> Concerns? > 1) transparent interception == man-in-middle attack. > 2) private details of clients are opened to you and anyone who gets > access to the middle machine. > 3) clients may be made aware by the security systems involved that you > are attacking them. > > The only semi-legitimate arguments towards doing it in the first place > is > for anti-virus scanning etc. Which adequate server or client AV systems > make useless anyway. All other control measures are human rights > violations of privacy, which is illegal in most parts of the world. I understand, but, for example my ISP does transparent proxy'ing, it has an option to disable it but by default it's on. When talking about illegal stuff, in a big company this an Nacional ISP nobody will do anything about it. Transparent proxy for me, has only has purpose, IM blocking!
