<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Inability to Opt Out of DPI (or Why the Marketplace Cannot Cure Paul&#8217;s Worries)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/the_inability_t.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/the_inability_t.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Logical Extremes</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/the_inability_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-47317</link>
		<dc:creator>Logical Extremes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/the-inability-to-opt-out-of-dpi-or-why-the-marketplace-cannot-cure-pauls-worries.html#comment-47317</guid>
		<description>Ah, I see now this is probably what you meant by imprecise&quot;.

The other alternative is no good from the consumer perspective  either... redirection reduces performance as you mention, adds a finite probability of introducing errors, and also makes the operations done within those redirections opaque.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, I see now this is probably what you meant by imprecise&#8221;.</p>
<p>The other alternative is no good from the consumer perspective  either&#8230; redirection reduces performance as you mention, adds a finite probability of introducing errors, and also makes the operations done within those redirections opaque.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Logical Extremes</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/the_inability_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-47316</link>
		<dc:creator>Logical Extremes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:55:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/the-inability-to-opt-out-of-dpi-or-why-the-marketplace-cannot-cure-pauls-worries.html#comment-47316</guid>
		<description>Another reason why ISPs doing it the IP address level is not a good idea... many devices can share an IP address by using a NAT router (most homes and businesses do this). IF I wanted, for some bizarre reason, to opt-in, it might be impossible if my IP address was opted-out. But the reverse is worse... my IP address got opted-in, but I want to opt-out for my device.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another reason why ISPs doing it the IP address level is not a good idea&#8230; many devices can share an IP address by using a NAT router (most homes and businesses do this). IF I wanted, for some bizarre reason, to opt-in, it might be impossible if my IP address was opted-out. But the reverse is worse&#8230; my IP address got opted-in, but I want to opt-out for my device.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Ohm</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/the_inability_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-47315</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Ohm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:17:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/the-inability-to-opt-out-of-dpi-or-why-the-marketplace-cannot-cure-pauls-worries.html#comment-47315</guid>
		<description>I agree with all three points, and I would add a fourth: it is technologically difficult for an ISP to distinguish between users who have and have not opted out. For Google, this is easy to do--they merely need to look at the cookies sent to it. But you usually don&#039;t send cookies &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; your provider.

So the provider is left remembering the IP addresses of those who have opted out, which they probably don&#039;t want to do because it is clumsy and imprecise. Or, they can &quot;trick&quot; users into sending them cookies by redirecting traffic. This is much more precise, but it is even more clumsy and the user suffers a performance hit.

According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/05/18/twisty-little-passages-all-alike/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Richard Clayton&#039;s report on Phorm&lt;/a&gt;, Phorm redirects user web requests as many as four times before allowing the user to connect. As far as I can tell, this is in part to allow Phorm to distinguish between those who have opted-out and those who have not.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with all three points, and I would add a fourth: it is technologically difficult for an ISP to distinguish between users who have and have not opted out. For Google, this is easy to do&#8211;they merely need to look at the cookies sent to it. But you usually don&#8217;t send cookies <em>to</em> your provider.</p>
<p>So the provider is left remembering the IP addresses of those who have opted out, which they probably don&#8217;t want to do because it is clumsy and imprecise. Or, they can &#8220;trick&#8221; users into sending them cookies by redirecting traffic. This is much more precise, but it is even more clumsy and the user suffers a performance hit.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/05/18/twisty-little-passages-all-alike/" rel="nofollow">Richard Clayton&#8217;s report on Phorm</a>, Phorm redirects user web requests as many as four times before allowing the user to connect. As far as I can tell, this is in part to allow Phorm to distinguish between those who have opted-out and those who have not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

