[governance] Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Fri Nov 2 11:32:06 EDT 2012
Fouad,
As far as I am aware, the US government's role in Internet Resource Management is via its oversight of ICANN. Perhaps this is where the disconnect occurs: what is your view of "US-centric Internet Resource Management"?
Thanks,
-drc
On Nov 2, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/20121102/0345dd13/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