| > I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison. Do you have any arguments that would bake this claim? Where's the difference? > If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic […] What are you talking about? This does not happen as it would be illegal. At least in civilized countries. (Given a court order for lawful interception there may be exceptions to that, of course). > net neutrality This term means something else. > we need HTTPS For other reasons. One of them being rogue states that snoop on people's traffic. [Not looking in the direction of north America now]. > VPNs That's similar to HTTPS. Also it circumvents state level censoring, which is needed by now in quite some countries. > Tor That's even more in the direction of hiding form state surveillance. Your ISP usually knows that you're using Tor… > Dark Web That's a very unclear term, btw. And it has nothing to do with anything an ISP does. > but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves Like I said: Not in civilized countries, as this would be a breach of the constitutional right to privacy of correspondence. > law enforcement That's a tangent. Everybody besides a culprit needs to cooperate with law enforcement. > denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols You could do this in theory. But you wouldn't be selling internet access anymore in this case. This would be like AOL or Compuserve back then. |