» This Story:Read +|Talk +| Comments
Page 2 of 2   <      

Internet Providers' New Tool Raises Deep Privacy Concerns

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

If deep packet inspection lives up to its promises, it might even yield a cash benefit. Internet providers using this technology could afford to offer customers a deal: Accept this scrutiny, and we'll knock $10 a month off your bill.

This Story

But systems such as deep packet inspection unnerve a lot of Internet users for sound reasons.

One is, of course, the immensely greater surveillance they allow. Tracking via cookies is the rough equivalent of a supermarket clerk noting that you spend a lot of time in Aisle 9 checking out cereal but never duck into Aisle 2 for frozen dinners. Deep packet inspection, by contrast, is more like the clerk following you to see which boxes of cereal you eyeballed -- and doing so at every store you visit, even those run by other companies.

Another concern is the difficulty of circumventing this constant tracking. You can tell your browser to reject the third-party cookies set by ad networks such as Google's DoubleClick, but the machinery of deep packet inspection hides out of reach in your provider's servers.

A third concern is the lack of competition for broadband service in much of the United States -- if your provider sets up deep packet inspection, you may not be able to protest by taking your business elsewhere.

But the worst aspect of this kind of "augmented" or "enhanced tracking" (pick a euphemism) is how badly and in how many ways it could fail.

What if a wrongly configured system records more data than intended?

What if these records aren't as anonymous as advertised? (Imagine how much your Web use would say about where you live, work and play -- even with all mentions of your name scrubbed out.)

What if the company running the inspections loses track of a laptop or a backup tape with these records?

What if businesses that feel threatened by the Internet, such as some record labels and movie studios, ask providers to use these inspection tools to screen for certain online activities?

What if government agencies make similar requests?

As an old saying goes, abuse of power comes as no surprise. But neither should neglect and carelessness.

Living with technology, or trying to? E-mail Rob Pegoraro atrobp@washpost.com. Read more athttp://blog.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward.


<       2


» This Story:Read +|Talk +| Comments
© 2008 The Washington Post Company