GigaOM » Forget Neutrality — Keep Packets Private
Here’s an article which I think clearly explains one of the important values in the Internet Neutrality debate–the need for privacy (or what others might call nondiscrimination) in the bits of information sent across the Internet. While I’m not sure that packet privacy would absolutely require “deep packet inspection,” which from what I understand becomes technically difficult and could possibly be accomplished by including more data in packet addressing information, but the author makes a great point that shouldn’t be lost:
Coping with billing disputes still means retaining data. Under what circumstances might a third party get access to the data derived from content routing? Content routing in one context enables content filtering in another.
This argument on the “need” to retain sensitive traffic information for billing purposes brings an interesting potential twist to the congressional debate over ISP data retention.
John, as someone who has been following this debate in my work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition, I understand your concerns over packet “privacy. However, the danger is that “net neutrality” legislation would prohibit traffic management altogether and severely limit new services for consumers.
Here is an editorial from Carnegie Mellon Professor and “Godfather of the Internet†David Farber and Michael Katz, Chief Economist at the FCC during the Clinton Administration, that expands upon my argument.
“Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the
sender’s willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customers.
Traffic management is a prime example. When traffic surges beyond the ability of the network to carry it, something is going to be delayed. When choosing what gets delayed, it makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from, say, a patient’s heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms and spam.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html
I feel that one important part of this debate is ensuring that all the possible side effects are examined before any policy moves forth. The potential for legislation to harm technical innovation was correctly expressed by other Internet “fathers,” Vint Cerf and Dave Farber (here’s the link to the story, with audio, I posed some time ago: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060718-7296.html).
However, just because there is a potential for harm, does not mean that legislation should be avoided…especially when there is a similar potential for harm from legislative inaction.
What I find novel in this article is the argument that, in order for ISPs to bill content providers, some records will have to be kept of what traffic is flowing where and to whom. This type of record keeping could have large privacy implications which need to be addressed.
Another thought on this issue came to mind this evening highlighting the importance of data privacy in the debate.
In many ways the Internet works like a black box. We trust that the technology of packet routing does its job in the best way possible–that being that it delivers packets to their destination on the path of least resistance.
However, there’s a chance that a loss of neutral routing mixed with new systems of payment dictating how packets are moved might create a need for this data to ensure that providers are acting honestly. A receiver can trace the path of a packet, but I’m not certain if a sender can. This is just the kind of information that a content provider would need to ensure that content isn’t being unnecessarily moved between networks in a way to jack up prices.
…and yet this is the same type of data that, in aggregate, could diminish online privacy.