Charter Deep Packet Inspection

prescient63 · 05-13-2008, 06:43 PM

On the heels of my questions about DPI Charter begins DPI of their customers

Quote:

Charter Communications is sending letters to its customers informing them of an "enhanced online experience" that involves Charter monitoring its users' searches and the websites they visit, and inserting targeted third-party ads based on their web activity. Charter, which serves nearly six million customers, is requiring users who want to keep their activity private to submit their personal information to Charter via an unencrypted form and download a privacy cookie that must be downloaded again each time a user clears his web cache or uses a different browser.

Reader Matt copied us on a letter he sent to Charter's VP of Customer Operations and CEO:

Quote:

Dear Mr. Stackhouse,

I am a high speed internet subscriber in the Fort Worth, TX area. For the last year or so I have had Charter’s 10 Megabit service and I am a satisfied customer. I am writing, however, because I am concerned by your recent letter discussing the “enhancement” that will be coming soon to my Charter web browsing experience (targeted, in-line advertisement manipulation). I appreciate Charter’s respect for my privacy, but the method that Charter has provided to opt-out of this tracking scheme is insecure and woefully inadequate.

The method that you provide to opt-out is as follows. First, a customer must visit Charter Communications - Privacy Request. Once at the site, the customer must enter his or her complete name and address. Upon submission of this personal information, the customer must accept a cookie from Charter that indicates his or her opt-out status. While this process sounds simple on face, further consideration reveals that this opt-out method is fraught with privacy concerns and places the burden on your paying customer, rather than Charter.

The most pressing privacy issue with this opt-out method is that the opt-out form presented at the aforementioned URL is not encrypted. As I’m sure you realize, this means that a user submitting his or her address to Charter is doing so in the clear, leaving this personal information open to eavesdropping. It is not difficult to create an SSL-encrypted web form. It is troubling that Charter has not done so in this case.

The fact that this opt-out system relies on a cookie to keep users opted out is also a privacy issue. By telling customers who visit the opt-out page that, “if you delete your cookies or cache files… you will have to opt-out again,” you are encouraging users to keep those files that good privacy practices dictate should be frequently purged. Ironically, the best reason to purge one’s cookies often is to prevent internet marketers from tracking one’s behavior online.

In addition to the critical privacy concerns, the steps required to avoid being tracked by this new advertising system place the burden on your customers, rather than on Charter where it belongs. A customer should be able to opt-out of this advertising tracking system in a manner that will rarely, if ever, require the customer to opt-out again. Instead, because the system uses cookies, a customer must insecurely opt-out of being tracked on each PC in his or her home. Further compounding the work that the customer has to do, if the he or she deletes cookies in accordance with safe browsing techniques, it will be necessary to insecurely opt-out on each and every PC again.

I suggest that rather than force your customers through unending iterations of opting out of this advertising system, you should allow customers like me to opt-out at the cable modem level via a secure, encrypted form on your website. I’m glad to hear that Charter has an appreciation for my privacy, but please change your opt-out process to demonstrate that you also have an appreciation for my time and security online.

Matt's letter focuses on the flawed opt-out clause, but the program itself, an implementation of "deep packet inspection," is more worrying to us. Deep packet inspection allows an ISP to monitor not only its users searches and visited websites, but also the type of activity (e.g., email or peer-to-peer), which could be used for traffic shaping and threatens net neutrality.

Elurin · 05-13-2008, 07:54 PM

I didn't like Charter when I had them (also never liked Comcast). I think if I were still a subscriber I would cancel immediately and find an alternate ISP.

AladainAF · 05-13-2008, 08:20 PM

That is way way too suspicious.

I'd drop them quickly.

Ronne · 05-13-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elurin

I didn't like Charter when I had them (also never liked Comcast). I think if I were still a subscriber I would cancel immediately and find an alternate ISP.

There are a lot of areas where this is no alternative. Gogo cable monopolies.

AladainAF · 05-14-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

There are a lot of areas where this is no alternative. Gogo cable monopolies.

There are other mediums available, likely. DSL, satellite, etc.

GrobbeeTrull2.0 · 05-14-2008, 05:41 PM

Not if you want the speeds cable offers.

My choices are:

TimeWarner cable
AT&T Yahoo! DSL (the slowest speed available)
Dial-up

Capitalism at work.

AladainAF · 05-14-2008, 05:43 PM

If there wasn't capitalism, no one would have bothered to lay down the cable lines in the first place, unless the government did at the expense of the tax payer. There is a reason you can only choose Time Warner cable - just like me. Because they are the ones that laid the cable infrastructure in my neighborhood.

Gryeyes · 05-14-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AladainAF

If there wasn't capitalism, no one would have bothered to lay down the cable lines in the first place, unless the government did at the expense of the tax payer. There is a reason you can only choose Time Warner cable - just like me. Because they are the ones that laid the cable infrastructure in my neighborhood.

I always thought most of the cable infrastructure was government subsidized.

GrobbeeTrull2.0 · 05-14-2008, 05:54 PM

It was.

AladainAF · 05-14-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

I always thought most of the cable infrastructure was government subsidized.

*Shrug* Not where I live. Time warner specifically laid the lines, which is why my neighborhood is only time warner cable. Makes sense to me. I don't see the purpose in laying the lines if you're forced to whore them out to a competitor.

Cad · 05-14-2008, 06:00 PM

I dropped Charter about 5 months ago and got AT&T DSL. Go figure, even though my ultimate download rate is lower (I think I get 350-ish Kbytes/sec maximum out of DSL, where I could hit 500-ish on cable), torrents download much faster and overall I'm much happier with the service because of that. Biggest complaint with charter was that torrents choked the connection even when I completely disabled uploading.. DSL seems to handle it fine. Probably charter fucking with the links since they could tell it's torrent traffic. Assholes.

Gryeyes · 05-14-2008, 06:10 PM

On an unrelated note is there an easy way to use torrents without risking comcasts wrath?

Furism · 05-15-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AladainAF

There are other mediums available, likely. DSL, satellite, etc.

ADSL limits your upstream to 1 Mb (whether you have ADSL 1, 2, or 2+) because it's asymmetrical. Satellite has got huge latency, kiss your online games goodbye. VDSL (100 Mb bandwidth symmetrical) only has 100m effective range, so usually they use this to reach the apartments in a building with an optical fiber connectivity (1 Gb bandwidth or way, way more depending on the network).

Cable can reach 100 Mb/s or more (depending on a lot of stuff), is symmetrical, very robust and simple, so it's overall the most reliable technology to Internet access.

The problem you've got in the US, ISP-wise that is, is that they fuck you in the ass on a regular basis. In Europe, especially in France, you can get ADSL2+ (28 Mb/s downstream, 1 Mb upstream), IPTV, VoIP (with free call to most civilized countries) and no traffic limit for 29.99€ a month.

Rythonn · 05-15-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

On an unrelated note is there an easy way to use torrents without risking comcasts wrath?

On a related note.
Cox, Comcast biggest BitTorrent blockers in the world

Gauss · 05-15-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rythonn

On a related note.
Cox, Comcast biggest BitTorrent blockers in the world

I use Cox and I get pretty decent (1mB/s on a well-seeded torrent) download speeds. Too lazy to repost what I replied to on /. with, but the sample sizes for Cox were extremely low (2-4 connections whereas comcast had 20-100)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

05-13-2008, 07:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
Elurin Hail to the Redskins! Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Murray, KY Posts: 1,075 -12 Internets	I didn't like Charter when I had them (also never liked Comcast). I think if I were still a subscriber I would cancel immediately and find an alternate ISP.

05-13-2008, 08:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
AladainAF Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 3,932 -42 Internets	That is way way too suspicious. I'd drop them quickly.

05-14-2008, 05:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
GrobbeeTrull2.0 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 4,174	Not if you want the speeds cable offers. My choices are: TimeWarner cable AT&T Yahoo! DSL (the slowest speed available) Dial-up Capitalism at work.

05-14-2008, 05:43 PM	#7 (permalink)
AladainAF Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 3,932 -42 Internets	If there wasn't capitalism, no one would have bothered to lay down the cable lines in the first place, unless the government did at the expense of the tax payer. There is a reason you can only choose Time Warner cable - just like me. Because they are the ones that laid the cable infrastructure in my neighborhood.

05-14-2008, 05:54 PM	#9 (permalink)
GrobbeeTrull2.0 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 4,174	It was.

05-14-2008, 06:00 PM	#11 (permalink)
Cad Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dallas Posts: 6,677 -37 Internets	I dropped Charter about 5 months ago and got AT&T DSL. Go figure, even though my ultimate download rate is lower (I think I get 350-ish Kbytes/sec maximum out of DSL, where I could hit 500-ish on cable), torrents download much faster and overall I'm much happier with the service because of that. Biggest complaint with charter was that torrents choked the connection even when I completely disabled uploading.. DSL seems to handle it fine. Probably charter fucking with the links since they could tell it's torrent traffic. Assholes.

05-14-2008, 06:10 PM	#12 (permalink)
Gryeyes Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 880 -8 Internets	On an unrelated note is there an easy way to use torrents without risking comcasts wrath?