Transit, Exchange Point Agreements, and Acceptable Use?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I'll apologize up front if this offends anyone's sensitivities as to what is relevant for list conversation... but one sentence in this Channel4 News story (from what I understand, Channel4 is a very popular news source in the UK) struck me as perhaps in violation of some sort of peering and/or transit agreement. Cable and Wireless: "...even went as far as providing traffic from a rival foreign communications company, handing information sent by millions of internet users worldwide over to spies." The entire article is here: http://www.channel4.com/news/spy-cable-revealed-how-telecoms-firm-worked-wit... My question is this: Do willful actions such as these violate peering, transit, and/or exchange agreements in any way? Thanks, - - ferg - -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlRvUzsACgkQKJasdVTchbKc3AD+OBNKXfYJ/Vjsa2pYL7+ewvql 629C4Ie5jzPgIpAgrToA/1gdeKQX69OHOc79RwsI6uUq99cRoDsHOSf3zTDnwsZy =7Xps -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@mykolab.com> writes:
I'll apologize up front if this offends anyone's sensitivities as to what is relevant for list conversation... but one sentence in this Channel4 News story (from what I understand, Channel4 is a very popular news source in the UK) struck me as perhaps in violation of some sort of peering and/or transit agreement. Cable and Wireless:
"...even went as far as providing traffic from a rival foreign communications company, handing information sent by millions of internet users worldwide over to spies."
The entire article is here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/spy-cable-revealed-how-telecoms-firm-worked-wit...
My question is this: Do willful actions such as these violate peering, transit, and/or exchange agreements in any way?
Thanks,
- ferg
Welcome to the modern age of communications. The privacy nuts and tinfoil hat types turned out to be correct. Assume that you have no privacy and encrypt everything you do. Or just stop caring about privacy all together. Either way, not much has actually changed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 11/21/2014 7:07 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote:
Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@mykolab.com> writes:
I'll apologize up front if this offends anyone's sensitivities as to what is relevant for list conversation... but one sentence in this Channel4 News story (from what I understand, Channel4 is a very popular news source in the UK) struck me as perhaps in violation of some sort of peering and/or transit agreement. Cable and Wireless:
"...even went as far as providing traffic from a rival foreign communications company, handing information sent by millions of internet users worldwide over to spies."
The entire article is here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/spy-cable-revealed-how-telecoms-firm-worked-wit...
My question is this: Do willful actions such as these violate peering,
transit, and/or exchange agreements in any way?
Thanks,
- ferg
Welcome to the modern age of communications. The privacy nuts and tinfoil hat types turned out to be correct. Assume that you have no privacy and encrypt everything you do. Or just stop caring about privacy all together. Either way, not much has actually changed.
Well, yes, of course I understand that you should encrypt any & every thing that you wish to protect, and believe me -- I (more than most) understand the long tug of war between telecommunications companies and national intelligence services. But you did not address my question... ;-) Cheers, - - ferg - -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlRvVnAACgkQKJasdVTchbIviwEAk1UQEY/sCwGi0Qua15lCzdPv NWHofFXWJkk+GEjGYMMA/RuOJcL4r+DCr526WsFU/8lGYk80M78pB7rhogN9pgs2 =Oxw/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Most written peering agreements have a clause that says you can't provide that data unless required to by authorities and only in compliance with applicable local law. The article says that's still an open question: "Channel 4 News has been unable to establish whether Reliance Communications was served with a warrant to authorise this and the company has not responded to our calls." Dave -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 7:59 AM To: NANOG Subject: Transit, Exchange Point Agreements, and Acceptable Use? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I'll apologize up front if this offends anyone's sensitivities as to what is relevant for list conversation... but one sentence in this Channel4 News story (from what I understand, Channel4 is a very popular news source in the UK) struck me as perhaps in violation of some sort of peering and/or transit agreement. Cable and Wireless: "...even went as far as providing traffic from a rival foreign communications company, handing information sent by millions of internet users worldwide over to spies." The entire article is here: http://www.channel4.com/news/spy-cable-revealed-how-telecoms-firm-worked-wit... My question is this: Do willful actions such as these violate peering, transit, and/or exchange agreements in any way? Thanks, - - ferg - -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlRvUzsACgkQKJasdVTchbKc3AD+OBNKXfYJ/Vjsa2pYL7+ewvql 629C4Ie5jzPgIpAgrToA/1gdeKQX69OHOc79RwsI6uUq99cRoDsHOSf3zTDnwsZy =7Xps -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 11/21/2014 7:09 AM, Siegel, David wrote:
Most written peering agreements have a clause that says you can't provide that data unless required to by authorities and only in compliance with applicable local law.
The article says that's still an open question:
"Channel 4 News has been unable to establish whether Reliance Communications was served with a warrant to authorise this and the company has not responded to our calls."
Right, I noticed that bit. :-) Cheers, - - ferg
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 7:59 AM To: NANOG Subject: Transit, Exchange Point Agreements, and Acceptable Use?
I'll apologize up front if this offends anyone's sensitivities as to what is relevant for list conversation... but one sentence in this Channel4 News story (from what I understand, Channel4 is a very popular news source in the UK) struck me as perhaps in violation of some sort of peering and/or transit agreement. Cable and Wireless:
"...even went as far as providing traffic from a rival foreign communications company, handing information sent by millions of internet users worldwide over to spies."
The entire article is here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/spy-cable-revealed-how-telecoms-firm-worked-wit...
My question is this: Do willful actions such as these violate peering, transit, and/or exchange agreements in any way?
Thanks,
- ferg
- -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlRvVqQACgkQKJasdVTchbJ6kgEAi3mOTZJ0FxEOg0b/x049hwyE CdrWUHXSsxRlu4P5KZUA/0KT0XzPzvH0O/ZUhjT8xL+gWxGXPQcwSNk1slJ6oQE4 =tXZ4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
Daniel Corbe -
Paul Ferguson -
Siegel, David