" (accessed by phone or e-mail only) to address everything.
3) Deliberately-engineered, frustrating, insufficient Customer Service system.
No issue, from the tiniest to the most grave, gets resolved without spending DAYS OR WEEKS being continually put on long periods of hold, or passed around from one plebe (who can't help you or forward you to a manager) to another plebe, or having your call "dropped", or getting nothing but inappropriate "boilerplate" replies to your e-mails. If you don't "strategically ambush" a manager, through means you were not informed about, you get absolutely nowhere!
4) Arbitrary changes to services - 2 examples.
-Discontinuing the Sympatico news servers.
-Moving Sympatico e-mail accounts to the MICROSOFT servers.
Why do we sign contracts at all, if services are removed and our information is allowed to be arbitrarily handled by an OUTSIDE CORPORATION - one we have no involvement with and operates from another COUNTRY??!
5) Violating "Common Carrier" and "Fair Competition" Terms.
ISPs, by law, are NOT supposed to interfere with the flow of the data, and are NOT supposed to concern themselves with the CONTENT passing through. DPI and Throttling both violate both of these terms. (You'd think that "net neutrality" would be an "automatic" concept, formed by just these 2 clauses!?!)
Besides the throttling issue, Bell has also been allowed to progress into PROVIDING ITS OWN CONTENT on the Internet. This directly conflicts with the role of a common carrier. Content providers have a vested interest in COMPETING with other content providers. Those who have the means to control a major network can unfairly use that as an absolute power to hinder their competition in such a market.
Bell's throttling of the resellers was a blatant example of unfair business practice, and what happens when a common carrier is also allowed to provide content, unregulated. In this case, there is also the additional issue that the resellers are both CUSTOMERS of Bell ("the carrier") and COMPETITORS of Bell ("the content provider").
6) Violating Privacy Law.
DPI certainly does just that.
But, it's not the first example of Bell willingly deciding to violate our privacy.
When the RIAA and MPAA (MAFIAA) started the "War on Piracy" a little while back, they were approaching some major ISPs with this (MAFIAA-conceived) notion about the providers' "moral, ethical, and legal obligation to do everything in their power" to combat piracy. At that point, the MAFIAA already had its sights on P2P/BitTorrent, "getting the message out" that "P2P technology is an evil tool, invented solely to spread massive piracy".
So what happened immediately after the MAFIAA knocked on Bell's door?...
Bell put out some vague announcement that they were "reserving the right to aid law enforcement", which involved COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF ALL USER INFO AND ACTIVITY RECORDS, not only to the RCMP, but to the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
The throttling of P2P/BitTorrent was never about bandwidth. No proof of network congestion has ever been offered by Bell (or any of the others). It was an attempt to discriminate against P2P.
The whole "5% of users HOGGING 95% of the bandwidth" story was nothing but an expansion of the MAFIAA's PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN, designed to to "turn the world against P2P/BitTorrent". (Can you say, "Weapons of Mass Destruction"!?)
Why would a common carrier invite a legal headache by failing to protect User Privacy?...
Because that common carrier is also fast becoming a content provider who (thinks it) has the power to interfere with its competition early in the game (while the market's still evolving), while believing that any breaches of Privacy Law will only result in a slap on the wrist.
Why would Bell think that?...
Maybe Jim Prentice ("let market forces dictate...") and/or the CRTC (who've been just as proactive) should answer that?!
Who knows? Perhaps in the end we will all be very thankful to Bell... for having the audacity to "test the waters" and force the issues of Privacy, Fair Competition, and Net Neutrality to be decided - BEFORE we end up with a corporately-owned, MAFIAA-sponsored, 2-tiered Internet.