“Also, I apologise if I misinterpreted you. To me, the tenor of your post came across as being in favour of DPI.”

Catalli:
“The only point I am promoting is that using DPI to shape traffic is an essential part of network management. Anything else would result in network anarchy with frequent outages. So if we want a ban on shaping in any guise, then be prepared for the consequences.

If you understand those consequences (multiple resource not found errors) than by all means, go ahead, get governments to ban shaping technologies on public connections. Be my guest. I really don’t care.”

I don’t know if he’s “in favor” of it, so much as stating that — at least in some form — it’s required to keep the network functional at all.
Turning that into a claim that he’s “in favor” of DPI is like claiming that if you get gangrene and doctors have to remove your leg, they’re automatically “in favor” of amputation.
Or (to use a more timely example) that those who say women should have access to legal abortions so they don’t end up dead from back-alley proceedures are somehow “in favor” of abortion.

Just a clarification for Y’all

Bye, Y’all!

My problem with the DPI discussion is the same as I have with the whole “net Neutrality” thing, AND the people who supported Bush’s proto-fascist bullshit on the grounds that it “made us safer”: it’s not that the people supporting those things don’t have legitimate concerns — it’s that they advocate really bad solutions to those concerns.

Now Jon has “yawned” at me over in another thread (which I figure means that I have evidently beat this discussion to death with a hatchet, in my typically obsessive fashion. Frankly, I was glad to do it, because there needs to be at least ONE dissenting voice at all times — even if such “dissent” later turns out to be ill-founded or incorrect.

It keeps the groupthink down.
I still genuinely want to know why people thought it was interesting/fun to watch me rip into Sam, but then they get all precious about it, when I give them a tiny fraction of what HE got. I really want to know that.

Catelli:
Thanks for jumping into the discussion, dude — you and the computer-science major are probably the most directly knowledgeable about this topic.

Side note, by being involved in this “heated discussion” I have been looking at what data I can about DPI and am learning alot,
I thank everyone whos been involved for that, including you Henry, for making me think and helping me LEARN!!
And I think Jon will agree with me that is at least a part of what sites like this, are for!

At this point, I can’t even prove my own existence conclusively (even to myself!)
To everybody: one of the things I genuinely love about p2pnet, is that we can all feel free to “play rough” from time to time, and not get all weird about it. I may play “rougher” than some, but that’s just me. Don’t take it personally.
Jon used to call me up (yeah,he has my phone number!) after the squabbles with “Sam”, and tell me to get him out of my vision (because I do tend to be obsessive to the point of crazy at times — DA, like I said, we really ARE “kindred spirits” in a lot of ways.)

Catelli said:
“DPI doesn’t rip open a packet. That information is already there in the clear. To extend the post office analogy:

Using the Internet is like using the post office. But each word of your letter is on a separate piece of paper in a clear plastic envelope. Anyone that looks can see that word. No opening of the envelope is required. All addressing information is included on each and every envelope as well as a numbering tag. The route (or the sorter) used for each envelope could be different, but all envelopes get to the destination.

Everything that is sent is in the clear. No ripping or destruction required.

Banning DPI doesn’t increase security. Your information is in the clear, available to be read by anyone that just looks at it. Just because DPI wasn’t used in the past by ISPs didn’t mean that the data was that more secure. They just weren’t looking.”

And n0uino said (way back at the beginning of this debacle):
“Obviously DPI needs to go away, meanwhile what do you mean by PVCs??
Im not familar with the term, (yeah i know its lame) but i am trying to
learn all i can to keep my privacy intact! google is bad enough as is
I damn sure dont want DPI, what’s mine is mine, they dont have any right
to look at what I’m doing on the web, in my home, or wherever !!!”

Oh Boo ho, poor you — “they” (somebody, somewhere, maybe) can see what you’re doing online.
Google is “bad enough” because they use user-data for targeted advertising?
Why all the paranoia about the “privacy threat” posed by DPI, but not the one posed by the mere existence of logging of ANY KIND?
And why no big (corporate-sponsored) fake-grassroots movement urging that all forms of logging/caching be banned?

The “Net Neutrality”/anti-DPI thing is just another instance of “Astroturf” — a puppet-show orchestrated by Google and Microsoft, with the DOJ just right behind, because you just know that an increased governmental role over how packets are permitted to be used benefits them immensely.

The “patriot act” was pitched as a solution to a threat with “global impact”, too — or did that go down the memory-hole, too?

Can you prove that conclusively?

Cheers!

Using the Internet is like using the post office. But each word of your letter is on a separate piece of paper in a clear plastic envelope. Anyone that looks can see that word. No opening of the envelope is required. All addressing information is included on each and every envelope as well as a numbering tag. The route (or the sorter) used for each envelope could be different, but all envelopes get to the destination.

Everything that is sent is in the clear. No ripping or destruction required.

Banning DPI doesn’t increase security. Your information is in the clear, available to be read by anyone that just looks at it. Just because DPI wasn’t used in the past by ISPs didn’t mean that the data was that more secure. They just weren’t looking.

A tree that falls in the forest still makes a sound, regardless of whether someone was there to hear it or not.

I hope we’re actually “hearing” each other at this point.

1. “That you don’t see the GLOBAL implications….”
Sure I do: the urban-legend that was circulating about the FEMA work-camps in the event of a national disaster, had bad implications too
And, yes, that was sarcasm – but I stand by it.
The “global” implications you’re talking about basically boil down to this:
“Premise A: it’s theoretically possible that if a particular technology is ‘permitted’ it’ll be put to bad uses.
“Therefore, it should be banned.”
That’s it: you don’t like the (hypothetical) notion that DPI could be used to spy on your packets (ignoring the fact that there’s myriad other technologies which achieve the same thing. Ignoring the fact that it’s even ridiculously simple to set up a “look-alike” website on a slightly different domain-name (taking advantage of identical-looking characters from other alphabets) as a means of identity-theft.
Ignoring the fact that it’s already possible via server-side scripting to “inject” stuff onto webpages.

Ignoring all of that (which you’ve failed to mention or acknowledge yet again — thanks so much), you instead continue to opperate from the premise that because DPI and traffic-shaping *could possibly* be used in a bad way, that automatically means they *will* be used in that way, and thus, the solution is *government involvement*.

That’s where my thing about Valenti lobbying to get the VCR banned came in.
And that’s where my cellphone-vs.-scanners thing came in.
But nobody seems to want to think about that.

And N01UNO:

“Henry, your use of the post office/UPS parrallel was BS, does the post office rip your shit open to find out whats in it, to then better make sure of how its handled/prioritized??? Do they open the wifes insulin to see what it is??
NOPE they look at the addressing labels ect on the OUTSIDE to make sure it gets where its needed, when its needed.
So, how can DEEP PACKET INSPECTION compare?? Sorry but you need to chill”

Yeah, the post office/UPS will “rip open your shit” to see if it’s explosives or anthrax.
They also routinely run “your” packages through ex-ray machines to make sure that you’re not sending a letterbomb.

My point here is:

1. DPI and traffic-shaping aren’t anything radically new, and DO have “legitimate” uses. (We should all understand the strawman involved in banning something simply because it *might* be used for illegal purposes or etc, right? Or does the fact that *some* peoplel link to copyright-monopolized material via Torrent files mean that Torrent files were DESIGNED specifically for doing so?
So that’s my first quibble — the inherent double-standard here, simply because DPI and traffic-shaping are technologies *YOU* don’t happen to like. Admit it.

2. My second quibble is: p2p/copyfighters SHOULD also be really suspicious of government “doing something”, even to “fix” a percieved problem, if for no other reason than that we’ve seen the type of thing they usually do. (Hinit: War on Drugs, War on Terror, etc. etc.
But we’ll just ignore that, too, because in THIS case, contrary to all historical precedent and everything we already know about how government works and “solves problems” — THIS time, they’ll get it “right”, and not over-regulate, or misunderstand the question.

Sure — that’s how we copyright terms that are de-facto perpetual while still being “limited” on paper. (The Eldred decision.)

3. Let’s also ignore the fact that, like I said before, even the guy who CAME UP WITH the “Net Neutrality” thing admits that poorly-worded legislation would lead to what he calls “absurdities”, and ban a whole swath of useful stuff like spam-blockers.
Because that’s what you’ve been doing so far, all the while concentrating on “global impacts” you basically pulled out of thin air.

Packet-agnosticism is a bad idea (which is why different levels of packet-inspection exist at all.)
Government regulators tend to be — at best — pretty clunky. Or are we — de facto “outlaws” that many of us are — now supposed to magically trust to the wisdom of regulations LOBBIED by corporate giants (Google and Microsoft) against OTHER corporate giants (the telecom companies.)?

“Have to chill” — yeah, sure I do.
On one side you raise the specter of a myriad of “micro-nets” where interoperability costs extra, if it’s allowed at all (the Compuserve Vs. Prodigy paradigm). Bad step backward, IF it was actually implimented, which is nowhere near likely to happen.

Your proposed solution: government “doing something” to mandate potentially “good” technologies out of existence, to prevent something that’s exceedingly unlikely to even happen.

Right.

Hey, Catelli:
Great to see you here! Don’t mind me — some of us do this kind of thing pretty frequently.

@Jon

I am in favour of DPI, it has tremendous application in data acceleration technologies. Anything that can make a T1 circuit act like a 10 Mb circuit is gold in my books.

DPI also has some application in shaping technologies.

DPI is to shaping as ethernet is to TCP/IP. You don’t need it, but properly used it adds value.

Otherwise we’d all be on token ring…

“DPI was the focus of the post. I’ve focused on shaping before in other posts. Don’t conflate the two.”

Sorry. I mentioned it because you did.

Also, I apologise if I misinterpreted you. To me, the tenor of your post came across as being in favour of DPI.

Cheers!

DA:
“@Henry:

I’m sorry if I contributed to upsetting you.
Hopefully, you’ve found the last posts to be a little more intelligent, and can see where our minds were at.

As mentioned above, you probably don’t have to think too far back to remember we had a similar experience which proved to have a similar cause (we were both “right”, just talking about two unrelated principles).”

Y’know, that happened here, too:

I mention:
1. Valenti lobbying to have the VCR banned because of it’s potential “harm” to his clients’ interests.
2. Scanner manufacturers being forced to lock out entire frequency-ranges (and degrade functionality at harmonics related to that frequency range) based on ill-founded, over-hyped jabbering by a bunch of ill-informed “privacy advocates” being manipulated by cellular corporations.
3. Hamfisted Bureaucratic over-reaction to something that wasn’t that big of a “problem” in the first place.

Meanwhile, YOU are talking about:
1. “Global impacts” which you postulate would follow inevitably from broad usage of DPI.
2. The presumed “fact” that DPI MUST only have “bad” uses, and isn’t/can’t be deployed for anything else.
3. Telling me to “lighten up”, after having gone all snotty at “Matthew” (because he agreed with aspects of what I — and Crosbie — said at different points, and kinda sneered at Jon while doing it.)

Yeah, we ARE talking about “two different principles”.
The only difference here is: I’m talking about technologies that DO exist, and laws that HAVE been passed, and you’re postulating a doomsday-scenario.

A mandatory block on certain frequency-ranges didn’t do a damn bit of good in regard to cellphone/cordless-phone users’ privacy. THAT was solved by means of base-to-handset encryption and steadily-increasing frequency ranges — but importantly, the law didn’t change to account for that fact, because — as we all know — “the law” is tortuously slow, AND SHOULD BE in many cases.

Valenti’s “concerns” about the consumer VCR proved to be unfounded.
Even ADVOCATES of Net Neutrality/opponents of DPI admit that mandating such things would lead to all sorts of “absurdity” (because doing so would also ban a lot of *good* implementations as well.

So yeah, goddamn RIGHT I’m “intense” on this.
I got “intense” when I heard Lessig’s stupid notions about how a “harmful to minors” tag should be mandatory in HTML, and sites that don’t comply with it’s use should be blocked. (Some advocate of “Internet Freedom” there, huh.)

I get REALLY “intense” when people advocate “solving” something that’s not anywhere near a real problem.

You’re saying people are being “paranoid” or “reactionary”, while at the same time seem to curiously spending a good deal of energy trying to “shut everyone down” for voicing their concerns. And, at least stop dredging up matters that were between others that were actually resolved, that you already admit to not reading through anyway.

What you’re doing right now is the equivalent of the “troll-smash mode” you so righteously accuse me of practicing.

At least put some things into perspective:
1) No body flamed Christopher.

2) OG’s remark (and mine) to “Matthew” was warranted even under your own standards – he just made these curious troll-like comments, and didn’t qualify any of it with even a reason. And, I don’t mean links… just a reasonable explanation of why any of it was said. If anything, our bothering to even acknowledge Matthew on that should have served as an “invitation” to qualify it. (Which would have at least clarified whether he was a troll or not.)

3) Just because you don’t see the implications some here do, doesn’t make them less worthy, particularly when some proof of what’s being said is already there. For instance, you don’t see the “global” aspect of DPI, even though it’s one of things that should be glowingly obvious, given how it needs to be employed. That’s not my problem, or the problem of anyone else who does see it.

4) Anything that, by design, promotes surveillance or monitoring is considered “spy equipment”. It’s the raw truth, whether the stuff has admirable purposes or not. Nobody here wrote that one, and it’s not appropriate to flame anyone or call them “paranoid” for being concerned about the possible abuses, particularly when those that would use it haven’t given anyone a very good reason to trust them at this point. You can’t just label everything a “tin foil hat, paranoid-dillusional conspiracy theory”. That’s just nuts.

5) Do you really think Tom Koltai, someone who has experience in network operation, doesn’t know the what the realities of such a network applicance are, and is just guilty of some kind of “fear-mongering”?

6) Ask yourself, “Should “freedom of innovation” include freedom to stifle, exploit, or harm in any other way, existing subscribed technology and services that are in place and for which they are already drawing revenue?” (Bear in mind, providers don’t “own” the data they’re proposing to “manage”.)

7) Can’t we all… just get along?
: )

To clarify: I have no horse in this race. I only have my experience working for a private company and managing networks. I am in 100% agreement with Tom Sawyer’s comment (May 4th, 2009 at 12:58 pm).

Like it or not, traffic shaping is an essential part of keeping networks operational. Without it, many net links would have crashed a long time ago.

DPI is not necessarily shaping and shaping isn’t necessarily DPI. (you can shape on port alone) Sometimes DPI is necessary for shaping to determine what application is being used because port numbers and headers are not always complete or relevant. (and Jon, DPI was the focus of the post. I’ve focused on shaping before in other posts. Don’t conflate the two.)

“He is in effect promoting a progression of ideas: that it’s OK to gather information and data, and then market them to anyone with the money to pay for their reuse in ways, and for purposes, the original owners haven’t agreed to, and without their explicit permission.”

No I am not. I said nothing about the marketing of data. Actually I specifically stated that such data is very short lived, and is not likely viewed by any human.

The only point I am promoting is that using DPI to shape traffic is an essential part of network management. Anything else would result in network anarchy with frequent outages. So if we want a ban on shaping in any guise, then be prepared for the consequences.

If you understand those consequences (multiple resource not found errors) than by all means, go ahead, get governments to ban shaping technologies on public connections. Be my guest. I really don’t care.

Did she accuse? Really?

Or did she throw his garbage right back in his face?

Or are you making stuff up?

I saw something else.

Obviously, you saw an accusation of some type.

So, if we want to make a discussion, let’s focus on how ISPs use DPI, rather than whether theyshould use DPI or not. The bitter truth is they have no other choice.

“I’m uncomfortable with the latter part of that – I worry that with the definition, as provided, that ’spying’ gets applied to other seemingly ‘benevolent’ network appliances. I totally understand the stance you’re coming from, and it’s a worry that I persistently have with DPI, but what, exactly, is meant by ’spying’? I don’t mean to be a pain (really!), it’s just that expansive definitions of surveillance are something that worry me. Intuitively, I would agree (and think most would) that too much systemic analysis of data traffic is a ‘bad’ thing, but I’m not sure where I draw a line between appropriate analysis for network operations and a step-to-far-into-spying. I guess I want a definition of ’surveillance’ and ’spying’ relate to not just DPI, but also to how credit records are examined, what constituted data-mining, etc etc. Maybe I’m just looking for too much from a definition, and should constrain ’surveillance’ words to specific moments of examiniation, but I’m a bit uncomfortable with that.”

“Too much from a definition” is EXACTLY what we need before we start advocating for Government intervention to “stop” the potential threat of DPI or packet-inspection or whatever. In short, we need to know what we’re adovcating against.

As far as the insertion of stuff into webpages via DPI, hackers have been doing that via other means (look at how they vandalized the RIAA webpages.) Does this automatically make cross-site scripting some kind of big “threat” that needs to “go away” by means of a government ban?

THAT’S what concerns me — not some hypothetical Orwellian endgame scenario based on the idea that “they” only deploy this type of thing for nefarious reasons, using the supposed “legitimate” uses as cover for their evil evil plots. And Y’know what? Ottawa Gal and N2 give me a helluva lot of evidence that the hype-factor is really high on this.
You guy’s reaction to “Matthew” was disheartening as well.

So it’s cool if DA and Matty decided to “play nice” over on the swine-flu thread, but it’s NOT cool that DA went into troll-smash mode so quickly, and it’s not cool that Ottawa Gal accused “Matthew” of being a Government stooge simply because he questioned Jon Newton’s tech-savvyness.

And none of you have stated anything at all in regard to the way you expect Governments to solve this “problem”.
I submit that any such “solution”, by the very nature of regulation itself — is bound to be hamhanded, inflexible, and poorly-targeted.

And no, I didn’t call anyone stupid, dumb, or batshit insane.
I described particular statements as stupid, dumb, and “batshit insanity.”
I also described it as really short-sighted, primarily because in the case of Net Neutrality/a ban on DPI, the proposed “solution” is infinitely worse than the supposed problem.

Lemme quote your reply:

“It’s not simply a matter of applying the “slippery slope” principle anyway.
If its use was accepted, DPI would be installed at a commanding place – at the gates of all participating providers, affecting ALL traffic peering with them as well, whether the peers use it or not. We would be less likely to be able to have it removed, should some of our concerns prove to be justified. And, providers haven’t exactly been completely forthcoming about this practice, or the need of it, even though it will effectively mean we will have to accept a delay on all data transfers. (The way I see it, that doesn’t do much to discourage “tin hat analysis”.)

That’s not a classic “slippery slope” scenario to many of us.
There is a proposed global effect here, and we can do NOTHING about it after installing it at the provider level.
You can encrypt all you want, and the equipment may never be able to read it for the next 5 years. But the packets will still be delayed, degrading the service all over the place, without a plausible explanation, as its use becomes more common and “accepted”.”

So how hard is it to “turn off” bad laws, hmm? Also given the fact that lawmakers tend to not be particularly tech-savvy (understatement of the millenium?), a law mandating packet-agnostic networks would be extremely hard — if not impossible — to correct.
As for “degraded performance all over the place”, enforced net neutrality and a ban on traffic-shaping (for whatever reason) would concentrate the “degraded services” to those which are time-sensitive, such as streaming video and remote stuff like telesurgery, AND put the State in a position to mandate how fast/slow packets are “permitted” to travel.
Bad idea all around.

3. Yes, you DID go into detail about what DPI is/can do — but always with the presumption that the sole reason for it’s implimentation was as a spy technology or screwjob of some kind. Relevant quote there:

““Other purposes for DPI hardware would generally be derived from the same 3 root purposes, above. The end result is, simply put, nothing more than spying.”

You’re concerned about DPI being used to “spy” on your packets, but somehow in favor of regulations which explicitly empower the State to do exactly that (to enforce “neutrality.”) Sure, cause we all know that Governments have a way better record on this than the corporations they create.

Tell “Ottawa Gal” to lighten up.

If I’ve been too intense on this one, sorry about that — but when you whip out accusations of trolling in regard to dissenting viewpoint it’s gonna piss me off, and when you advocate that the State “fix” something that’s not even remotely a problem based on the explicitly stated view that the only possible use for the technology in question is a nefarious one, it’s just not cool.

I mean, the cronyism involved in corporate sponsorship of Net Neutrality should be at LEAST as concernful (is that even a word) as the hypothetical specter of a “tiered Internet”, doncha think?

Peace out, Y’all.

Let’s try another one.

One in Meatspace, there’s an organization which deals with “packets” every day.
Or is that packages? And envelopes. Yes, friends, it’s your friendly post-office (and UPS, and Fedex, and etc.)

Now, they’ve had “traffic shaping” for decades, in the form of “you pay more, and it gets there faster.”
Has this somehow destroyed the “open nature of the postal system?”
Funny, but I kinda think it’s a great idea that my Wife’s insulin is “permitted” to arrive sooner if such is needed.

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the State should step in and mandate single-rate, single-priority mail.
After all, not everybody can AFFORD to pay to get their stuff their faster.
(Must mean that regular mail never actually gets there, huh?)

Now somebody’ll probably object that there’s no similarity whatsoever between ISPs and the postal system.
Except for the “safe harbor” provision that states that the mails aren’t “responsible” for the type of communications that go through them.
Suure.

Yeah Phorm was a shit company and what they did was nasty.
But blaming DPI and traffic-shaping for Phorm is just exactly like blaming email (the tool) for those penis enlargement ads, or HTML for pop-up advertising.
And urging State intervention is equally dumb as getting the state to ban email or popups.

As for privacy:
If somebody’s taking unauthorized pictures through my front window, it’s an invasion of privacy.
But what if they’re using binoculars from across the road?
What about a satelite view of my house on Google Maps?
Where do you draw the line?
Important and complex issues here that NOBODY seems to want to touch.