Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden

[Owen DeLong]

> On 28 Apr 2005, at 00:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> Who are you to decide that there is no damage to blocking residential
>> customers?
> 
> The customer makes the decision when they subscribe to a service whether
> or not filtered service will meet their needs. Who are you to decide that
> unfiltered service is required to meet the needs of all customers?
> 
I never said they did.  I simply said ISPs shouldn't decide this for their
customers, as some do.

>> Why should an ISP decide what a residential
>> customer can or can't do with their internet connection.
> 
> The service provider should be able to decide what services they wish to
> offer. If a provider of any service chooses to differentiate services
> based on utility and the customer is made aware of these characteristics,
> how is this in anyway unfair? If your objection is that, in single
> provider markets, it may not be financially viable to obtain your desire
> service level i.e. the local cable provider does not offer unfiltered
> connectivity and there are no other residential high bandwidth options
> available then I suggest you encourage diversity in the market place.
> 
I do encourage diversity in the market place.  However, that doesn't
necessarily change the current reality.

> You are not entitled to unfiltered internet connectivity. If you want to
> be entitled to unfiltered internet connectivity then petition your local
> government to make transit a privatized utility with all the government
> oversight and bureaucracy that entails.

In some locations, that is becoming the case.  I'm not sure that's
necessarily
such a bad idea.  I'd rather encourage providers to do the right thing
without
the extra overhead, however.

Owen

> ---
> James Baldwin
> hkp://pgp.mit.edu/jbaldwin@antinode.net
> "Syntatic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon."



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.

Attachment: pgp00050.pgp
Description: PGP signature