[governance] Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products

Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Fri Nov 2 11:20:31 EDT 2012 

Where did ICANN come in to the discussion?

Fouad Bajwa
On Nov 2, 2012 7:03 PM, "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> Fouad,
>
> Your initial note asserted that the US government's role in Internet
> Resource Management was somehow responsible for folks like PCTL purchasing
> Internet Traffic and Surveillance systems created by US (or Canada) based
> companies. I'm still trying to understand the relationship.
>
> The use of DPI tools to censor the Internet appears to me to be largely
> orthogonal Internet Resource Management, regardless of who is in charge. Do
> you believe that if (say) the ITU globally or alternatively each government
> on the planet were responsible for Internet Resource Management in their
> country, that this would somehow lessen the demand for Internet Traffic
> Intelligence and Surveillance products?
>
> Or are you saying that because the US has an oversight role of ICANN to
> ensure some level of accountability in ICANN operations, US (and Canada?)
> based companies should not be allowed to create products that meet the
> demand for Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance?
>
> Thanks,
> -drc
>
> On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My previous comments are based upon facts that I hear occasionally quoted
> during US leadership statements on online FoE and protection of pluralism
> and at the end of the day companies from that country are on the forefront
> of bidding and deploying traffic intelligence  Okay, these companies
> operate in a free market environment but then the credibility of such
> statements collapse amidst surveillance cooperation even if its done by
> companies from that region.
>
>
> I have always felt that the US has mixed market dynamics and regulators do
> keep an eye and do not tend to overlook the fact that their companies do
> have country level offices that can independently participate in government
> contracts outside the US.
>
> I will have to differ here that devoted support for US and Canadian
> traffic monitoring and intelligence companies that they are not involved in
> censorship because I have witnessed credible information.
>
> I must point out that your defense for the Northern American companies
> argument depicts the traditional free market support whereas I am inclined
> to believe that its a mixed market approach because the government
> diplomacy in terms of Foreign Policy and economic drives cannot be
> completely ignorant of a key component of its globalization agenda/strategy
> of which Internet is an important tool and catalyst of a global world
> order. Anyways, these are from the airport, do I see you in Baku?
>
> Best
>
> Fouad
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>  Fouad:****
>>
>> Your answer to David’s question reveals a lot of confusion, in my
>> opinion. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Markets respond to supply and demand. It is a simple and predictable
>> feature of markets that businesses (whether in the US or anywhere else)
>> will try to sell their products to people who want to use them and have the
>> money to pay for them. So we have a shared responsibility: for DPI and
>> related surveillance and content-filtering equipment, the *demand* is
>> created by authoritarian governments who want to control the Internet in
>> their country, while the *supply* comes from profit-motivated businesses
>> who can meet that demand. Many of these suppliers, by the way, are NOT from
>> the U.S.; many are from Europe, and some are from China or elsewhere. ***
>> *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Don’t blame the US advocates of FoE for that. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> As for the “dual FoE internet policy,” well, it’s time to grow up and
>> look at states, including the US state, as self-interested actors and stop
>> believing in the fairy tale that they magically embody the public interest
>> or the people’s will. It’s also time for you to recognize that nearly all
>> states have contradictory political pressures on them; just as the
>> Pakistani govt doesn’t want to alienate the hardcore islamists while
>> continuing to receive $$$ from the US, the US govt (specifically, the State
>> Dept) wants to promote internet freedom while some Congressional pressures
>> want us to withhold nearly all technology from “enemies” or repressive
>> states, and some business-centric agencies and congresspeople want us to
>> expand our market share in foreign countries’ technology purchases by
>> selling them more equipment.  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Fouad Bajwa
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:14 PM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> *Cc:* David Conrad
>> *Subject:* Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and
>> Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening
>> ceremony?)****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Let me try to answer the confusion quickly while I am multitasking
>> between packing and documentation:****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I'd rather remain implicit. I am sure many of my colleagues from
>> developing countries can list a long list of issues that their countries
>> are concerned about and may be sharing during the WCIT meet and that this
>> list has been discussing in numerous ITR related threads etc. at the end of
>> the day it is more or less around US centric IRM and the challenges of
>> censorship and content filtering. Its not just about iran, russia and
>> china, there are more than a hundred other countries out of which a
>> majority are developing regions and imposing various forms of censorship.
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> My confusion stands around the dual FoE internet policy of these
>> countries that requires some responsibility. Okay, its not only
>> boeing/narus, cisco or sandvine selling censorship but we have huwae in the
>> league of traffic intelligence and DPI as well. Alright, it may be business
>> as usual but this is giving some countries to show and tell the amazing
>> censorship they have implemented. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Yes there are jurisdiction issues at play  here but then some countries
>> believe in resorting to censorship, blocking and filtering.****
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:****
>>
>> Or is it fouads argument that sandvine gear was bought specifically to
>> censor any discussion of the cir process?  I don't quite understand the
>> logic here either
>>
>> --srs (htc one x)****
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Reply message -----
>> From: "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org>
>> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance"
>> products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?)
>> Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 9:01 PM****
>>
>>
>> Fouad,
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The fact remains that as US-Centric Internet Resource Management
>> remains, countries have been sold various Internet Traffic Intelligence and
>> Surveillance systems by US and Canadian companies. An evident example is
>> the use of Sandvine traffic intelligence by PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication
>> Company Limited. PTCL is the largest ICT/Telecom provider in the country
>> and manages the Internet trunks.****
>>
>> I'm curious: how does "US-Centric Internet Resource Management" cause
>> PTCL (et al) to purchase products like Sandvine's?****
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -drc
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t****
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Foo****
>>
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121102/43710719/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list