DPI (Deep Packet Inspection): Dives into the Privacy of Individuals?

One aspect of the net neutrality battle is the discovered potential of deep packet inspection, which presents implications for file sharers and pretty much any user who uploads or downloads from the online network.  Deep packet inspection functions as a notification application primarily for those transferring information over the Internet.  In a “packet” of information, almost like a letter, there is the general tag line of what the letter or “packet” contains also called the header, and the body itself.  When an online service provider moves information from one place to another on the Internet, they have the knowledge of where to transfer the bundle of info because of the header.  However, there are companies that exist to sell technologies that can enable the networks with the power to view the actual content within the packet, including Radware, Allot Communications, and Packet Capture Express, although this does not by any means say these companies came into existence for this reason.  These companies exist to ensure security, although many individuals are afraid that by allowing the major ISP’s the ability to obtain personal information, they could in turn behold a great power because of DPI.  Many argue that access to that much information, which could include examples such as a personal e-mail or video of a family event is a violation of privacy and unnecessary for the providers to possess.  However, the providers say that DPI will allow them to divert different types of Internet traffic based on the capacity (bandwidth) they require or the near perfect playback in the form of a live video. However, there are some who are skeptical, and still fear for future yet.  Only time will tell if deep packet inspection is the innovative agent of knowledge or violation of privacy aspects.

Net Neutrality: Pros and Cons

One of the greatest if not the greatest discussion that is pending legislative action is the issue of network neutrality.  The concept of net neutrality sets forth the basic idea that everyone is entitled to free usage of the Internet, assuming of course that each individual is paying for internet connection.  Also, when interpreting the term, one must also take into account that his or her usage is not interrupted by outside forces, such as the Internet Service Providers themselves, who are simply the suppliers of the Internet.  The conflict arises in the ISP argument that they should be able to regulate certain usage to the extent that they will be able to make the Internet more efficient, while those who advocate the system as it currently exists, free from restriction, see no need for change and do not want to pay for what they already receive for free.

Those in favor of net neutrality present the argument that the Internet as it now exists sufficiently supplies the public with the information at a reasonable cost, basically one that requires a person to own a computer and internet service, two aspects that are not uncommon for many an individual in this day and age.  The fight to preserve the system as it currently exists is being put forth by advocates through web in sites such as savetheinternet.com, which provides “fact vs. fiction” statements about the issue, a couple of them being that protection for net neutrality has always been around and that consumers would have to be the ones compensating the costs for the network regardless of whether or not it remained neutral.

The counter opinion, which is held mostly by ISP’s such as Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and AT&T, dictates that the companies should have control over the flow of information or bites through the system since they have the capability to run the system more effectively and can prevent less stalls in accessing web pages or using certain applications such as BitTorrent which requires much bandwidth but does not need to function in regular time since it’s a downloading function.  With online gaming, a tiny set back or stall of a partial second could have a significant effect on the outcome and quality of that game, such as with Halo. ISP companies state that they could also potentially regulate this, through the usage of tiered pricing, which is already used for different levels of internet connection, where pricing depends on the speed at which a consumer wants to receive connection, and the price they are willing to pay for that connection.  ISP control could potentially allow for two costs for the consumer: one for access to the Internet, and one to access specific content on the Internet channeled through the companies that would have to pay the service providers to keep their site afloat.

Below, President Barack Obama briefly addresses the issue back in 2007 during an MTV video interview, before he was elected President from Youtube.