[liberationtech] /. ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection

Wed Dec 5 10:34:59 PST 2012

Reading the draft document provided by Asher, I find nowhere any
reference to this being a required activity for any ISP. Instead, it
talks mainly about how data flows between generalised entities (think
"devices").

So no, if ITU received a more governing role of the internet, that would
not _in itself_ lead to Y.2770 being a "required standard" to implement
for all ISPs (and I have no idea how this would happen anyway, given it
doesn't concern itself with specififying any actions for ISPs).

There are legitimate uses for DPI, though the examples cited in the
draft seems to be more about limiting BitTorrent traffic...

So basically, the standard is probably going to do mostly these things:
a) DPI equipment manufacturers can claim to be "standards compliant"
   which is a selling point in some circumstances
b) DPI might get more widely accepted as a technique. It is up to us and
   other hackers to make sure that censorship and traffic discrimination
   is not.
c) It might be slightly more easy for surveillance tech to interoperate
   between manufacturers, given that the main point of the standard is
   to suggest everyone output data and accept rules in a standard way.

To be frank, I have been trying to find out what the fuss has been about
regarding this standard and come up.. not blank, as it _is_ worrying
that ITU is spending time on this shit, but at least I haven't found
anything to inspire the absolutely massive shitstorm I have been seeing
in certain places (e.g. /.). Is it just because it's the ITU doing it
rather than, say, ISO or ANSI?

Best

/P

On 05 December, 2012 - Nicholas Judd wrote:

> Hi list, Nick from techPresident here. If I could tap into your hive-mind intelligence for a moment to help me be more precise about explaining why this is an issue, I would appreciate it ...
> 
> Governments, intelligence organizations and assorted nogoodniks already use deep-packet inspection, so the declaration of a standard for DPI comes off as vaguely Orwellian but not news. I'm searching for a way to explain the privacy-advocate position on this is both accurately and concisely.
> 
> The sense I get from CDT's blog post is that there are three reasons why this is more than just creepy in principle:
> 
> 1. The standard outlines ways that, in the ITU's view, ISPs should structure their operations so that highly invasive surveillance can function;
> 2. Under current governance, this standard could be as widely ignored as the <blink> tag, but ISPs could be forced to comply if the ITU becomes a must-follow standards-making body for the Internet b meaning all traffic in every ITU member state, in this extreme example, would be vulnerable by design;
> 3. On principle, IETF and W3C don't address standards for surveillance, highlighting another way the ITU is ideologically removed from the way the Internet is now governed.
> 
> Am I on target here?
> 
> On Dec 5, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Cynthia Wong wrote:
> 
> > The final version of the standard should show up here... eventually: 
> > 
> > http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/publications/Pages/latest.aspx
> > 
> > http://www.itu.int/dms_pages/itu-t/rec/T-REC-RSS.xml
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Asher Wolf
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 7:38 AM
> > To: liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
> > Subject: Re: [liberationtech] /. ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection
> > 
> > From http://committee.tta.or.kr :
> > Revision of Y.2770 Requirements for #DPI in Next Generation Networks http://bit.ly/Yx0Sya (via @BetweenMyths)
> > 
> > On 5/12/12 9:25 PM, Andre Rebentisch wrote:
> >> Am 05.12.2012 10:27, schrieb Eugen Leitl:
> >>> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/05/0115214/itu-approves-deep-pack
> >>> et-inspection
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection
> >>> 
> >>> Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday December 04, @08:19PM
> >>> 
> >>> from the inspect-my-encryption-all-you'd-like dept.
> >>> 
> >>> dsinc sends this quote from Techdirt about the International 
> >>> Telecommunications Union's ongoing conference in Dubai that will have 
> >>> an effect on the internet everywhere:
> >> The WCIT is a "diplomatic conference" for the rules governing the ITU, 
> >> the ITRs. It seems wrong to mix that with ongoing specific 
> >> standardisation work of the ITU.
> >> 
> >> Anyway, interesting discussions over at circleid.com:
> >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121203_wcit_off_to_a_flying_start/
> >> Apparently ITU fellows are disgruntled that they cannot control the 
> >> media coverage and complain about all the "misinformation".
> >> 
> >> Best,
> >> AndrC)
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> > 
> > --
> > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> > --
> > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

-- 
Petter Ericson (pettter at acc.umu.se)

Telecomix Sleeper Jellyfish
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE