[Gllug] Proxy awareness campaign

[Mike Brodbelt]

Andy Smith wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 12:19:51AM +0000, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> > Alex Hudson wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I think
> > > the case for good proxies is watertight.
> >
> > The case for mandatory ones, however, leaks like a sieve.
> >
> > All ISP's should be free to provide proxies. They should also be free to
> > distribute net software that is set up to use them by default. They
> > should *not* be free to transparently proxy all their users, and take
> > advantage of the average user's technical ignorance.
> 
> Why not?  Isn't it their right to employ such methods to reduce
> costs?

Depends. If there is competition, yes. At the stage at which it becomes
impossible for the average user to get a non-proxied account, no, I
don't think so.
 
> > If an ISP offered two dial up accounts at different price points for
> > proxied and non-proxies, fine. ADSL works like that - you can pay more
> > for real IP addresses. Quietly proxing everyone without telling them is
> > disingenous and underhand, however.
> 
> Not really, because the way I see it, it is just a "detail" of how
> the service is provided.  You cannot reasonably expect an ISP to
> describe the design of its entire network and all services provided
> by it, in every advert.  You are perfectly within your rights to
> cancel service if you are not satisfied, you could also research it
> a bit and work out how it was done beforehand.  So I do not see the
> underhand nature.

It should be stated clearly up front. I agree that requiring it it
adverts is extreme, but BT internet and others have become known for not
letting their users know, and even denying the existence of the proxies
on occasion. This is distinctly beyond the pale...
 
<snip>
 
> > I wait for the day when someone sues an ISP under trades descriptions,
> > on the grounds that a filtered connection is not an "internet"
> > connection, as all you can connect to is J random ISP's proxy servers.
> 
> But they do provide access to web pages from the internet, how it is
> achieved is just details which you may or may not agree with.

That would depend on the definition of an internet connection. If I get
a dial up internet account, and I find that I can't use ssh because all
services are proxied, and ssh isn't one they've catered for, then I'm of
the opinion that what I've got isn't an Internet account. If they call
it a "web-content" account, fine...

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying proxies are always bad, I just don't
like the "under the carpet" attitude of those who implement them at the
moment.
 
> > > To argue that all transparent proxies are bad, for example, is not going to
> > > cut it with network engineers.
> >
> > It doesn't need to.
> 
> Of course it does, who else is designing the network?  

At the end of the day, the network design is dictated by what the
customer will buy. Network engineers can implement whatever they like,
and it makes no difference. If (by some miracle) the public got up
tomorrow knowing about and disliking proxies, and cancelled accounts en
masse to move to providers who offered un-proxied access, then proxies
would vanish. All the engineering opinion that they are a good thing
would have precisely zero effect on this.

> There is no
> conspiracy!  Transparent proxies are used because they reduce costs,
> most people don't care, and if made optional they would not be used
> thereby removing almost all the advantages of having them in the
> first place.

As an ISP, it would be trivial to implement them based on account
profiles. Turn them on by default, and make user who don't want them
visit a web page, log in, and deselect an option on their account. I bet
95% of users wouldn't bother. Demon used to offer foreign networks
access to POP3 services only if the customer first telneteed to
password.demon.co.uk and set a POP3 password - one could implement
something like this pretty easily.

> If as you say everyone started demanding non-proxied internet access
> everywhere then yes they wouldn't be used, but I don't really see
> the point in that argument since it can be used to justify any point
> of view you choose - "If everyone did X then practice Y which I do
> not happen to agree with would stop", kind of presupposes that
> everyone does actually agree with your point of view.

No - my point was that it is specious to argue about what cuts it with
the network engineers, as they work *only* within the parameters of what
the customer will buy. I fully agree that the masses aren't going to
change overnight...
 
> Until they do, I don't see the http proxy witch-hunt going
> anywhere.

It shouldn't be a witch hunt, but it shouldn't be buried in the small
print and denied by technical support personnel, either.
 
> BTW, has anyone considered the statistical uses of the proxy logs
> for large ISPs that use transparent http proxies?

Consider this - it's effective for an ISP to use a transparent proxy as
it saves them on bandwidth costs. If the government starts requiring
that ISP's keep 7 years of traffic data, as has been suggested, what
will be more cost effective - junking the proxy and buying more
bandwidth, or buying the hardware and storage to keep the logs in an
appropriately secure manner?

My 2p worth,

Mike.

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug