What if someone working at your ISP sniffed all your Internet traffic?

[madmusic]

In the context of privacy, what does DU think? Say an employee at your ISP sniffed and read all your traffic using http://www.wireshark.org/about.html">WireShark or whatever and knew everything you did online that was not encrypted (like online banking).

What do you think?

1. I don't care because I'm not doing anything illegal.

2. It doesn't matter because we can't expect privacy online anyway.

3. It's none of their business and I don't pay my ISP to permit employees to sniff my traffic.

4. It's illegal and wrong.

I'm curious because many objected to government sniffing but do the same objections apply if done by a private snoop? What's the difference?

Note: for those unaware of sniffing: http://www.yourdictionary.com/hacker/sniffer-program-or-packet-sniffer">Sniffer Program or Packet Sniffer definition.

EDIT: typo

[thunder rising]

1. the transmission is no different than over the air. Anybody can listen in, but cannot use it for

gain. This is just based on my experience as a FCC General Class Radio Telephone Operator License holder. There is no difference except the transmission medium.

If you really want security ... https.

[madmusic]

4. Do you announce your paswords over the airwaves though?

I mean, see the difference? Most people probably see a difference between what they say on the radio, for public airway consumption, and what they may post as an anonymous person, and there is a constitutional right to anonymous speech. Further, some states like California have laws again Internet sniffing without a warrant no matter who is doing it unless captured for the purpose of effective administration of the business, like traffic analysis for server implementation and so on.

But leaving the laws aside, as a matter of principle, what do people think?

[thunder rising]

20. I wouldn't know about CA. Transmitting PWs in the clear is not safe hence https

And consider your packets may well be transmitted over an air link (Micro-wave/satellite); hence my assertion.

[cliffordu]

12. I loves me some blowfish.

[Statistical]

17. lol. 90% of people think you are some crazy sushi spammer.

I'll stick w/ AES. The attacks on blowfish have gotten too close for comfort.
While only theoretical it is possible to compromise the key is enough plain text is known.

[cliffordu]

21. I use the additional security of never using a computer for anything important....

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. Its a reality of the times.

And there is simply no precedent for it. I'll never forget people warning others against making mad statements against Bush here, lest they get secret service visits. But the reality, the simple here now reality, is this is people sitting in their living rooms after having some drinks. Any pal who heard them mouth off in their living room after having a few (even conservative) would let it slide, but if you do the same thing with your keyboard, it can mean a visit from the secret service. Really, its the same thing for Freepers. Some Freeper has a thought about Obama, but then it turns into an internet meme which is actually a very serious thing, like the recent Facebook assassination poll, probably started by a dumbass in a fleeting moment, it takes on a very sinister veneer after spreading all over the Internet.

We have to realize at some point that the Internet is retarded. That's the bottom line here. So if some guy is recording Internet traffic from an ISP, that's nice. What really needs to happen is that we need to realize that what he has captured is not reality, but the fleeting key taps of an asshole in his living room tapping whatever on a keyboard. Really, that's they only way we can get at the truth of what's actually going on. And once we see that, once the weight of the "intelligence" captured is given proper value, only then can we expect to move forward in any kind of truly rational way.


Peace

[Cleita]

3. I think it's been done over and over again ever since I ever had an ISP.

I've had several over the years.

[Electric Monk]

6. I assume everything I typed is recorded and analyzed. I hope they learn something.

:shrug:

[madmusic]

7. Is that a sort of fatalism though?

Making that same assumption, it could be fun to feed the sniffing trolls misinformation, and maybe they will learn something dumb and jump to all kinds of conclusions. Or if they are homophobes, visit a lot of gay porn sites just to piss them off. :)

[madmusic]

10. For what purpose?

For the integrity of the system is one thing, but what if it is more like a stalker scenario? There are other possibilities that have nothing to do with the efficient running of the system.

Come to think of it, there could be a movie here. :)

[DainBramaged]

5. Had this discussion with my employers

Their opinion is that it's THEIR network, they can sniff traffic all they want to protect their network from damage. And if they want to use it to ban access so be it, we have no say in the matter.

[Cerridwen]

9. It's just business. Nothing personal.

So glad we don't have fascism in the US.

[Statistical]

16. How is that fascism? Do you use the word fascism to describe every policy you don't like.

You have a right to assemble but you don't in my living room (personal property).

A company network is owned, operated, paid for, and maintained by the company it is the classic example of personal property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[Cleita]

23. Yes, kings of the past would love your definition.

Everything and everyone belongs to the king and he is not only the law but above it. Kings were the original corporations. I think our Constitution would disprove what you said.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Probably should be fired, possibly indicted....

but there are all sorts of ramifications.

I do know that in my job at the Census Bureau we are strict about personal privacy, and the rules say that we can only discuss personal information on a need to know basis, and snooping through the files is highly discoyuraged-- we are threatened with fines up to $250,000 and five years in jail. (Usually, you would just get fired if you gossip, but could get serious jail time if you sold or published the info.)

The Post Office, banks and financial firms, police departments, and a bunch of others have policies that say you can't snoop wantonly and certainly can't use any information you find for anything outside of the job. The phone company doesn't think highly of you listening in, weither.

But, none of the insurance companies I worked for had me sign anything to protect privacy, and few places I know of have any sort of hard policy with serious sanctions for snooping in the files. Barring a law somewhere that makes this snooping illegal (possibly under the wiretap rules) it's pretty much up to the ISP to discipline any employee who snooped for any reason not job related.

[madmusic]

11. Thanks. Interesting facts and perspective. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

14. I thought a little more about this, and...

the law isn't settled yet abut just what legal status an ISP is.

It's long been settled that the Post Office can't open your mail, and I think the phone company, and ISP, an email service like Yahoo or Google or any other service moving simply moving info around or storing it should be treated the same-- as a common carrier with limited responsibilities for the content and major prohibitions against snooping around in it. So far, I don't know that the courts and the law agree with that.

For instance, Google is open about snooping around in your email and browsing habits to target ads to you. They claim they don't intrude in your privacy because none of the info gets out and you can't personally be identified, but they don't say how they protect you or how much snooping they do. I'm not sure where the law on this is right now, but Congress and the courts have been dealing with it very slowly.

[madmusic]

22. The distinction between public and private databases blurs

PBS's http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/">Spying on the Homefront

Google's database is a treasure trove of information that the government could use to find types of people it doesn't like. I've always thought the war on drugs is really a way against dissent, since drugs and dissent were so intertwined in the 60s.

Google may or may not allow government access to its database now, or the government may or may not take it under eminent domain in the future. (http://www.chat11.com/Ways_The_Government_Takes_Our_Property">The ways that government takes away our property is almost endless.

But the question is if most people think internet traffic like airwaves, then there is no principle to curb the government's taking of or monitoring of that traffic and its databases.

Maybe the time to have an opinion, and a potential influence, is as the laws evolve.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Depends on the agreement that was freely undertaken when you signed up.

[Statistical]

15. Online banking is encrypted.... FOR THAT EXACT reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security

If every website used SSL/TLS sniffing would be virtually impossible for the "man in the middle".

Now SSL has some costs (annual cert confirming identity of the website) and additional hardware requirements (the math in encryption is CPU heavy).

There is no reason every site you go to w/ sensitive information isn't encrypted.

[Aragorn]

18. 4

but I'm sure it happens. Seen a lot of other totally incorrect analysis done over the years, but that's another issue.

Anyway, letting a stupid kid go for a stupid FB poll is a good sign IMO.

[seabeyond]

19. 2. be aware. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. As an employer I would ask that everyone with internet access sign an "Acceptable Use" agreement.

It would state that at no time would the internet be used for personal business or entertainment, subject to random monitoring. Certain websites would be red-flagged and automatically trigger an entry into a log.

Anyone who didn't sign it would have their internet access removed, and should they absolutely require it to do their work, I'd provide a workstation that they had to sign into in order to use.

My time. My computers. My network. Your paycheck. YOU decide which is more important.