Forget Net Neutrality Laws; Just Strengthen Privacy Laws

from the interesting-idea dept

Here's an interesting idea from law professor Paul Ohm, suggesting that rather than focusing on net neutrality laws, if we just had stronger privacy laws, ISPs would be barred from doing any kind of deep packet inspection, since it would violate your privacy. This seems a lot more reasonable to me than focusing on new telco laws. While I support the principle of net neutrality, and believe it's important for the internet to thrive, I'm quite scared of any new telco regulations that hand more regulatory authority over the internet to a government agency. Plus, you know the legislation will create loopholes. But, more general privacy legislation could be much more interesting and could effectively guarantee net neutrality, without a special "net neutrality" law.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: laws, net neutrality, paul ohm, privacy


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2008 @ 4:14pm

    I like that idea. besides, more privacy is always a good thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    anon, 7 Oct 2008 @ 4:55pm

    not gonna happen. the government "fears terrorism" too much in this state. You are right, the government would create loopholes in it to spy on individuals deemed suspicious.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mr Big Content, 7 Oct 2008 @ 5:06pm

    Pull The Other One

    When people make such a big noise about "privacy" and "freedom of speech", it always seems to be a thinly-veiled excuse to violate our precious copyrights and destroy legitimate, long-established business models. When will you realize that my powerful friends and I will never let you do that? Big Content is here to stay, and we own your ass, so get used to it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Steve R. (profile), 7 Oct 2008 @ 5:06pm

    Would the ISP Would Still Know the Destination?

    While the content of a packet may be protected under a privacy law, the origin/destination of the packets would still be known to the ISP. In theory, the ISP could then conveniently "loose" the packet (or other dirty trick) if they don't like the origin/destination of the packet. Any thoughts on this?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2008 @ 5:33pm

    We donna need no stinkin laws

    The corporate / politico alliance does not follow any laws.
    Laws are for the little people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Overcast, 7 Oct 2008 @ 6:22pm

    Need both

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael Long, 7 Oct 2008 @ 8:29pm

    How deep is deep?

    How deep is deep? In many ways the header of a packet is like the mailing address on the outside of the envelope. It has to be read, by a lot of people, for the packet to be delivered.

    So the sender, destination, port number, size, and so on could all be considered "public" information.

    And deep inspection really isn't needed anyway. The primary reason to do deep inspection is to attempt to combat illegitimate P2P traffic, and that can be done without digging into the packet. Sending/recieving gigabytes of data to dozens, if not hundreds of destinations/sources in a short period of time is a pretty good "signature" that can't be disguised by encryption, nor does it need inspection.

    For that matter, counting bytes is even simpler, and the basis for most of the recently announced bandwidth caps. Personally, I think they'd be better off placing much smaller caps on upstream traffic.

    Doing so would have the least impact on most customers, while also not strangling newer technologies like "streaming" video and television. It would, however, have a major impact on P2P, which relies on "giving" more than you "get".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Xanthir, FCD, 8 Oct 2008 @ 6:22am

    Privacy Laws aren't bad

    I've seen several tech issues where stronger privacy laws would solve the problem in a simple way, honestly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    formerly anonymous coward, 8 Oct 2008 @ 6:44am

    I like the idea too

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2008 @ 7:45am

    Is it too much to ask for both?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisment

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.