Re: Transit, Exchange Point Agreements, and Acceptable Use?

[Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster () mykolab com>]

-----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-with-gchq
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-----