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
Shantaram
50%
50%
Shantaram,
User Rank: Ninja
4/19/2017 | 9:11:54 AM
Re: 192.168.0.1
Very intуresting and detailed post. Thanks for sharing
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. 


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/14/2020
Omdia Research Launches Page on Dark Reading
Tim Wilson, Editor in Chief, Dark Reading 7/9/2020
Russian Cyber Gang 'Cosmic Lynx' Focuses on Email Fraud
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/7/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-6287
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-14
SAP NetWeaver AS JAVA (LM Configuration Wizard), versions - 7.30, 7.31, 7.40, 7.50, does not perform an authentication check which allows an attacker without prior authentication to execute configuration tasks to perform critical actions against the SAP Java system, including the ability to create a...
CVE-2020-6289
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-14
SAP Disclosure Management, version 10.1, had insufficient protection against Cross-Site Request Forgery, which could be used to trick user in to browsing malicious site.
CVE-2020-6290
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-14
SAP Disclosure Management, version 10.1, is vulnerable to Session Fixation attacks wherein the attacker tricks the user into using a specific session ID.
CVE-2020-6291
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-14
SAP Disclosure Management, version 10.1, session mechanism does not have expiration data set therefore allows unlimited access after authenticating once, leading to Insufficient Session Expiration
CVE-2020-6292
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-14
Logout mechanism in SAP Disclosure Management, version 10.1, does not invalidate one of the session cookies, leading to Insufficient Session Expiration.