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-with-gchq
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
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:
Spy cable revealed: how telecoms firm worked with GCHQ – Channel 4 News
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.
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
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:
Spy cable revealed: how telecoms firm worked with GCHQ – Channel 4 News
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
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
[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:
Spy cable revealed: how telecoms firm worked with GCHQ – Channel 4 News
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