Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
The Implications Behind Proposed Internet Privacy Rules
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
dritchie
50%
50%
dritchie,
User Rank: Strategist
4/18/2017 | 3:31:53 PM
Re: Some bold claims here
Not only that, but the original poster works for a company that seems to try to help companies deliver unwanted commercial email (i.e. SPAM), so limiting the ability of providers to sell him information hurts his bottom line.
dritchie
50%
50%
dritchie,
User Rank: Strategist
4/18/2017 | 3:28:40 PM
Re: Some bold claims here
Not only that, but the poster works for a company that seems to try to help companies deliver unwanted commercial email (i.e. SPAM).
guy_montag
100%
0%
guy_montag,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/18/2017 | 11:10:24 AM
Some bold claims here
The author makes some bold claims here but doesnt make a very good case for them. Whats the FTC's track record in actually protecting privacy? How do common carrier privacy protections "stiffle antispam and malware detection" any more than TLS does? How would the FTC be less susceptible to regulatory capture than the FCC? Regultory capture is imo, the strongest case against FCC action but this article doesnt even mention it.

The only arguments here seems to be "the ftc does a great job, take my word for it" and also that adverstisers "already know everything" so who cares? That undercuts the whole part about the glories of self-regulating ISP's and the past work of the FTC. Never mind the fact that those that do deep packet inspection are ripe targets for attack even if they dont voluntarily sell the data to third parties.

The article also ignores the major impetetus for the Title II classification, namely, net neutrality. Pretending common carrier reclassification was just about privacy is silly at best, disengenuous at worst.

All in all, this article doesnt pass the laugh test. Isps are local monopolies, comcast is not google, and vpn's wont protect you. 


News
Former CISA Director Chris Krebs Discusses Risk Management & Threat Intel
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/23/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
Security + Fraud Protection: Your One-Two Punch Against Cyberattacks
Joshua Goldfarb, Director of Product Management at F5,  2/23/2021
News
Cybercrime Groups More Prolific, Focus on Healthcare in 2020
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/22/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Building the SOC of the Future
Building the SOC of the Future
Digital transformation, cloud-focused attacks, and a worldwide pandemic. The past year has changed the way business works and the way security teams operate. There is no going back.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-23347
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-03
The package github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/cmd before 1.7.13, from 1.8.0 and before 1.8.6 are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) the SSO provider connected to Argo CD would have to send back a malicious error message containing JavaScript to the user.
CVE-2021-25315
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-03
A Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm vulnerability in of SUSE SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP 3; openSUSE Tumbleweed allows local attackers to execute arbitrary code via salt without the need to specify valid credentials. This issue affects: SUSE SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 15 ...
CVE-2021-27921
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-03
Pillow before 8.1.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) because the reported size of a contained image is not properly checked for a BLP container, and thus an attempted memory allocation can be very large.
CVE-2021-27922
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-03
Pillow before 8.1.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) because the reported size of a contained image is not properly checked for an ICNS container, and thus an attempted memory allocation can be very large.
CVE-2021-27923
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-03
Pillow before 8.1.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) because the reported size of a contained image is not properly checked for an ICO container, and thus an attempted memory allocation can be very large.