Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ISP Inserting Content Into Users' Webpages

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-neutrality dept.

Privacy 396

geekmansworld, among other readers, lets us know that the Canadian ISP Rogers is inserting data into the HTTP streams returned by the Web sites requested by its customers. According to a CBC article, Rogers admits to modifying customers' HTTP data, but says they are merely "trying different things" and testing the customer response.

cancel ×

396 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Read between the lines (5, Informative)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665389)

replace "trying different things" with "seeing what we can get away with" and your closer to the truth

Re:Read between the lines (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665517)

And if after hours, a man puts his wii-wii in the mayonaise jar at the restaurant where he works, that's just experimenting too, to see how the customer will react.

Re:Read between the lines (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665753)

Dude, I served my sentence and paid my debt to society ... it's not fair for you to keep bringing this up.

Re:Read between the lines (1)

BIGjuevos (1114189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665539)

But seeing what we can get away with will quickly lead to sexual experimentation with random tcp packets. Then it goes from a civil rights case to sexual harassment. Trully think about it, wouldn't it be neat to sue a corporation based on sexual harassment charges?

Re:Read between the lines (5, Funny)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665549)

In other, unrelated news, alx5000 has been reported to have blown up a dozen Government buildings in the last 24 hours. When inquired about these events, alx5000 said to admit to modifying governmental property, but remarked he is merely "trying different things" and testing the Government response.

Re:Read between the lines (3, Interesting)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665585)

This could open up a whole bunch of "but I didn't download that" claims when users are caught with dubious material. They could claim that their ISP modified their download streams and point (at least some of) the blame toward the ISP.

It's all a little dubious if you ask me. I always knew it was possible to fiddle with the stream, but I didn't think anyone would bother because it could possibly break a lot of pages that are held together with fragile HTML-fu.

I don't think so. (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665829)

This could open up a whole bunch of "but I didn't download that" claims when users are caught with dubious material. They could claim that their ISP modified their download streams and point (at least some of) the blame toward the ISP.
Of course this is a disturbing trend, and from what I read about Rogers Cable, I'm not surprised. But I have to seriously question if your scenario would come to pass. I really don't think that ISPs are going to "insert" kiddie porn, "illegal" music or movies, or "terrorist" content in your Web page requests. Pirate Bay will not be buying banner ads on Rogers. The thing that *might* open them to liability are these stupid pop-ups that look like Windows dialog boxes advertising spyware removal or similar shit.

Re:I don't think so. (2, Funny)

gmagill (105538) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665891)

I think he means that *I* could claim that all that goat porn I downloaded was 'inserted' by my ISP, that I am not a pervert.

Re:I don't think so. (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665989)

I think he means that *I* could claim that all that goat porn I downloaded was 'inserted' by my ISP, that I am not a pervert.
Yes, obviously. I'm saying that's a stretch. Extremely unlikely. Why would an ISP "insert" porn into your Web page? They wouldn't.

Re:I don't think so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666011)

Because maybe your ISP is run by perverts

Re:I don't think so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666067)

Because maybe your ISP is run by perverts
Idiot.

Read between the lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665683)

Canadian ISP RogCOCKSUCKERSers

I'm just trying different things, too... inserting content into the http stream. Oh, does that offend you? Well guess what? YOUR CUSTOMERS DON'T CARE FOR IT EITHER! /rhethorical_questions

Re:Read between the lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665981)

replace "trying different things" with "seeing what we can get away with"

Hmmmph. They already did on my connection.

Dupe (-1, Offtopic)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665393)

... [slashdot.org]

Re:Dupe (5, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665427)

This is not a dupe, it's merely your isp inserting outdated data in to your webpage because Slashdot didn't pay your ISP the brand new anti-crapification fee.

Re:Dupe (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665475)

You're going to get modded funny and I'm going to groan :/
update: modded funny 1 minute into my 2 minute posting timeout for the GP post! grooan

Re:Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665931)

Begin groaning in three, two, one...

Re:Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665485)

Yep. I don't use Rogers and I don't see this article. Er, wait...

What's the problem? (3, Insightful)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665401)

Let's get rational for a second here; the ISP is trying to inform you you're reaching your limit, so you don't overshoot it and start having to pay extra. Lets put arguments about limits aside (after all, you've agreed to a contract involving limits). It's in their interests _not_ to inform you, as you'd have to start paying them extra. But they're trying to find a more pervasive way of letting you know. How else can they do it? Via email? They'd just send it to the email address they provide you with. Who really uses isp-provided email these days? it's all webmail, so they need some window to get through to you, and maybe http is that window.

Re:What's the problem? (5, Insightful)

patternmatch (951637) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665431)

How else can they do it? Via email? They'd just send it to the email address they provide you with. Who really uses isp-provided email these days? it's all webmail, so they need some window to get through to you, and maybe http is that window.

Or maybe, just maybe, they could ask you for your regular email when you sign up. This is not rocket science. There is no excuse for an ISP to be arbitrarily modifying the content of a subscriber's traffic.

Re:What's the problem? (1)

stevenvi (779021) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665679)

And maybe, just maybe, they'll sell that address while they're at it.

The local telephone company sold my telephone number to advertisers, so I wouldn't put it past 'em.

Re:What's the problem? (0)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666113)

How else can they do it? Via email? They'd just send it to the email address they provide you with. Who really uses isp-provided email these days? it's all webmail, so they need some window to get through to you, and maybe http is that window.

Or maybe, just maybe, they could ask you for your regular email when you sign up. This is not rocket science. There is no excuse for an ISP to be arbitrarily modifying the content of a subscriber's traffic.

You trust your ISP enough to give them your actual email address? You, sir or madam, are a braver soul than I.

Re:What's the problem? (2, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665433)

Because they're using software made for inserting ads into or rewriting the HTTP stream, and that software is very evil. I think it's a very neat idea that's also very scary.

Re:What's the problem? (5, Insightful)

weorthe (666189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665571)

that software is very evil

Yes. Imagine a world in which China/Bush's America/Hillary's America no longer censors the web but subtly modifies it instead. Maybe with the cooperation of Yahoo et al. All power inevitably becomes abused. What good is freedom of expression if you can't be sure your expression is your own?

Re:What's the problem? (1)

SocratesJedi (986460) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665741)

What good is freedom of expression if you can't be sure your expression is your own?
Isn't this already solved through public key cryptography (i.e. message signing in PGP/GPG)? Such mechanisms enable it to be demonstrated that the message hasn't been tampered with. Instead, what it might pose a threat to is anonymous free speech. Admittedly, though, that is just as bad.

Re:What's the problem? (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666047)

Actually, the problem would be solved for on a per-site basis by using SSL to communite with the browser. Trouble is, SSL certificates cost money (unless you're willing to go with a self-signed cert, which causes user issues), and requires an IP address dedicated solely to that site. Both factors significantly reduce the likelihood of SSL implementation by the majority of web sites on the Internet today. Would you suffer the cost and inconvenience of making your site ran over SSL, and only SSL?

With regard to message signing, yes, it's entirely possible to encrypt a web page with a PGP cert, but in reality that's just not practical. Are you going to digitally sign every page in your blog and rely on users to verify the signature? The bottom line is that ISP modification of content in-transit is unethical, underhanded, and undermines the very core of the values that the Internet was built on. I don't give two damns about Rogers Cable's "experimental" approach to customers; if I were a customer of theirs, I'd be taking my (Canadian) dollar elsewhere in a hurry.

Re:What's the problem? (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666059)

Isn't this already solved through public key cryptography (i.e. message signing in PGP/GPG)?

Its what SSL is for.

Now we could have done message level security like some people proposed, but we didn't. SSL will defeat this type of attack fine, even with a domain validated cert. A self signed cert could be intercepted and replaced by this type of scheme - unless an SSH like scheme was used to check to see if the cert was the same as seen last time or a DKIM like domain key was used.

If Rogers really wants to contact the user in this way they should redirect the Web page to their own Web server just like WiFi connections do. Mixing their content into other people's pages sounds like a good way to provoke lawsuits.

Re:What's the problem? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665441)

What about a phone call, an IM, or a letter

You know something that has proven to be both legal and moral.

Re:What's the problem? (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665467)

the problem is going to be that modifying the http stream will break web applications and some secure sessions. it'll become even more of a problem as time progresses.

imho they are creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. there's 1000's of widgets out there they could tune to give you an almost real time view of your quota, building their own an interfering with your http traffic is not a good solution.

Re:What's the problem? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665471)

Well, the article mentioned they said "they are merely "trying different things" and testing the customer response."

Typical Response: Fuckin' Stop It!!!

Re:What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665573)

The only responses that matter are ones involving $$$, as in cancellations of service. Afterall, if someone is whining about service, yet they still are paying money into it, what incentive does the said company have to fix said shit?

Re:What's the problem? (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665529)

The problem...?

The obvious one... consensus, agreement, privacy, respect, customer focus, precedent... etc...

That all seems pretty rational to me.

Re:What's the problem? (1)

taniwha (70410) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665557)

what's the problem? it's like you make a phone call and every minute some third party chimes in and starts telling you how much you've spent ... besides you just know that next year they will start telling you about McDonald's latest burger

Re:What's the problem? (2, Insightful)

AccUser (191555) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665779)

the ISP is trying to inform you you're reaching your limit

The ISP is inserting data into the page. Suppose they add a logo, a hit the mosquito advert, and a movie trailer - will they 'charge you for that bandwidth?

Re:What's the problem? (3, Informative)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665921)

Let's get rational for a second here; the ISP is trying to inform you you're reaching your limit, so you don't overshoot it and start having to pay extra
If that was the case... then the ISP can simply redirect all external requests to an internal page informing you as such... if for some odd reason they didn't want to use e-mail. In fact... some a local wi-max provider does just that in the event your account is overdue... a simple "you own us money" in between browsing session and poof gone.

My data on Rogers and Shaw is dated the last I checked they didn't meter. Even if they did meter odds are you're not going to go over your limit surfing the web so any injected web based waring isn't going to be that useful.

Redirection on the other hand... not so bad.

Re:What's the problem? (4, Interesting)

Nikker (749551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666049)

I am a Rogers customer right now because I am slightly out of the range of a DSL provider. My connection was erratic especially on torrents didn't matter what kind and where from. Suspicious I got a copy of Wireshark and monitored the traffic, all the packets going out appeared to be ok but all the returning packets on my torrent port were corrupted (CRC error), I brought this to their attention and they said the problem didn't exist. I told them to let their NOC know about this and they refused, they told me to send it to the general email box on their help page.

They say they are testing the waters and they are. Are they testing a way to notify people of their account or are they trying to get people comfortable with them throwing up messages on your screen while you surf? As far as I'm concerned I will cancel and go without rather than putting up with this garbage. As far as I'm concerned the only right they have is to give me the service I'm paying for. As you can probably tell I really just don't trust this company, they don't do their job very well and expect me to put up with it, as far as I'm concerned I will fight this every inch.

Re:What's the problem? (1)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666065)

I have a limit on my Satellite ISP. In my case they really do send an email to my real email address. But in my case I don't pay more if I go over my "limit". In my case before I even reach the "limit" my speed is drastically reduced. There are different ways to skin a cat.

Re:What's the problem? (3, Interesting)

schon (31600) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666071)

Let's get rational for a second here; the ISP is trying to inform you you're reaching your limit
... as well as taking the opportunity to inject advertising in the page.

Don't believe it? Take a look a the screenshot. When was the last time you saw the Yahoo! logo on Google's homepage?

Re:What's the problem? (1)

palantir0 (945761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666075)

Yeah, there isn't any way for them to tell you. Nothing like IM, text msg, or hell, make a pre-recorded phone call. No, you must put crap in your web pages. Now, what happens if i'm using a program that doesn't display anything and I hit some limit? Gee, maybe that http modification thing isn't a good way unless they are really trying to do something else.

Cheers

Re:What's the problem? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666077)

How else can they do it?
Well, off the top of my head:
  • Ask you for an email to send notices to when you sign up.
  • Ditto for instant message
  • SMS your phone
  • Automatic phone call
  • Offer a little icon for your taskbar/dock/etc
  • RSS feed
  • Screensaver with your current stats
  • Send a midget in an "Alf" costume to your door with flowers and candy

Re:What's the problem? (1)

PWill (1006147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666103)

I dunno, maybe I'm weird, but I would prefer an automated phone call or something.

Yawn (1)

TopSpin (753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665421)

I saw Orange doing this on their wireless network in Lyon about 3 years ago. Have also seen it on various hotel networks.

Still get my personal uplink from a small, privately owned ISP that doesn't have anything like enough on-staff talent to wiggle into every aspect of my traffic. About 1/2 has fast as any given nearby Comcast cable uplink. Costs about $20 more a month too. For all that you can take your trafficshaped, mutiliated $29.95/month interweb pipe and <censored>

If you're going to line up at the troth with the other sheep, lower your expectations.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665735)

Trough, not troth.

1. troth - a mutual promise to marry
2. troth - a solemn pledge of fidelity

1. trough a. A long, narrow, generally shallow receptacle for holding water or feed for animals.

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665423)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
ISP inserting goatse into webpages [goatse.ch]

Trying different things... (5, Funny)

Z80xxc! (1111479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665429)

In other news, a mad internet subscriber broke into the headquarters of a Canadian ISP called Rogers. Upon entering, he hit shot two techs, broke 3 servers with a sledgehammer and then proceeded to start a fire in the CEO's office. Upon being apprehended by police, he was let go after informing them that he meant no harm and was just trying some different things to see how the company would react.

Re:Trying different things... (2, Insightful)

basic0 (182925) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665971)

Good luck. I listen to Prime Time Sports with Bob McCown every day, and apparently even well-known, award-winning air talent doesn't have any level of access to Uncle Ted or the 10th floor of the Rogers building. McCown claims he's never met Ted Rogers in the ~10 years he's been working for him. I imagine his office is like something out of the movie "Sneakers".

please (1)

warrior_s (881715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665439)

kdawson... you have to start reading slashdot ... man you are an editor.. atleast add an rss feed and read only story headlines.... it was posted yesterday on slashdot [slashdot.org]

Misuse of content? (1)

donovansmith (570177) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665443)

Saw this story a day or two ago here. I don't think they have any right to be modifying content that does not belong to them. They are modifying content for purposes that the site owner's did not intend and many site owners would consider that misuse of their site content. The fact that they are modifying that content also clearly shows their systems are taking a look at every single web page viewed by a subscriber and the privacy implications are beyond creepy. Seems like protocols like Tor [torproject.org] to protect privacy are becoming increasingly justified.

Re:Misuse of content? (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665507)

So DVD players violate content owner's rights by displaying menus on top of the video? This would fall well within fair use. More so than numerous adblocking plug ins for various web browsers anyway.

Re:Misuse of content? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665621)

Not quite the same thing, and you know it, particularly because the DVDCCA maintains strict control of what players can do and explicitly authorizes that behavior. And Ad-block plugins are a choice to modify content made by the consumer of that content. That's hugely different from the data transport mechanism modifying said content on the fly to suit its own needs ... it is not what we pay for when we send our Internet bills every month. You might also want to check on where fair use applies (and where it doesn't) before making any such claim that ISPs could hide behind it. Companies have gotten in hot water for editing DVD movies and redistributing them: that's probably a more apropos comparison to this situation than a simple application of fair use.

In any event, I expect my DVD player to (ahem) "modify" the content of a DVD in specific, expected ways that are strictly to my benefit. I don't expect it to change the plot, reorder scenes, or start presenting advertising while I'm watching the movie.

Re:Misuse of content? Next Step: (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665661)

government honey nets....

Imagine being given wrong directions, misleading or misinforming.

This could be merely the first step in domestic warfare upon civilians. In the case of the US, bitching about China conducting IT warfare against the US... sheesh, the US ADMITTED (IIRC) that it would seek out technical capabilities in this area. Doesn't matter anymore who started it. The whiny bitching in the papers is pathetic. All governments do this, so the US is not the only nor the last target.

But, Rogers is probably just sleuthing along a la AT&T, on the Canadian side of the border.

Could be that real, bona fide Terrorists set up shop in comfy (to them?) Canada and Canada, fearful of becoming a haven for springboard attacks to the good ole U.S. of A, wants to show washington it can get tough with technical prowess.

OTOH, could be the US is encouraging Canada to do this, knowing the fallout will be terrorists might have to clam up and reduce their activity.

As for crackers, they will have to also go further underground, or risk being caught.

So, what we have is stupid criminals and less sophisticated Ts getting caught, marketing teams manipulating consumer privacy information, and government saying it's all for the common good.

Somewhere in there lies the truth, the dark truth, and worse.

When people "experiment" (2, Funny)

grilled-cheese (889107) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665447)

Babies come from people "experimenting" too.

Re:When people "experiment" (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665649)

Yeah, but we pretty much know what the "customer response" is going to be in that case.

Re:When people "experiment" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665877)

Babies come from people "experimenting" too.

In many cases, there are legitimate reasons for babies. But, as in some of the aforementioned cases, I think these guys just need their tubes tied off.

Ahhh The Internets - Those Crazy Tubes... (1)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665463)

Are like the wild west.

I wonder if advertisers will start talking about blacklisting ISPs that modify content? Or maybe try to find some way to charge them extra?

Re:Ahhh The Internets - Those Crazy Tubes... (2, Funny)

gknoy (899301) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665747)

If advertisers blacklisted ISPs, wouldn't that make those ISPs users have a better experience? Sounds like a win-win. ;)

No problem as used in this case (5, Interesting)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665473)

It seems that the customer would be less unhappy about a warning that he is about to reach a bandwidth cap, page modifications and all, than just get a thousand dollar bill out of the blue. There is no set mechanism for the ISP to communicate with the customer over Internet, so creating one might be justifiable in this case. Write again when a (non-free) ISP injects ads or blocks competitor's websites.

Re:No problem as used in this case (1)

Bellum Aeternus (891584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665697)

Automated phone calls would probably work too.

Re:No problem as used in this case (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665743)

When was the last time you picked up a call with unknown Caller ID?

Re:No problem as used in this case (1)

deftones_325 (1159693) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665815)

Never. Matter of fact, those calls cause me to turn off the lights, turn on the police scanner and nervously pace back and forth for a few minutes.

Re:No problem as used in this case (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666013)

You have an interesting life. Personally, I am just annoyed by listening to personal bankers and insurance agents who profess inordinate interest in my finances or financial security of my family.

Re:No problem as used in this case (2, Insightful)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665995)

Thing is, now you know they have the ability, equipment and willingness to modify your datastream...

Write again when a (non-free) ISP injects ads or blocks competitor's websites.

How would you know whether they are, or not?

Re:No problem as used in this case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665997)

e-mail?

Re:No problem as used in this case (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666009)

There is no set mechanism for the ISP to communicate with the customer over Internet, so creating one might be justifiable in this case.

email...

Neveryoumind... (2, Funny)

Bonewalker (631203) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665481)

According to a CBC article, Rogers admits to modifying customers' HTTP data, but says they are merely "trying different things" and testing the customer response.

Oh, well, that's ok then, if you are only trying different...HEY! Wait a minute! You can't do that. Why, I oughta....

Oblig xkcd (5, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665503)

Are they doing that with Oven Mitts [xkcd.com] ? No?! Lame....

Hey Rogers! (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665513)

I got your "customer response" right here.

Seriously, when it becomes acceptable for the phone company to break into my conversation with "Did you know that Geico can save you ton of money on car insurance?" then my ISP can screw around with my Web pages. Otherwise, get your sticky paws OFF me, you damn dirty apes.

Might not be your ISP (3, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665525)

That is to say, this is a case of your ISP using packet modification to insert code into your HTTP stream, but it doesn't have to be so innocuous. It's quite possible that someone who has hacked into your ISP could do the same thing.. and not just to HTTP streams, but any TCP stream. Downloaded any executables lately? Its quite possible that a hacker could have intercepted any packet that begins with "MZ", has a non-zero value at offset 0x3c which contains a 4 byte offset into the packet that has "PE" at it. There's a windows binary, let's change the bytes at the entrypoint to do something malicious.

SSL is your friend.

If only we could get IPSEC happening.

Didn't we just talk about this? (2, Funny)

statemachine (840641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665531)

It seems we just had a story that talked about Rogers.
Will ISP Web Content Filtering Continue To Grow? [slashdot.org]

(No, this one words it differently. -- Inserted by your friends at the NSA)

I'm not punching you in the nose... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665541)

...I'm merely trying different things to see what sort of response I would get from people.

I'm sorry, but in the US, the ISP needs to be brought up on Federal Criminal charges of interfering with commerce on a local, state, federal and international level.

You've been rogered. (5, Funny)

Seor Jojoba (519752) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665609)

I propose turning their company name into a verb, "roger", which means to manipulate internet data without the receiver's permission. Everytime you exclaim, "I've been rogered!" or "They rogered my data!" the Rogers company name will hold on to its well-earned place in history. And yes, "roger" already means something else quite similar. With either definition, something is being inserted where it probably shouldn't go.

Re:You've been rogered. (3, Funny)

reidconti (219106) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665655)

As in, "you've just been Rogered arseways by your ISP?"

Re:You've been rogered. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665785)

Or "Man, did you see that guy taking it up the roger?"

Re:You've been rogered. (2, Funny)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666025)

"Hey, man, is something wrong with your server?"

"Roger, roger!"

If Rogers is trying different things.... (1)

8127972 (73495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665631)

.... Then I think I will try a different ISP. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander right?

I have not experienced this (5, Funny)

eap (91469) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665633)

I am a Rogers [V1AGR4] customer, and I [MORTGAGE RATES FALL AGAIN!] think you're all just overreacting [VISTA - THE BEST WINDOWS YET!].

Now let's have no more talk about this bizarre coverup.

Getting away with murder (5, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665645)

So.... why aren't there any high profile lawsuits against Rogers yet?

First they throttle BitTorrent traffic. Then, when BitTorrent users encrypted their connections, all encrypted traffic was throttled, making VPN connections unbearably slow.

The only reason I can think of that they're getting away with this is that...uh...people in Ontario don't telecommute at all?

Why is everybody letting Rogers get away with these shenanigans? Rogers' practises must be costing some business users serious money. I simply don't understand.

What, again? (1)

zonky (1153039) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665729)

Those naughty Canadians.

Shouldn't be too hard... (1)

OptionalMayhem (1055520) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665769)

...to guess that the "customer response" would be overwhelmingly negative.

uk equivalent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665783)

here in the uk we have the truly contemptible carphone warehouse that plies a similarly intrusive practice

Okay, I know... (5, Insightful)

gillbates (106458) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665787)

This is a dupe, but it's worth commenting on.

The fundamental problem I see with this is that the ISP is changing the content of webpages to suit their own interests. There are a myriad of problems here, regardless of whether or not the customer accepts it:

  1. Copyright law: technically, the modified web page is a derived work. The ISP can now be held liable for copyright infringement if, say, Google, or the New York Times objects. The potential revenues sinkhole from copyright litigators is far greater than what any ISP could bear.
  2. There are ethical problems with an ISP artificially inflating the size of webpages, especially if they charge for the bandwidth.
  3. This smacks of 1984-esque censorship. Once it becomes commonplace for an ISP to change a web page, how long before government uses this for nefarious purposes.
  4. Consider how the above may be abused: a political rival logs onto Google, and the ISP replaces the normal content with child porn. Enter the police and 10 to 20 years in prison...
  5. If I can't trust my ISP to deliver an unmodified webpage, the only alternative is to use https for everything. While I'm personally favorable to such a thing, I realize it will disenfranchize a lot of part time and small time web operators who don't have the sophistication to setup an https server properly. Thus, one of the great egalitarian aspects of the web dies.

In light of the fact that a certain ISP blocked access to union websites, this is an alarming event indeed. Democracy depends on the free flow of information, and I'm thinking that it might be appropriate to make such a practice illegal, if only for the sake of preserving democracy. It will first be used for commercial gain, and later, leveraged as a political tool.

In other words (1)

dynomitejj (1113319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665795)

They are trying to figure out how to make money because they are selling broadband internet so cheap that the profit margin is thin as ****

Well (1)

goingforaslash (1195043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665797)

I suppose if they have informed the customers that content may/will be modified from the Internet in a sign up agreement than ok, but if they have not, would not this be illegal?

Throwing the legal mumbo jumbo away, why would they want to do this, what is the intent?

Sounds dodgy to me!

Cheers

I just want internet access (1)

flar2 (938689) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665803)

I just want my ISP to give me access to and from the internet. No inserting content, no filtering ports, no filtering content, no monitoring. Just connect me to the damn network allot me some bandwidth and leave me be! Surely there must be demand for plain and simple, no strings attached internet access.

Re:I just want internet access (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665951)

That's all most customers want. Which is the problem. Delivering exactly what customers want is no way to stay in business these days.

So it seems, anyway.

Re:I just want internet access (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666121)

Sure it is. The fact that companies fail is because they're not doing that.

common carrier (4, Interesting)

Richard_J_N (631241) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665837)

What a really stupid thing to do. Never mind that it's unethical, they just lost their common-carrier status. Now the RIAA can sue them for contributory infringement ;-)

At least, that's my understanding of it - ISPs and postal services are legally "common carriers", i.e. they just deliver stuff; they aren't responsible for any legal ramifications of what they deliver. Eg the post service isn't liable if someone mails a forged cheque. BUT...if they demonstrate that they control, inspect, and modify what they are delivering, they might just be liable when someone uses their network to commit fraud.

ISPs are no longer common carriers (1)

kungfujesus (969971) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666043)

Supreme court ruled that broadband ISPs are "Information Services" and can selectively block traffic as they please. However, wouldn't altering the contents of data flowing over their networks, or forging RST packets ala Comcast leave rogers/comcast liable for committing fraud?

Re:common carrier (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666105)

I don't think ISPs have common carrier status for that service.

Web Servers can detect this... (5, Interesting)

nweaver (113078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665935)

See this old Slashdot article [slashdot.org] on how servers can detect such modifications when they happen by using a bit of Javascript as an integrity checker.

(Disclaimer, I'm one of the authors of the work)

1997 called... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665943)

They want their geocities ads back.

Oblig Ghostbusters quote (1)

devnullkac (223246) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665947)

The effect? I'll tell you what the effect is, it's pissing me off!

Meanwhile in court ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665953)

Lawyer: We were merely "trying different things" and testing the customer response.

Judge: Touche...

Yep. (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665983)

And I wonder how many times they're going to insert this story into Slashdot.

Web sites need to enable HTTPS properly (3, Informative)

Skapare (16644) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666003)

Web sites need to enable HTTPS properly over their entire site. Then your ISP can do nothing more than just prevent the secure connection from being established. And if they do that, they break all kinds of stuff like shopping checkout and access to bank accounts.

Right now, Slashdot's own HTTPS URL [slashdot.org] just redirects to the HTTP URL. This needs to be changed to just leave things in the HTTPS mode. Eventually this should be changed so that HTTP redirects to HTTPS. Google [google.com] does the same boneheaded redirection.

Well I have a thing or two to say about that (4, Funny)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666005)

As much as I don't like Canada, the totally awesome Rogers ISP is not doing something wrong here. Thats all I have to say. PS, buy a Playstation 3 at 20% off by mentioning the code ROGERS ISP ROCKS at your local S-mart

If there is anything this should show is..... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666079)

that this isp is not very concerned with privacy of its clients.

Say you have a friend over or someone you don't know using your open wireless, now all of the sudden there is this message they see giving them information about you.
I honestly cannot believe they haven't considered this possibility. If they haven I highly recommend that if you are a customer you need to change isps right away.

This also should show that ISPs can indeed spy on you and your web surfing and sell that information about you or leak it out or have it stolen, etc...

I found out that bellsouth/at&t can even see my passwords that should by default have been encrypted to where they cannot see it.

at any rate, all of this rises the question of how much traffic would you really get if all this ability to manipulate, censor, inject, extract, etc... your web site data?

hi-speed internet (1)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666115)


Important Information about your Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed Internet account!

Our records show that you\'ve reached at least 75% of the 75 gigabytes (GB) per month limit provided with your Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed Extreme service.

Additional usage above this limit is charged at $1.50 per GB, to a maximum of $50.00 per month.

To learn how to monitor and manage your online usage visit www.rogers.com [rogers.com]

You can upgrade to another level of service which provides higher usage limits and speeds by visiting rogers.com [rogers.com] .

Click here to acknowledge receipt of this message.
lick here if you don\'t want to receive this message in the future.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>