Those checks are then performed on the MITM device. Instead of an error page the device could return the same sort of page that your browser would otherwise display for you. The connection has been MITM'd after all.
Yes you can. Do what corporate firewalls do. MITM all TLS connections with your own personal CA. Don't allow any traffic streams that you can't MITM to leave your network.
> we had net neutrality for years and it never improved the reach of broadband into rural areas
The issue there isn't net neutrality but rather open access. Countries with affordable internet generally have open access requirements for network operators.
Net neutrality is a separate issue to do with ISPs attempting to double dip, leveraging a large customer base in order to do so.
"Extreme" here meaning ... the connection bandwidth that was explicitly paid for? Except for the fine print where the ISP notified the customer that they were going to horribly oversubscribe things. It amounts to fraud as far as I'm concerned.
Absolutely not. That practice should literally be illegal.
> or do they have to drop them randomly?
Yes. This is the only reasonable approach.
> And can you pay to be in a “never drop my packets” group?
No. That should be illegal to offer.
If the ISP's network is incapable of meeting their customer's demands during peak hours and they oversubscribed themselves so badly that they're contemplating such tactics then they ran their business dishonestly. They fraudulently made promises that they were incapable of delivering on and got caught. They need to fix their network or go out of business. And possibly should face legal consequences for their behavior.
> With a cost-neutral peering, each network operator pays for the expansion of its own network itself. Likewise, every network operator shall bear the costs of its own router interfaces at the connections between the networks (peering points).
> Large content providers have a strong interest to reach the DSL customers of DPCs with the best possible performance, and therefore are looking for alternatives to congested interfaces between the carriers. These are found usually through direct connections of the major content suppliers to the respective DPCs. At this point, the DPC can use their market position, since as a result of congested interfaces no other carrier can reach the DSL customers of the respective DPCs with sufficient speed. Therefore, the DPC can set prices, free of competition, which interested content providers have to pay to achieve performant connctions to "its" DSL customers.
So effectively ISPs are incentivized to neglect peerings that they aren't currently double dipping on in order to use their customers to coerce payment. Note that (unfortunately) DTAG was eventually successful in coercing Hetzner to pay for peering with them. They did this by abusing their customers. It's textbook monopolistic behavior.
This is amazing. He just spelled out for you in great detail the sort of problems that arise in practice in the real world every day and you dismissed them out of hand as being unrealistic. I think you are far more sheltered and far less experienced than you realize. This sort of attitude is exactly what leads to these sorts of things becoming problems in the first place!
> They will just print it (or have someone print it for them) beforehand.
Yes, they will do that precisely because they do not trust technology to work for them because it frequently does not! I have family members like this. I log in to their accounts on my devices for various reasons. Even worse, I run Linux. We run in to these problems frequently. Spend time helping technically illiterate people with things. While doing so, make a concerted effort to understand why they say or think some of the things that they do.
Edit to add, I find it amusing that you make fun of his seaman example. Almost that exact scenario (in terms of number of devices, shared devices, and locations) is currently the case for two of my relatives. Two! And yet you ridicule it.
Something resembling this has actually been observed in a species of deep sea snails. Iron sulfide is incorporated into the hard bits (shell, foot armor). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaly-foot_gastropod)
In the short term? Perhaps. They might just develop their own proprietary OS - they already design custom CPUs!
I imagine it would depend heavily on how large the liability was. I expect individual components would begin being replaced with "certified" commercial alternatives. If not existing ones, definitely new ones. Remember that they make money by selling to customers who would also be subject to the same rules. Look at healthcare, aviation, and finance for concrete examples of the effects (both negative and positive) that red tape has on software and IT policies.
There's an entire FOSS ecosystem and the vast majority of it is composed of small-ish slow moving projects. The tech industry is also an entire ecosystem full of small and medium sized players. Even if behemoths such as mainline Linux and AWS somehow survived unchanged I would expect a much greater chilling effect on smaller players that couldn't afford to take on such risks. New companies and software projects would become very difficult to get off the ground (healthcare is a good example here). With few to no new entrants forward progress would slow to an absolute crawl.
All of this has downstream effects. Fewer consumer devices running Linux would mean even less hardware support. Security related liabilities would almost certainly mean more vendor locked hardware. Would companies like Purism remain viable (or even legal)? The steady stream of new FOSS users and contributors would almost certainly dwindle.
Depending on how such regulation was written, could open source contributors themselves become liable for a freely provided product?
That is due to issues with how Equifax operated (and related lack of meaningful consequences). It has nothing to do with a lack of liability for software companies.
Local development would rendered unable to compete with the fast moving zero-liability model that quickly and cheaply delivered the features that consumers wanted. Either it's import would be banned or the local industry would crumble.
The point is that if legislation were introduced that resulted in liability it would likely completely decapitate the FOSS ecosystem (among other things).
Typically the LLM queries external tools as appropriate and then incorporates the result into the response.