Telcos

AT&T wants to "police" content on its network


AT&T announced its support to major content publishers and Hollywood studios by proposing to develop an anti-piracy solution to block copyright infringing content over its network. What the San Antonio-based ISP quotes as proactive position in protecting copyrights (LA Times) and a "network-based solution" (RedHerring) are bound to raise lot of questions on the privacy concerns of its customers.

First, the company has yet to spill out the details on the technology to be used with respect to feasibility of the surveillance and how it will guard user privacy (Associated Press). Second, while this announcement is bound to raise a lot of hue and cry among its customers, for a company that was built from phone lines and is increasingly making a shift to offering online media services, siding with content publishers and allaying their concerns does seem a logical business interest (even at the cost of annoying its customers). And lastly, AT&T is a massive network and backbone infrastructure provider in the US (Ars Technica). The bottome-line: Whatever AT&T implements, it will affect people big time.

And for those who believe that the task of monitoring content may be gargantuan, AT&T is definitely not new to user surveillance. (Thanks to Ryan Singel @ Wired)

Internet is a compelling and disrupting knowledge transmission medium. Content will proliferate unhindered. Encrypting data, a method used by most P2P software (torrents) is just one of the methods to circumvent detection. Still, policing opens up another Pandora's box. Viacom's suit against YouTube caused a lot of infringing videos to be brought down, but it affected many legitimate users too. What will be the scale of such errors in AT&T's policing process? Where do you ultimately place the barricade to allay privacy concerns and prevent copyright infringement? And to what extent does a service provider have actual control to "police" data that it does not own? Join the discussion.

99 comments
STEELWIZARD
STEELWIZARD

I've spent the last vear buying books,studying losing sleep,and relationships trying to overcome the botnet attack on my house.Yes my house.I now have enough knowledge and evidence to tell the world about the never ending botnet story.These attacks are comming via wireless technology.All the patches will eventually strengthen the criminals.They are using AT+T cellular transmissions over the GPRS network which is part of the global GSM network.They plant code in the CPU using assembly language scripts.I have 10 computer afflicted.This means that they are connected to a.computer before it even boots to a user interface.They are almost impossible to detect at first.I said ALMOST.Fopr more info contact thru this post.I'm limited to using my blackberry for web use.My second one as the hackers took down my firstone.The bottom line is that Nobody is polkicing the cellular networks.Especially AT+T.They hung up on me twice.

wmlundine
wmlundine

Copywrite infrigment is illegal. Has been as long as I can remember. It is often also too trivial to prosecute. We are entering an age where the trivial will be elevated in significance due to the automation of enforcement. Individual rights will inevitably suffer.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]Copywrite infrigment is illegal. Has been as long as I can remember. It is often also too trivial to prosecute.[/i] That was true when copying was prohibitively expensive, which is not the case with anything digitized in a computer. The losses of billions of dollars are not trivial, especially to those losing them. But, there is also the loss to consumers of the best that corporations have to offer. For example, inaccurate deactivations via Windows Genuine Advantage may cost Microsoft revenue, but it certainly costs users productivity. Protection of individual rights inevitably costs each of us: the requirement of vigilance is merely evidenced again.

wmlundine
wmlundine

Yeah right...dubbing a tape cost a fortune and the lack of DRM ruined all the producers. NOT! They enforce it now 'cause they can. Your "billions of dollars" are CUMULATIVE. The individual act is still trivial. Once we digitize all the books will we be able to go to the library and make fair use (a dime in the copier)of copyrighted material?

dland51
dland51

I don't dl music, books, or other copyright materials; however, I have no sympathy for the Gates, Sony, or RIAA of the world either. They are lumping individual people who might copy a song or album to listen to with the companies(/) and gov'ts who operate wholesale piracy, and in the case of gov'ts do nothing beyond lip service, if that, to doing something about it. If they want their billions of dollars then go where the business of piracy exists and leave the individual end user alone! When they have cleaned up those issues they going after the individual user might seem less laughable!

DanLM
DanLM

Peace. I'll quit being a dick head and baiting you. Your and my positions are so far apart on almost everything, that I doubt we will ever agree on anything. But, with that said. peace. I'll try to quit baiting/flameing with my posts so not to piss you off. Chuckle, I still think ATT has a right to protect their property though. Because it is just that, their property. And it's your and my decision to use it, under their terms. Just as it's my decision to be a hard ass to any property that I own that I may offer for use. My property, my terms. Don't like it, go someplace else. Please read my other posts on how I go about doing this. You will see that I do respect personal information, but not to the point of my becoming liable for said person's illegal actions once identified through passive monitoring. Dan

wmlundine
wmlundine

...card carrying member of the ACLU who is used to having to fight for human rights. Corporations do not need welfare and I oppose anyone who would advance the interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of the powerless. I am a 56 yr. old Vietnam era veteran who has worked hard and paid taxes since 1966. I am a single dad with full custody of a beautiful 15 yr old daughter. I have owned and operated several businesses and IT is my second career. Having said all that now I gotta' say; Bush is the worst president ever and Iraq is a mess! Anyone who wants to stay the course is a moron!

DanLM
DanLM

As I said, I am a centrist in my politics. I do believe in government programs. Hell, I've survived because of some of them. But, I do see the far left liberals causing the loss of job's in America because of the burdens they are placing on business's. I see this as weakening the United States both as an economic power and a Military power. I also feel that the far left liberals, at least right now, will do anything to reclaim the office of the president to the point that they will weaken this nation with regard to the fight against terrorism. I have no issue with people that think we should fight differently. That recognizes there is an enemy, just that they feel that the fight should be performed differently. The far left as I see them, do not think this is a war. By their continuously putting forward roadblocks in this fight, without out even recognizing that it is a fight, and not even offering a counter strategy other then to quit. I hate them. Presidential elections this year. I will either vote for Mrs. Clinton or Guiliani. Mrs. Clinton voted for the war on Iraq and she has never apologized for voting that way. She also tried to do something about the Health Care crisis when her husband was in office. She has shown that she will stand by her decisions and not back down. She is slick enough to make everyone happy and still get what she wants. Guiliani has shown leadership abilities by cleaning up NYC, and also being able to hold that city together during a time of crisis. Obama, he is far left. He will tax us to death, cave in to the terrorists, and basically bankrupt this nation to the point we will be a third world power again just like we were under President Carter. A far left president that brought this nation to the point of extinction by the decapitation of our military and industrial strengths. This nation was not respected by anyone during President Carters administration. Not even ourselves. That moron Pelosi is a primary example of how bad the democratic party has sunk. She rode into office on a platform of honesty and openness in office. She then tried to place in posisitions of power individuals such as Representative Jefferson who had previously been impeached by the democratic party no less for taking bribes. He is now under full investigation for taking bribes. She tried to represent the United States to the Syrans when she damn well knew it was against the law. I am all for change, but if she is what the far left has to offer. Then it is just as bad or worse then everything you hold against the far right. Mr. Guiliani and Mrs. Clinton are much more centrists. You want change, then find someone that can walk both sides of the street. Otherwise, this nation will stay polarized and never heal or win against these scum bag, c. sucker terrorists. Dan

wmlundine
wmlundine

...operate on a cost plus basis or just the Logan? Why do you hate liberals so much (be honest)?

DanLM
DanLM

[i]Renault's revenues rose 8.4% to E40.7 billion in 2004, driven by the successful product range, a higher mix of vehicles sold and buoyant Group sales outside Western Europe. Operating margin climbed over E1 billion on 2003 to total E2.4 billion in 2004, thanks to profitability gains in Europe and on international markets. The Group posted net income of E3.5 billion, up 43%, equivalent to a return on equity of 28.4%. Renault accelerated debt reduction in 2004, with debt declining by E1.2 billion. The Automobile Division's net indebtedness accounted for just E541 million, or 3.4% of Group shareholders' equity at end-2004. 2004, the Group posted a significant 4.2% increase in worldwide sales to a record 2,489,401 vehicles, representing a global market share of 4.1%. [b]While consolidating its position as Western European leader[/b], Renault accelerated the pace of growth outside Europe, particularly Turkey, Eastern Europe, Russia, Africa and the Middle East.[/i] http://www.renault.co.ir/images/pdf/FinancialResult-en.pdf So jack off, whats your definition of successful. Or, because it is successful do you feel that it should be taxed more so that your position is supported? Your so easy to prove wrong in every position that you have presented. Mainly because you haven't backed up your arguments with a diverse group of examples. Your either too lazy, too stupid, or both to do that. I'm inclined to think stupid is the answer here. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

You have offered no examples to support any of your arguments. What is your definition of a successfully business. If the business is able to make a profit over long term, I would consider that successful. Whats your definition. Your a typical flaming fking liberal. You offer no facts to justify your position. And you ignore the facts when they prove your position wrong. Typical liberal. Too lazy to provide any facts on any position they hold. Your the one that is the boring twit. Put up or shut up. Let's see some justification, or are you unable to support your position with any facts? One company does not count as justification for your position. I can show where an industry supports my argument against you, how about you? Hu wit, come on. Put up or shut up. Or are you as I said, full of it with nothing to back up your position except for hate towards anything that doesn't support your holy cause to destroy capitalism. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

And ahole, I will lay money that the construction industry as a whole has raised its prices due to the cost of fuel. Not any specific one you twit. Your so busy naming one business that your blind to real life. What a flaming fking typical cry baby liberal. Let's take this further, the cost of energy is up. That cost is being passed along to the consumer in all goods and services that do not have in place contracts. Your wrong. Your an ahole. And you have not provided any justification for any of your arguments except for one company. Best you got? Hope your better at your job then you are at arguing your position. You haven't said anything right except that I can't spell. If that is the best you got, Quit your day job chit head because both your reasoning and justification for your position are easily ripped apart. You suck at it. Hell, I'll take this even further. Part of the reason the cost of energy is up, which is driving up the price of goods being sold is because of tree hugging, liberal, cry babies like you. Your so busy placing so many burdens on SUCESFUL business's, they have to raise the price. You do realize you moron, that by driving up the cost of energy you have almost made it impossible for people to drive to work that are on minimum wage? Price of energy is HALF of minimum wage. You are an organization that is both after the ruin of successful companies and driving people into being dependent on government hand outs. By your policies and actions it has now become too expensive to work. Why should people work? Then can't afford to. Due to the limitations on types of energy used, tax's placed on energy sources, restrictions on what and what can not be used. The liberals have done nothing to try and solve this issue. The only thing they have done is try to make it worse. Blame the business community. Never accept blame where it belongs, with their failed policies. Dan definition of a liberal. Hypocrite. Why? They will woe the labor unions, but they will place so many obstacles in front of businesses that nobody can be hired. Hypocrites.

wmlundine
wmlundine

...I can tell 'cause you still can't spell. Construction companies like Haliburton have contracts (often no bid) which covers increased costs. The Logan is neither prominent or successful. Moreover it is the exception. So, congratulations...you have proved my point! You are a boring little twit.

DanLM
DanLM

[i]Give one example of a prominent and successful business model that uses cost-plus pricing (besides Haliburton). [/i] Construction. Cost of materials goes up, price charged for the service is raised to customer. That took me all of 1 minute. Should I try now? [i][b]The Renault Logan Automobile ? An Example of Cost-based Innovation[/b] ?The Logan is the McDonald's of cars ? Reliable engineering without a lot of electronics, cheap to build and easy to maintain and repair.? [/i] http://www.babsoninsight.com/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/837 It's even their advertisement. You are an idiot. Your so easy to shoot down. That was found with 1 search on google. 'price based on cost examples' Again, should I try now? Dan

pr.arun
pr.arun

Competition helps. But mere competition is insufficient. Case in point being the cost of Microsoft flag-ship products even in the presence of Open source alternatives.

wmlundine
wmlundine

Give one example of a prominent and successful business model that uses cost-plus pricing (besides Haliburton). Pricing strategies vary with market position (i.e. you might want to enter a market aggressively to gain share) but in general; price has a functional relation to supply and demand, period. Then at the end of the accounting period we look at revenues less cost and report that to our shareholders as profit. No?

pr.arun
pr.arun

When the axe falls on businesses, the first people to bear the brunt are customers. And if its the case of a product that enjoys market monopoly... the plight is miserable.

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

Cost doesn't affect price to consumer? How do you figure? Or haven't you noticed that the price of EVERYTHING went up whent he price of gas did? I can't speak for every business, but most I am familiar with protect their margin by passing the increase to the consumer. I am sure there are exceptions (milk perhaps, which is regulated by the govt. to keep the price stable.) and I imagine there are still some decent folk running businesses that will tighten their own belts as a service to the customer, but cost in and of itself does not effect margin.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]I quit You're both morons.[/i] I cannot "compete" with that! :p

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i] I own a high speed dubber... ...and the speed is almost "fast forward", so guess again.[/i] You're seriously comparing tape dubbing to the speed of data duplication of a modern computer? You "guess again". And, as Dan instructed, sign up for a beginner's class in macroeconomics, and take one in microeconomics, too, whenever you get around to seeking some education. [i]As far as cost...better take econ 101 again. Cost affects bottom line not price to consumer.[/i] BS. Post the supply/demand curves and I'll show you where you're wrong.

DanLM
DanLM

better take econ 101

wmlundine
wmlundine

...and the speed is almost "fast forward", so guess again. I think some colleges are taking the right course. "Get a search warrant." As far as cost...beter take econ 101 again. Cost affects bottom line not price to consumer.

Absolutely
Absolutely

"Yeah right...dubbing a tape cost a fortune and the lack of DRM ruined all the producers. NOT!" OK, man, take a breath & a chill pill. No, dubbing a tape did not ruin the producers, but it did take as long to dub a tape as to play it, limiting the impact on record companies' profits to a level they deemed less tragic to their margins than Microsoft & Sony & firends now deems their losses to pirates. Technologically, the cause of this is the ability to copy CD-ROM discs at 48x, and other digital media at similar speeds, far beyond "playback" speed. It's the same sort of scenario as tape dubbing, but multiplied & escalated to a point that the corporations providing the media take seriously. I want to be clear: I am not asking you to cry a river for Bill Gates, just tying to [b]explain[/b] why he & his ilk are likely to pursue their intellectual property rights to the fullest extent of the law, and how it might be in the interest of end-users to respect the copyrights, or use freeware if they don't like the costs of obeying the laws. It takes a long-term perspective to see it, but infringing copyrights does screw up markets, and costs always get passed on to .... you.

wmlundine
wmlundine

Copywrite infrigment is illegal. Has been as long as I can remember. It is often also too trivial to prosecute. We are entering an age where the trivial will be elevated in significance due to the automation of enforcement. Individualt rights will inevitably suffer

DanLM
DanLM

So, let's see. We bash the ISP's for not doing more to clamp down on user's that are zombies in a bot net. They get bashed for allowing pirated software to be exchanged on their network. When the ISP's do offer a solution, they are charged with privacy violations. My read on this. It's a no win solution. Personally, I now understand why ISP's are unwilling to do twit. They get bashed no matter what they do. And you would get some tear sobbing, flaming liberal, tree hugging moron crying privacy invasion if the ISP's did crack down on botnets. Don't allow illegal trading over your network, but god forbid. Do not monitor my traffic to do this. Don't allow zombie computers, but again. God forbid. Don't monitor my traffic to accomplish this. I think we should just chuck the Internet out, and go back to beating on drums for communication. Then, maybe the bleeding heart liberal privacy twits can be happy as the loss of billions in revenue by various companies cause's mass layoffs. then they can fight over their privacy rights in the unemployment line. For the people that say what does this ahve to do with zombie computers. How the hell do you think they would detect these computers if they didn't use the same type of policing actions as is mentioned in this article. But, wait... Don't trip over your shoe laces as you think that far ahead. By the way, there is an article here someplace that referencing the fact that there are millions of zombie computers. But, you probably don't beleive that either. And zombie computers do spread through p2p also. but, hey. Your privacy is so much more important then the loss's that occur because of these actions. Again, the ME generation. Me, me, me... Dan

dland51
dland51

Give us a break, "they" know where these zombie nets come from and how to police them without invading our privacy, they just want an excuse to use for the less literate! Keeping track of what citizens are thinking and talking about has always been part of our gov'ts agenda. People in power always know what is good for us, they just have to make sure we know it:-) Check out Hoover's FBI for background. Go to the source and stop the crap, not put it on the end user. ...and yes, our privacy is much more important than the loss's that occur because of these actions! Sorry, I'm too old to be part of the "ME" generation, just aware of the real cost(lives) to make sure we have these rights!

wmlundine
wmlundine

The Associated Press Sunday 24 June 2007 A federal judge who used to authorize wiretaps in terrorism and espionage cases criticized yesterday President Bush's decision to order warrantless surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "We have to understand you can fight the war [on terrorism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war," said Royce C. Lamberth, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington and a former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, speaking at the American Library Association's annual convention. Lamberth, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, expressed his opposition to letting the executive branch decide on its own which people to spy on in national security cases. The judge said it is proper for executive branch agencies to conduct such surveillance. "But what we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive," he said. "The executive has to fight and win the war at all costs. But judges understand the war has to be fought, but it can't be at all costs," Lamberth said at the Washington Convention Center. "We still have to preserve our civil liberties. Judges are the kinds of people you want to entrust that kind of judgment to more than the executive." ...

DanLM
DanLM

[i]The judge said it is proper for executive branch agencies to conduct such surveillance.[/i] I don't disagree with his position that it should be a judge's decision if the surveillance should or should not occur. But, do you oppose this surveillance at any cost? If so, then this is where I think the far left is out to lose the fight against terrorist's. And you by the way in your other post, qualified at the Iraq war. I said nothing about Iraq. You assumed, never assume. Because your wrong that I was talking about Iraq. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

Didn't work. Boy wants to be an obnoxious prick that can not accept a request for peace. I can take out everyone of his arguments with out trying to think to hard on any one of them. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

I also remember the crap service we got afterwards from their competition. Phone service sucked. Your an idiot. Price's went up. All the money that ATT invested, not your fkn money yoiu fk wad. Their money. Their hardware, that they paid for you dim wit. Was parsed out to everyone else. Your such a fkn moron. Carter was an a$$hole. He destroyed our military and this nations integrity world wide.. He had no integrity. None. He was a bible thumping dim wit that had no fknen idea how to run a country. None. What integerty? Because of carter, we had the hostage crisis. Because of carter, we had the boat lift. Because of carter, we had the oil crisis. Because of carter, we gave up panama. Because of carter, it took 8 years to rebuild this nations military forces. Because of carter, we had high inflation. Go ahead you twit, tell me what a great fkn president he was. And you dill weed. You interpret post's as you want, not as they are meant. Just like all wuss a$$ far left liberals that can't see the writing on the wall when it is right in front of them. You stupid moron, you ever wonder why Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war. Because she knew more then you will ever know about what was going on there. You fk wad, you ever wonder why she has never said she was sorry. Maybe, again. Because moron's like you could care less what she knew. You would twist it just like everything else. Listen you jack off, I used Mrs. Clinton's Vote on Iraq for one reason only. Not Iraq, but because she has shown the back bone to stand by a vote she made. No other reason. You twisted it to suit your own fkn needs. And when I was talking about the war on terrorism you jack off, I did not mention Iraq on purpose. Because it was not what I was talking about. But, again you fkn moron. You twisted what I said to suit your own twisted beliefs. Jack off, stand in line. Your the first that should be beheaded if this nation loses to the terrorists. Not Iraq war you moron, CAN YOU READ THAT. NOT IRAQ WAR??? The war on terrorism. Or don't you count 3000 lives lost on our nations soil as an act of war. Of course you don't. What am I thinking. You could care less about anyone but yourself. Oh, by the way idiot. Want to make a bet that every intelligence program put in place by President Bush stays with who ever is elected? Democrat or Republican. Because they are needed. Because they work. You haven't had the balls to answer me on any points that I made unless you twist what I say. Show some balls. Answer my question about the inteligence program that you posted the article about. Show what a traitor you really are by showing you think we shouldn't have inteligence programs like that. And remember prick. I said with a judge's permission to perform those monitoring. Don't twist it, get it right for a change. And also dim wit. I do think a demnocrat will be elected to office. Just not a far left liberal like you. It will be a long way from anyone with your type of beliefs. It will be just like I said, someone that is more centered in their policies. And you took your toys and went home previously. What, get tired sitting in a corner playing with yourself? Feel lonely being a FAR LEFT liberal? And not the main stay of the nation? More down the middle with both liberal idea's AND you fkn moron some conservative ones? Geeeeee, the big cooperation has a right to do as they wish with their equipment. That must break your fkn heart. By the way idiot. Have you read your terms of agreement lately with your internet service. Bet it's just as hard a$$ as what ATT has. Your fked. You could be cut off, monitored, or restricted in your access at anytime. And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Chuckle, I won't be the one crying at election time. Again, I have centrist belief's. You just refused to read that part of my post. It's time for change, and I am ready for it. Unlike you, I won't cry for 8 years because you lost an election. Even when third party reviews verified it. You liberals are all the same.... Even when your proven wrong, you still cry foul. Dan

wmlundine
wmlundine

...and the only rights they have are what we allow. We broke 'em up once remember...of course not...you're pre-pubescent nubbin. As far as you being a dill wad...I could care less. I would just like you to tell the truth for a change. You wrote; "Mrs. Clinton voted for the war on Iraq...". Then you turn around and say you never mentioned Iraq. What ever else you say about President Carter you know he has/had integrity and that is something you and Bush will never have. After Bush leaves office in disgrace...you and the GOP can go cry yourselves to sleep...waa waa waa! So go tell all the lies you want...I am done here.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]And you would get some tear sobbing, flaming liberal, tree hugging moron crying privacy invasion if the ISP's did crack down on botnets. Don't allow illegal trading over your network, but god forbid. Do not monitor my traffic to do this. Don't allow zombie computers, but again. God forbid. Don't monitor my traffic to accomplish this.[/i] Is there [b]no possible way[/b] to monitor zombies without storing & infiltrating all non-zombie traffic? I really don't believe so, Dan! It doesn't take an incendiary liberal tree-hugger to see that there are very distinct characteristics of ddos zombie machines which are not evinced by legal users, and that excessive surveillance is still excessive when applied to traffic outside the scope of legitimate suspicion.

DanLM
DanLM

Your saying if you was monitoring your network, you wouldn't be able to identify outgoing ddos? Come on, be serious. And if you did identify outgoing ddos, the isp's don't have a right to slam them? Again, come on. Be serious. Point being, the ISP's have every right to monitor any and all suspicious activity. And they have every right to either terminate service because of this activity or request that the machines be cleaned. That is monitoring of ones own network. And that is protecting ones own property. High output of mail. Spam High output over specific ports for ddos. Why does everyone have a problem with this. I own a shell hosting server. I rent out shells. I do monitor traffic. It is explicitly stated that I will shut down, and feed my foot to any twit that abuses my property. I also state that any child or otherwise illegal activity that occurs on their shells will be directed to the appropiate authorities. Do I go looking for it, no I don't. But if my network monitoring indicates a higher then expected band width usage, I will look. That goes for any warez(which is what this is about) also. They pay to use it, they do not pay to abuse it. If they do not like it. They can go elsewhere. And I really don't give a flying fk. Again, it is mine. Not theirs. They pay for the right to use it. I state that I will not share any personal information unless they break those terms of agreement by illegal activity. Also, they are only allowed to run specific daemons on their servers. I also monitor that. What I am doing is not new in the lease bit. You say I speak out my back end. I say I speak to stop abuse of something that was invented to assist people. It is now being used to abuse people. And it needs to stop. You have numerous complaints against hosting companies, isp's, and others because of the abuse that originates from their property. Are you saying they do not have the right to protect that property? You are infringing on their rights to protect their own property. This also protects them from various law suits that can be directed against them. What a crock, it's ok to perform illegal activities on others property. But it's not ok for a person to protect that property. Screw it, if I was an isp. I would monitor and terminate all connections that in any way infringed on the signed agreement. I will lay money that you would then call them hard ass's that are not providing customer service where my original plan with monitoring and education would have been customer service. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

cause laws to be passed which will remove any chance of any type of offense ever being designed and implemented to stop these infections. They will place so many infringements on a companies right to protect their own property that nothing will ever be done to stop this vicious infection cycle. Dan

Absolutely
Absolutely

Who cares if flaming liberal, tree-hugging morons start "tear sobbing"? If you scan for botnets properly, their noise is nothing more than that. Their complaints will only be honored by the courts if you foul up, so what are you on about?

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

Not without probable cause (an email header from a recipient of spam with my computer's MAC address on it for example). There are obviously legitimate uses of large volumes of data transfer. Video and audio pay services can run into the hundreds of terabytes per month. Now mixed in among those movies and songs are my banking transactions, and if AT&T has the technology to break into and monitor these secure transactions, you can bet your ass that it won't be long until someone with ill intentions gets hold of the same capability. It's happened with [b]every[/b] invention or technological breakthrough in human history, I see no reason to believe it will be different this time.

DanLM
DanLM

And the consistent sending of such volume? Again, we are talking volume of transmission. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

Will cause [i]nd you would get some tear sobbing, flaming liberal, tree hugging moron crying privacy invasion if the ISP's did crack down on botnets.[/i] Dan

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]And you would get some tear sobbing, flaming liberal, tree hugging moron crying privacy invasion if the ISP's did crack down on botnets.[/i] If they can't crack down on botnets without incorrectly including people "guilty" of nothing worse than being "some tear sobbing, flaming liberal, tree hugging moron", they're overstepping their bounds.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

they're going to be able to tell what I'm sending/receiving through any encrypting, tunneling protocol without breaking the encryption, and what? If it's not what they're looking for, I'm just supposed to trust that an employee of the ISP is just going to forget what he saw?

DanLM
DanLM

I do not expect them to monitor traffic other then from a very high level. Meaning, bandwidth usage over specific ports. I do not want or expect them to pry or interfere with any individual unless that high level monitoring indicates abuse of service. If this first level of monitoring indicates possible abuse, then the next level of monitoring and contact should occur. Hell, if they monitor any closer. Connection rates would drop, and people would not get what they are paying for. I don't want the ISP's to snoop. I want them to monitor and slam the pricks that are ruining it for everyone. And I feel the first step in that determination can be made with passive monitoring with follow up steps well defined and outlined in any service agreement. Dan

Absolutely
Absolutely

"Your saying if you was monitoring your network, you wouldn't be able to identify outgoing ddos?" That's not at all what I said. What I said is that it should not be prohibitively difficult for ISP's with a couple competent people to monitor illegal activity without monitoring legal activity. It isn't necessary to interfere with people who are not breaking the law, in order to catch those that are.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

Yes, I value privacy But, in this case, this is an ISP. Most people still has a choice to use a different ISP, even if it means a slower connection, etc. Since AT&T is a company, that has their own networks which they rent out to others for use (both phone and Internet), it is up to them ultimately to decide how best to run it. If someone does not like it, they should look into alternatives. I think the biggest concern would be that even if another provider is used, they may still utilize AT&T's network at some point.

pr.arun
pr.arun

Exactly the point. There is very little traffic that passes over the internet in america that does not use AT&T's backbone at some node.

wmlundine
wmlundine

I do not agree. AT&T has rights only as long as they hold their charter of incorporation. That charter is ultimately in the hands of the people no?

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

they may change their minds. Less sales and/or feedback from investors could help to change things as well. But it is up to AT&T to decide ultimately how to proceed and or implement this. I do not remember getting a report on approving their operating procedures for any other part of their network, so why would I get one over this? Ultimately, yes, the people will have a say, but it is most likely of less importance than their big shareholders.

DanLM
DanLM

That the technoligy that they would be using for this could be used in shutting down botnetworks. But it would be a monitoring of networks and traffic. Thus, the privacy concerns. Where I do feel the solution is far better then what people will perceive as a problem in this. Dan

Absolutely
Absolutely

Also, I'm on the opposite side of Ralph Nader from Dan, which I think is a first; I don't trust laws alone to codify what businesses must tell us. Instead, we ourselves should learn more about how our computers work and ensure that they work properly.

DanLM
DanLM

There has to be a defined set of rules on the monitoring. I have no issue with that at all. None. Sorry it took me so long to reply, me and TR have been having connection issues lately. Dan

pr.arun
pr.arun

The car on highway analogy that you gave and the house-on-rent too are driving the point that inspection is allowed. That is what I have been agreeing to too, however , when it comes to data, we are talking about some entity that can be replicated. There is no real-world analogy for that. Having cameras set-up in your house everywhere may come close to it but the point is this, the implementation of the monitoring technique has to be made clear. And it must be made clear as to what data is actually backed-up. I hope I made myself clear.

DanLM
DanLM

I've lived in housing developments as I was growing up because of my family's income. Part of the lease agrement was their right to inspect our appartment for upkeep and other issues. Now, my family paid for that housing. It is a common expression that 'in the privacy of the home'. If the 'privacy of the home' can be inspected, when that home is rented/leased. Why can not transmission lines of a network privately owned. Again, we paid for ability to live in this appartment fully knowing that they could inspect us at any time. If the ISP wrote their service agreement the same way, I do not see any difference. Right now, I live in an appartment complex. They have the right to come into that home if they know of any dangerous situations that may affect the other tenants of my building. Water leak, gas leak, what ever. Again, the privacy of my home is open to inspection. The more that I think about this, the more I think that privacy advocates do not have a leg to stand on. If it can be shown that there is just cause for inspecting the traffic, as in any apartment complex where damage to other tenants can occur, they should have the right to inspect and evict if the issues warrant it. If you disagree, please explain how anything is more private then the home you reside. Be it rented or otherwise. A shelter is a requirement of life, Internet access is not. There is more reason to inspect and terminate any Internet access then their is for inspections of a persons home/shelter from the elements. Dan

pr.arun
pr.arun

This is what the whole topic boils down to. As a surveillance mechanism, it is easier to specifically investigate all data and match it against known exploits to track the actual culprits. The cost, everyone's data gets filtered. The other alternative, have statistical models that can patternise user activity to notice abnormal behaviour. Now , we are talking about tracking immense number of users based on having a statistical model to detect 'zombie' activity. Remember also that the secind case is for preventing false positives where legitimate users are affected. The second model is safer but needs more investment. If only AT&T was more specific about what they intended to implement....

DanLM
DanLM

I don't want data investigated per say. I want data traffic monitored. Various types of packets should be able to be identified for what they are. Ie, is this a ping request. Is this a mail transfer. I don't want them snooping into the actual data. That would be the case of monitoring... Ie, cop see's you blow by at an excessive rate of speed. Pulls you over. Other then what he see's looking through the window, he has not searched your car. Ie, you have large amounts of outgoing data. This was determined by just monitoring band width. I start to investigate the headers, or type of packets that are being transmitted. If as in the cop, I see suspicious activity. I then investigate further. Here would be where a defined set of rules must be followed. Just as in an officer searching your car. Can you see where I am going with this? Dan

pr.arun
pr.arun

I could not post to the replies above so am posting here. I was thinking about the car-on-a-highway analogy for a while and it occurred to me that indeed it would be great if things were that simple. But the simple fact is, data is after all data... whether it be video, voice or text, its after all bits. Easy to replicate. Easy to store. So think about getting booked on the highway every time you went for a ride with the enforcing agencies taking an "exact" copy of every little thing you carry aboard. Surveillance is fine. Who checks about what gets stored and what does NOT get stored and that is where the corporations have it ambiguous. Cause the more data on the customer, the more they know what to market you with and target you with. So I feel the best solution, monitor traffic, but strictly NO copies. Anywhere !

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

the technology should be increasing the bandwidth and speed as well. It is pretty much a toss-up as to if anyone would notice on average. but customers would probably be paying more for more bandwidth for a similar 'actual' speed as they currently have. A bit disturbing, huh!

pr.arun
pr.arun

And also, while the malware writers find better and more complicated ways to use the network , and with the all the monitoring and incremental increase in traffic, quality and speed over the network also goes for a toss ?

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

if I like or dislike the idea, as I said, it is their network and they have control over it. Privacy concerns are justified as I would bet that a large amount of traffic (both phone and Internet) go through AT&T lines at some point. Even if you are using another ISP. But, I would doubt that all traffic is. This is my only real concern on this matter. AT&T has the control over their lines, as they should. But if someone switches and uses another company, they may not know that the other ISP leases AT&T lines and uses their network. This should be the only real point of concern for most privacy advocates. This is just to clarify more, what I was pointing out before. Now as for addressing your response, although for reasons of securing their network, ridding virus, malware, botnets etc., you may be partially true, but I am sure that the crackers will find new and improved ways to put all that stuff back out there. AT&T may be able to be manage the intrusions much better. And in doing this, they may give virus, malware, botnets, etc. a lower 'shelf life' due to these tools. I will leave this up to the other readers to make up their own minds on, but that is my summary of it.

wmlundine
wmlundine

From another "...tear sobbing, flaming liberal, tree hugging moron crying privacy invasion...". I'm afraid you'll hurt yourself.

DanLM
DanLM

What about the rights of companies to make a profit. What about the rights of the individuals that lose service due to ddos attacks. Your little itty bitty privacy isn't worth that much. You crybabies are all about crying when something is wrong but never offering anything to solve the problem. And by the way you ahole, I vote both democratic and republican. I also think that Rush is an ahole and a hypocrite. Just like you actually. You have a lot in common with him. Have you looked in the mirror lately and seen Rush???? The song and dance of every [i]tear sobbing, flaming liberal, tree hugging moron[/i]: cry, whine, tax, and surrender..... sing it everyone... cry, whine, tax and surrender... yes, that's right. That's all us [i]tear sobbing, flaming liberal, tree hugging moron[/i] can doooooo. Bet it would be a best seller.

pr.arun
pr.arun

The car-on-a-highway analogy was great.

DanLM
DanLM

My final comment was going to be. If you expect education to work, then we should do like they do with cars. Make people take a test and get a license before they can even own one. That is the only way you will educate everyone, and insure that you do. And no, I do not advocate this in any way. God, more government bureaucracy. I shudder at the thought. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

You don't want to allow monitoring by the ISP's, who already have the proven technology to identify and stop this. You will never identify everyone that needs the education, and will also waist needed resource's trying to educate people that already have this knowledge. So, what are you going to do? Allow by the FBI's estimate, over 1 million zombie computers go free? And just give up? These zombie computers have already been used in denial of service attacks against foreign countries. [i]Estonian Attacks Raise Concern Over Cyber 'Nuclear Winter'[/i] http://www.infowar-monitor.net/print.php?sid=1395 They have already become brazen enough to attack smaller nations. AT 1 millino and growing, you don't think they won't take on some office of the United States? How long till they take on either a state or local government entity in the United States? Neither has the resources of the federal government, and I've worked for a state government. They aren't that smart when it comes to security. You would allow that to happen? You don't think that would happen? You don't consider that possibility, which is real based on recent past history a national threat? Come on, everyone loves to attack America. We just roll over and take it. How many of these zombie computers have stolen identities of the hosts through key logging? Doesn't that privacy already lost count as something? How many thousands, hundred's of thousands of people is that? Doesn't that count as something? By the time you identify these machines through some other means then via the network they are on, there will be a million others infected. This won't go away. And this is a national security issue, if for no other reason then the loss of privacy that has occurred already to our citizens. wmlundine cares about himself, he could care less what happens to others. You could pile a million bodies at his steps and tell him he could have prevented it. He would say it doesn't matter, that his privacy is worth more. I disagree. I think that you have the technoligy to stop something of this magnitutde then you should. If you doubt how severe it is, count the spam emails that fill your inbox. Then multiply by 3(guess) based on how many was stopped before it got to your in box. These zombie bots are used for everything from identity theft(thats someones privacy) to denial of service attacks(loss of revenue cause's loss of jobs) to sale of medications that are not safe(loss of life). Something has to be done, and I only see one solution. Cutting off the infections and moving out to the source. And the easiest way to identify these infections is by using existing tools on the ISP they are on. The ISP should have the right to rid its network of connections that are causing loss of revenue. Citizens affected by these machines have the right to expect the ISP's to do this. Right now we are just pissin in the wind. And ATT has shown the willingnes to do something about illegal activity that occurs on its networks. They own it, we don't. Let me ask you something. They call this the information highway, right? You are monitored on the open highway. Why the bloody hell shouldn't you be monitored on the information highway? Your car can not be searched without a warrant, who says this is any different. If your car is erratic on the highway, you are pulled over. Well, by monitoring the network for erratic behavior, you should be pulled over and made to explain yourself. Various states require cars to be inspected for safety. What makes your computer, the car to the information highway any different? Why shouldn't it be inspected to insure you are not causing harm to other people on the information highway. And education, lets deal with that straight on. How many people know how their car works? It works. It gets me from point A to point B. Because this car can cause harm to others on the highway, their are laws and inspections to insure that it runs properly. How many people wouldn't maintain this car if it wasn't for inspections and monitoring? Ok, if you don't expect every single person to understand how their car works. Why should you expect every person to know how their computer works. It's a tool. I turn it on, click on the little E... And away I go. Car. I turn the key, press the foot to the metal, and turn the wheel. And away we go. Dan

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

P2P is used fro mor than just piracy. Bit-torrent in particular has built a business model around selling legal content, and it is a key method of distribution for large files (Linux ISO, VMWARE appliances...).

pr.arun
pr.arun

Suppose that the monitoring does get allowed and AT&T gets to monitor traffic. And lets not forget that this is just not about traffic. The malware architects would figure it out that its the port-snooping and bandwidth monitoring techniques that are used and they will device ways around it - distributed randomized outward dataflow for example. Next, the ISPs will demand a higher level of content filtering. In the process logs and records will be created. And while all that data mounts what about the guarantee of security of the collected data ? What happens if all that user data gets compromised ? Looking at the potential data comprises that could spin-off in the future, ISPs are better of ensuring their users are more informed.

DanLM
DanLM

I do not believe they have to monitor at that level to achieve the goal as stated. [i]monitoring your personal e-mails, voip calls, shopping purchases etc[/i] With regard to botnets. 1). The ISP's are taking the most abuse for not doing enough about bot nets even though everyone knows it is through user-ignorance/unawareness. The argument being that they(the isp's) could stop this type of traffic any time they wanted to. The problem of bot nets/spam/p2p is of no fault of theirs, but they are in the limelight by everyone being the cure. And at their own expense. 2). There is a thread going on zdnet right now about this. And the common theme is that it is all the ISP's fault, and that these ignorant user's as you call them should be cut off at their knees. And that the ISP's can do this at any time they want, but wont because either non caring or profit margins. 3). My feelings on this are as follows: a). ISP's should identify the user's that are hosts to these zombie computers. b). Notification email of this should be sent to the users with instructions on how to clean their machines. c). and there needs to be a volunteer force of techs(such as you and i) who will offer in house support if said user is unable to clean their machine through efforts of their own. I bet most privacy advocates would not offer their services for this, they are too worried about themselves. d). any user that refuse's help should have service cut off. None of this is invasion of privacy. NONE OF IT. This includes identifying people that are trafficking in p2p. All you would have to do is as any company does. Monitor bandwidth/ports and have blacklists of ip's for outbound traffic. That is not invasion of privacy, that is protecting your investment. The network that you provide a service with. Which you and I both use. They have that right. But, just the monitoring of traffic is enough to cause people to cry invasion of privacy which is something you can tell I totally disagree with. I also feel that there are specific instances(bot networks), where if it requires some invasion of that privacy. The fact that millions of people are at the mercy of this type of crime is worth that loss. The final result is much better then just dealing with it. The cure is far better then what I consider a minor risk. for those that feel, no cure is worth that much. Then I don't feel they care one bit about their fellow human beings, and only care about themselves. Dan

pr.arun
pr.arun

Its true that companies have to make profits. Its also true that DoS attacks can cripple websites. Please read my earlier reply on bots being a problem more due to user-ignorance/unawareness of misuse of their systems. Would you let companies make profits by monitoring your personal e-mails, voip calls, shopping purchases etc ?

DanLM
DanLM

I am a cerntist that can see both sides of an argument. Just can't stand listing to cry babies such as you who never have anything to offer. Your too busy caring about yourself to care about someone else. Your too busy taking others money to solve problems instead of offering anything yourself. I believe is certain social programs I believe in a strong defense, and I believe in individual rights. But I do not feel individual rights are more important then the larger population. Your part of the larger population, I'm just trying to protect you from yourself. You'l give up everyone else's life so you can have your privacy. Your a self centered, back stabing, whineing cry baby that is so worried about your precious privacy that you would rather see people die. I remember our previous conversations ahole. Don't worry. cry, whine, tax, and surendor. Do your song and dance. Come on cry baby... Lets see it. So shove that up your a$$. Dan

wmlundine
wmlundine

...american lawmaker wants to make "wanking" a crime. Hell...some o' you b'stards would never get get out of jail. Talk about a revolution!

pr.arun
pr.arun

The point regarding the bots is relevant. But the crux of the matter is the ISPs are not bringing in user-surveillance for preventing bot networks. Its just to appease content publishing firms and like it has always been the case , workarounds will be found on the net. The point is , Content companies have to starting finding out different revenue models that don't depend on blanket restrictions over the net.

DanLM
DanLM

be adapted for bot network shutdowns. They are just making the RRIA pay for it. Wouldn't you agree? That the type of solution they are sugesting would work in identifying and shutting down zombies? Port monitoring, bandwidth monitoring? Hell, I think it's a great idea. p2p must place unnormal loads on networks that they control. Have someone else pay for the correction to this problem and also any other problems(read zombie networks) that have the same type of signiture identifications. High output over specific ports, identifiable packets. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

You know I don't mean listening into VOIP phone connections, recording bank transmission, capturing video transmissions, or anything of that nature. Shoot Tony, I may feel that measures should be taken to terminate the infectious zombies. Those are not the type of measures I am even thinking of. Tony, I don't think the service agreement of Cox is unreasonable if you want the truth. If I owned it, I would want something just as strongly worded. I am extremely happy them as a service provider. Those are not unreasonable terms and they are no different from what I remember having with Adelphia(which sucked) when I lived in Pennsylvania. But, again. I do not suggest in any way or form the recording of transmitted information. I suggest that they do have the right to monitor volume and types of data transfers being performed which can done at a high level without invasion of personal information. Hell, if they haven't written firewall rules for that specific type of interpretations already just to protect themselves from attack then they are fools. And I don't think they are. I also know that you can write firewall rules to monitor bandwidth. I just wrote them on the server I own so that I would know if I have issues that would affect how much I pay for bandwidth. It was a matter of applying labels to the rules I had already built for protecting my server. I will be able to identify bandwidth usage at a ip level if needed, amount of bandwidth(in/out), and what type of service. TCP, UDP, ICMP... I also will know what ports that are being used. I can lock it down further if need be also. But, this is the point here. I am not recording or reviewing the traffic other then at a usage level and the type of service that the usage is occurring on. The service that is being marketed by any of these ISP's is networking. They have much better equipment, much better expertise, and a much greater stake in everything that I did and more for both offering quality service and protection of their customers. Hell, their investments. Shoot, I would do it just so I wouldn't have to constantly upgrade hardware to deal with the bandwidth waisted by these zombies. If upgrades were to occur, I would only want to do them after I had removed all waisted bandwidth. Dan

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i][b]Cox reserves the right to modify the terms of this Agreement or prices for the Service and may discontinue or revise any or all other aspects of the Service in its sole discretion at any time by posting changes online.[/b][/i] Perhaps you would sign such a contract, but I wouldn't. [i]Hell, my service agreement already states they monitor.[/i] There's monitor (such as metering your usage) and there's Monitor (such as listening in on your VOIP phone conversations). One is not unreasonable, the other is an invasion of privacy (which my contract also states they will not do) and possibly illegal.

DanLM
DanLM

In this lease agreement, it was noted that they would perform inspections of the property to insure cleanliness and lack of damage. As your example, they were not able to rifle through my filing cabinets or any other complete intrusion such as. I never meant it to mean that either. Nor would I ever endorse anything like that. There is no reason that an isp can not write a service agreement, which you would have to sign for connectivity, notifying you of a high level of monitoring that would occur against any account at any given time. Privacy concerns(riffling through the filing cabinet, recording and storing any transmissions for further analysis). [i][b]Cox reserves the right to modify the terms of this Agreement or prices for the Service and may discontinue or revise any or all other aspects of the Service in its sole discretion at any time by posting changes online.[/b] Your continued use of the Service after changes are posted constitutes your acceptance of this Agreement as modified by the posted changes. The updated, online version of this Agreement shall supersede any prior version of this Agreement that may have been included in any software or related materials provided by Cox. This Agreement should be read in conjunction with our Acceptable Use Policy, ("AUP"), Online Privacy Policy, and other applicable policies.[/i] http://www.cox.com/policy Based on that, my ISP could change those terms to say just that anytime they wish to. I agreed to those terms, and disclosures when I started service with Cox. How many other ISP's also have terms stated roughly the same way? Dan [i]Edited to add:[/i] Hell, my service agreement already states they monitor. [i]In addition to complying with the limitations for specific features, you must ensure that your activities do not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent ([u]in Cox?s sole judgment[/u]) an unusually great burden on the network itself. [b]In addition, you must ensure that your use does not improperly restrict, inhibit, disrupt, degrade or [u]impede Cox's ability to deliver the Service and monitor the Service[/u], backbone, network nodes, and/or other network services[/b]. If you use excessive bandwidth as determined by Cox), Cox may terminate, suspend, or require you to upgrade the Service and/or pay additional fees.[/i]

DanLM
DanLM

In this lease agreement, it was noted that they would perform inspections of the property to insure cleanliness and lack of damage. As your example, they were not able to rifle through my filing cabinets or any other complete intrusion such as. I never meant it to mean that either. Nor would I ever endorse anything like that. There is no reason that an isp can not write a service agreement, which you would have to sign for connectivity, notifying you of a high level of monitoring that would occur against any account at any given time. Privacy concerns(riffling through the filing cabinet, recording and storing any transmissions for further analysis). [i][b]Cox reserves the right to modify the terms of this Agreement or prices for the Service and may discontinue or revise any or all other aspects of the Service in its sole discretion at any time by posting changes online.[/b] Your continued use of the Service after changes are posted constitutes your acceptance of this Agreement as modified by the posted changes. The updated, online version of this Agreement shall supersede any prior version of this Agreement that may have been included in any software or related materials provided by Cox. This Agreement should be read in conjunction with our Acceptable Use Policy, ("AUP"), Online Privacy Policy, and other applicable policies.[/i] http://www.cox.com/policy Based on that, my ISP could change those terms to say just that anytime they wish to. I agreed to those terms, and disclosures when I started service with Cox. How many other ISP's also have terms stated roughly the same way? Dan

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

not "might be". He has to prove it first (Noise complaint from neighbors or police, etc.). And even then, it doesn't give him the right to rifle through my locked file cabinet. His only allowable action is to evict me for breaking the lease. My ISP agreement says 10 terabytes a month. Lacking a complaint, unless/until I exceed that, he has no reason to want to look.

DanLM
DanLM

He fully has a right to drive by the appartment/house any time he wants and monitor any thing that may be going on from a very high level. If he notice's activity from this perceptive that he feels may cause harm to his property or to the fellow tennants. He then has justification for further inspection. I'm not disagreeing with you Tony, not in the least bit. Dan

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

ditch, you are going to stop driving it until you find out what's wrong. And when you connect to somewhere else with a secure link, you have an expectation of privacy. A landlord cannot enter a house he is renting to you just to look around. He has to have justification.

DanLM
DanLM

And I'm not trying to be smart in the least bit. 1). You cut off all output, thus reducing any more damage being caused. 2). It's a definite wake up call to the user that something is wrong. Opposite view. 1). The argument can be made that the computer is nothing but a tool as a car is. Most people don't understand how a car works, why should they understand how a computer works. 2). You have not provided warning of this termination. The user never seen it coming. They didn't know there was a problem. I see both sides on this. Truthfully, it doesn't matter what I think. It's the ISP's property, they have every right to do it any way they see fit. Just as I do with the server I run. And most likely, I would probably be the if in doubt. shut it down person. Dan [i]Edited to add:[/i] Removed part of title because it contained part of the title of a book review I was reading. The intention was to paiste something else in there, but the book review title was in the buffer. Sorry.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]How do you suggest we identify the user's that do host the zombie computers? Where is a better place to identify them then the network they are on?[/i] they don't "constantly monitor" subscribers' traffic looking for "bot-type activity", they monitor a specific subscriber's traffic once they have been alerted of a potential problem ... a "probable cause" type of concept. (Actually, a lot of ISPs will simply cut you off without investigating, wait for you to report the outage, tell you you are infected, and prescribe steps you must take in order to get your service turned back on. This is the preferred method in my opinion. It makes the ignorant and stupid pay for their own mistakes.)

DanLM
DanLM

Not always Absolutely.... But it has been known to happen. ;o) Dan

DanLM
DanLM

How do you suggest we identify the user's that do host the zombie computers? Where is a better place to identify them then the network they are on? Mass education? Then you must build a brand new infrastructure for this? Publication sites, contact points, print. Why build something new when you have something in place. How can you be sure that you are reaching the appropriate people, even a large percentage of the appropriate people through mass education? Identification at the network level will identify with a large percentage of correctness who is and who is not infected. Mass outbound traffic on known ports of infected machines, sure sign the user is infected. You can go directly to the source of the problem for your education right there without the middle man. What you suggest would be like the American education system. Which everyone considers a joke. Even my girlfriend, who is a teacher. It would be pure bureaucratic with the most in need being missed. Dan

pr.arun
pr.arun

Network monitoring by ISPs to detect bot-activity may seem a possibility, but its trying to solve a problem that most importantly can be solved at the end of the user itself. Bots are after-all compromised systems i.e. PCs infected with software that makes remotely controllable. An anti-virus or spyware remover can solve the problem. I think the issue in this case is more about educating users on the minimal procedures to ensure their systems are not being "mal-used".