p2pnet - rss feed: Does Ma Bell spy on users online?
p2pnet news | Freedom:- On top of their efforts to neutralise net neutrality, large Canadian ISPs, including Ma Bell and Rogers Communications, may be spying on customers’ online, says a Canadian law group.
The ISPs are already in effect censoring their customers by deliberately blocking access, and now the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) has filed a complaint with Canada’s Privacy Commissioner about Bell Canada’s alleged practice of monitoring internet subscribers’ internet activities without their knowledge or consent.
Bell began applying deep packet inspection to its Sympatico retail customers late in October 2007, “but only admitted this practice late in March 2008, after it began applying the same practice to subscribers of other, independent internet service providers,” says CIPPIC.
Bell claims it’s respecting the privacy of ISP subscribers, but it’s refused to describe just what its deep packet inspection of subscribers’ activities really uncovers, says clinic executive director Philippa Lawson
“How can they know if their privacy is being respected, if Bell won’t disclose what it is actually doing?” - she wants to know, going on, “Our complaint focuses on Bell, but we are asking the Commissioner to investigate all ISPs who engage in traffic-shaping practices.
“We’re asking the Privacy Commissioner to investigate just what Bell’s use of deep packet inspection involves. Canadians have a right to know who is looking over their shoulders, and why.”
There’s also evidence other large ISPs such as Rogers, Shaw, and Cogeco, may be similarly spying on their customers, says Lawson.
.
.Stumble It!
deliberately blocking access - NDP really gets traffic throttling issue: CAIP, May 8, 200
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:10 am
“but only admitted this practice late in March 2008, after it began applying the same practice to subscribers of other, independent internet service providers,”
Bell admitted nothing.
Also, the notice was passed on to 3rd party ISP’s, many of whom also did not officially notify their own customers.
Bell never informed its own customers to this day!
The only people aware are those who frequent broadband or P2P type forums, or those who understood what they read in newspaper as Bell was spinning stuff that wasn’t true.
So TELL ME, who did they inform again?
ty
:p
May 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Bell certainly never officially informed anyone before the 2nd stage of their throttling (of the resellers). And sending a (half-assed) letter, containing nothing but rhetoric, to the resellers weeks AFTER implementing it (and only after being confronted BY those resellers about it) certainly doesn’t qualify as “informing”.
On the other hand, CAIP’s motions to the CRTC, along with their openness to the public on the issues, could qualify as “more than sufficient” on their part. The fact that the resellers were already “under siege”, and initially having to assess what was actually happening to them and their ability to deliver service, makes any delay to informing their customers more than forgivable.
I find it interesting (well, not really), that, as it stands right now, if Canada Post were to be opening envelopes to determine if mail should be blocked from its destination (perhaps a new policy to “deter the sending of counterfeit CDs”), every faucet of the Privacy Commission would be all over them! (Not to mention how much longer it would take to get that mail out, with the inspection process to pass.)
As far as I’m concerned, UNREGULATED providers should NEVER have been allowed to even toy with the idea of providing their own content in the first place. It defies logic and common sense.
Open packets, in any manner, and interfering with the flow of these packets, are 2 activities that are SUPPOSED TO BE ILLEGAL for a provider to engage in, and also in violation of the “Common Carrier” rules.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“more than sufficient” ?? Again, only the forum users are aware.
How many things get submitted to the CRTC that YOU are aware of? “more than sufficient” , I think not.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:53 am
It’s time to remove ISPs from the equation and replace it with a nationally funded network for all to access, then we can replace all the anachronistic infrastructure with fibre optics. A tax payer funded open for all network, hassle free and immediately available.
Elimination of these unwilling to invest; self serving; oppressive; privacy invading “wha wha” cry babies. It’s time for change, and I’m sick of all these crappy ISPs, they can’t regulate themselves or do a satisfactory job. It’s time to take the network national and make it free (taxpayers) for all.
I don’t see a need for ISPs anyway, they are just middle men controlling the network which should belong to all of us; they confuse, complicate, and frustrate the process of connecting to servers around the world. After all, all you really need is a few dns servers and you are good to go
May 12th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Yes, Reader’s Write, let’s reduce the number of ISPs available to choose from down to ONE for the entire country, and then we’ll place it under the exclusive control of the government. This couldn’t possibly turn out bad!
Are you really this naive or are you a clever troll? I can’t believe someone would seriously think this to be a good idea.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
@ Reader’s Write…
My point about the CRTC motions being “more than sufficient” had to do with the fact that they TOOK ACTION - something we all could very well be grateful for in the end. And, that action has helped cause 3 key concerns (competition, privacy, and net neutrality) to become very public. I’m starting to see even the mainstream media covering it.
Certainly, it would have been nice if CAIP’s customers got more info sooner, but, we have to remember that the resellers providing their service were victims of something they were still assessing just as complaints started to come in.
I’m sure CAIP providers wanted to KNOW more about what was happening, and what their options were, and what, exactly, to say to their customers, before coming off with “unhelpful” answers. Many people left Bell to get away from that kind of BS.
I’m sure, if I was one of those customers, I would have appreciated that.
As to a “nationally funded network”…
How can you replace Bell with something it’s ALREADY SUPPOSED TO BE??
Yes, public money built it, and the CRTC rules laid out for it stated that profits earned were supposed to go into maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure. And, with the mandated 3rd Party access, that was supposed to create and guarantee competition, without having “multiple infrastructures” being built all over the place.
I don’t know if the “deregulation” move some ten years ago changed any part of the profit management agreement. If so, then it should have been incumbent upon the CRTC to BETTER SEPARATE the “internet provider”, the “phone company” and the “satellite TV provider”, and either keep the “internet provider” from becoming a CONTENT provider, or not allow the “internet provider” to become deregulated.
Instead, we ended up with multiple “Bell Companies”, all allowed to operate both “independently” and “collectively”, as chosen by Bell in each and every case to suit its own agenda. That was clearly wrong.
Bell has clearly violated a number of current CRTC restrictions, as well as a number of laws pertaining to Fair Competition, Privacy, and Common Carrier Rules. It’s reasonable to assume Bell has cut its own throat in its wish to be the Gods of the Internet.
Perhaps we will be thanking Bell when all the dust has settled, as their moves may have been instrumental in forcing these issues to be reviewed BEFORE we find ourselves with a corporately-owned, MAFIAA-sponsored, 2-tiered Internet.