nanog mailing list archives
Re: ISPs and full packet inspection
From: Gabriel Blanchard <gabe () teksavvy ca>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:15:25 -0400
might I suggest you consider replacing your legal team. On 05/24/12 09:13, not common wrote:
Thanks guys, I am looking for stuff to bring to my legal team (which is one guy, that can't spell IP) and VPs. There has to be some thing out there or is this really a hands of topic? On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:58 AM, -Hammer- <bhmccie () gmail com> wrote:You should be discussing this with inside counsel. Not NANOG. -Hammer- "I was a normal American nerd" -Jack Herer On 5/24/2012 7:50 AM, not common wrote:Hello, I am looking for some guidance on full packet inspection at the ISP level. Is there any regulations that prohibit or provide guidance on this? .
Current thread:
- ISPs and full packet inspection not common (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection jim deleskie (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection -Hammer- (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection not common (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection Gabriel Blanchard (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection -Hammer- (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection -Hammer- (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection John Curran (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection valdis . kletnieks (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection not common (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection not common (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection Jared Mauch (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection Jay Ashworth (May 24)
- Re: ISPs and full packet inspection -Hammer- (May 24)