Oh, come on Jerry, you're beginning to sound like part of the problem. Stop being a knee-jerking crumudgeon for a moment and thhink about what Schneier is _really_ saying. Being vague, and obfuscating the issue with vague answers doesn't do due diligence. - ferg Jerry Pasker <info@n-connect.net> wrote:

I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- but I'd love to know how ISP operations folk feel about this.

It means 10 different things to 10 different people. The article was vague. "Security" could mean blocking a few ports, simple Proxy/NAT, blocking port 25 (or 139... or 53.. heh heh) or a thousand different things. There is a market for this, it's called "managed services." ISPs do this type of thing all the time. And customers pay for it. Maybe he means "broadband home users". News flash... home users will get it wherever it's cheap. And cheap means no managed services. To the author of the article: Should ISPs be *REQUIRED* to do it? Just try it and see what happens.... try to pass a law and regulate the internet, I dare you... :-) (I double-dog-dare you to get the law makers to understand it first!) Every security appliance ven-duh on the planet would be in there, trying to have laws written that would require the use of their own proprietary solutions to the "problem." (and the proposed problem would differ depending upon the "solutions" that the particular ven-duh offered) Wait a second... this article was FROM security ven-duhs... all offering solutions to these problems...uh-oh.... this is probably their first move in getting a law..... step 1) cause a public outcry....... so it's starting already. I think we've all seen this act before......... Some days, the world really annoys me. :-( -Jerry -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/