Year: 2009

Update: Bell Users’ Average Bandwidth Use

/ Christopher Parsons

200902032359.jpgJust a quick note about an interesting tidbit that was passed out by the Bell rep who gave a presentation on DPI today: A few years ago (no precise dates given) users were consuming, on average, 1GB of traffic; this has risen tenfold since that date. As Bell has repeatedly stated in CRTC submissions, they are not caching personally identifiable information as packets course through their DPI equipment, but still maintain that they are looking into the application layer of packets, but not the ‘content’ of the packet. It’s my hope that, over the next few months, more information about ISP uses of DPI emerges so that a more nuanced and productive discussion can take place.

In the next day or so, I’ll be putting up more thoughts and facts that emerged through the 10th annual security and privacy conference, “Life in a Digital Fishbowl“.

Reflections: Day Zero of ‘Life in a Digital Fishbowl’

/ Christopher Parsons

200902022154.jpgI’m fortunate enough to be attending the 10th Annual Privacy and Security Conference, Life in a Digital Fishbowl, this year. Monday held ‘preconferences’, and I want to quickly summarize and reflect on the one that dealt with the 2010 Olympic games.

Two sessions were organized, with the first broadly focusing on infrastructure and privacy issues, and the second addressing the need to protect critical infrastructure and consider the ‘legacies’ of mega-events. In the first session, really began with a clear statement that terror threats have reoriented ‘domestic’ threats into the domain of national security and, as a result, a new mode of considering and engaging with security has emerged. As part of this new orientation, the Integrated Security Unit (ISU) has been created to coordinate security agencies across jurisdictional boundaries, but this creates jurisdictional problems. Who can compel what organization to turn over documents, data, and recorded discourse? What should be done when different agencies have very different conceptions of what must remain confidential? Effectively, how do you navigate the varying loyalties and lines of responsibility that members of the ISU hold?

Continue reading →

Review: Canadian Copyright – A Citizen’s Guide

/ Christopher Parsons

200902012349.jpgFull disclosure, up front: I’m reviewing Canadian Copyright – A Citizen’s Guide (published through Between the Lines) as part of the Mini Book Expo. Now, on to the review…

Canadians are inundated with news about copyright on a regular basis. Where copyright was once a little spoken of technical subfield of law, it has blossomed into a vibrant and relevant facet of Canadian cultural discourse. Unfortunately, such discourse is often clouded by the ‘facts’ of copyright that accompany vast swathes of American media that is projected into Canada; discussions of fair use, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and the definitions of copyright infringement are regularly grounded in American legal statutes. This book offers itself as an accessible panacea that promises to reorient popular discussions of copyright in Canada.

The text is neatly divided into four parts; Ideas, Law, Practice, and Policy. I’ll address each in turn, noting what I appreciated, and what I found lacking (where appropriate). Given that I spend a little bit of time reading and thinking about copyright, I’ll scatter some comments through the review.

Part I – Ideas

This section of the book is meant to give some background to copyright today. It begins by broadly distinguishing between natural rights-based and utilitarian arguments for the value of intellectual property broadly, and copyright specifically. At the same time, the authors recognize copyright as a means to make non-exclusive property (i.e. ideas) exclusive property; copyright functions to cordon off particular ‘things’ from the public. With this theory behind them, they delve into the history of Canadian copyright by examining the traditions of Britain, the United States (US), and France – copyright law in Canada is found at the crossing of these various legal traditions. While the historical basis of copyright often find themselves into texts on the subject, even elementary theory is often hidden from view – the authors should be congratulated for even taking a stab at the theory behind copyright. Given that the book is meant for a general audience, it’s hard to fault them for not digging into the theory too deeply.

Continue reading →

Update: Manitoba and EDLs

/ Christopher Parsons

200902011558.jpgFirst, and totally off-topic: I had no idea just how beautiful the Manitoba legislative buildings were!

Now, on-topic. Manitoba is moving forward with its planned deployment of EDLs, with residents of the province being able to apply for the card starting February 2nd, 2009. The government has apparently been working with the privacy ombudsman, but to date I haven’t found anything about those consultations. Perhaps this is another time where Access to Information claims need to be made?

Summary: CRTC PN 2008-19; Requests for Public Disclosure Filings

/ Christopher Parsons / 4 Comments

I’ve just completed a summary document that pulls together the requests for disclosure from the various advocacy groups currently involved in the CRTC’s PN 2008-19 (ISP Internet Management Techniques). A few things that I found of interest:

  1. TELUS is being used as a lever against the other ISPs; the common metric is “TELUS released all this information in public, so what justification can the rest of the ISPs have for filing in confidence?”
  2. Public Interest Advocacy Center (PAIC) really focused on Bell and Rogers, and noted repeatedly that Bell has filed items in confidence in this public notice that it had been forced to file in public previously. Also, where Bell could claim confidentiality last time (Canadian Association of Internet Providers [CAIP] v Bell), this isn’t the case now because all the major ISPs will be forced to show their hands at the same time.
  3. Without historical and projected growth, it is impossible for public groups to argue whether or not current managing practices are appropriate. This data needs to be released so that they can fully response to the CRTC’s public notice.
  4. The Campaign for Democratic Media (CDM) is willing to have all of the ISPs’ traffic aggregated, so long as it is disclosed publicly what the trends are.
  5. CDM notes that without information on the top 5% and 10% of users, that it is impossible to ascertain what their actual impact on total bandwidth has been.
  6. CAIP, PAIC, and the Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA) all argue that it is important for clear, technical, explanations of congestion be provided – without this, it is challenging to effectively interrogate what is, or isn’t, happening on ISPs’ networks.
  7. PIAC stands that, if Bell didn’t have a congestion metric in place prior to January 2007 then they should be obligated to disclose information in public on the basis that their definitions of congestion need to be examined more closely than others (unstated, but this is in part because they are such a major player in Canada).
  8. CFTPA holds that Bell’s networking diagram is good, because it offers specifics into their network. In light of Bell’s submission, other parties should submit similarly detailed diagrams, with devices clearly labeled, so that members of the public can meaningfully comment on whether the network components use by ISPs are adequate or not.
  9. CAIP, CDM, PAIC, and CFTPA all maintain that knowing what products are being used to manage Internet traffic is critical – without this information it is challenging to actually comment on how throttling is occurring. CDM raises the privacy issue with DPI.

Deep Packet Inspection Analogies

/ Christopher Parsons / 5 Comments

In reading through the recent CRTC filings, something that has been striking me is that the ‘regular’ metaphor for how Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technologies work seems a bit awkward. When you send packets of data along the ‘net, they are broadly composed of a header and a payload. The metaphor goes as follows: the header is like the addressing information on an envelop, and the payload is the actual letter in the envelop. DPI opens the envelop, sees the content of the letter, examines it, reseals it, and then passes the letter along to its destination (assuming that the contents aren’t of a type that shouldn’t be sent onwards).

I like the metaphor because of its power, but at the same time I have to wonder about its accuracy, at least in the Canadian situation. When reading the ISP’s CRTC filings, I keep reading that they use DPI devices for flow analysis – they’re not looking for the content of your email, they just want to identify whether you’re sending email or an instant message. Rather than assume that the ISPs are being duplicitous, why not reconsider the metaphor to see if it can’t be developed to distinguish between different usages of DPI equipment.

Continue reading →