[governance] Indian Express on privacy

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Sorry?  How do their local ISPs benefit from peering with a western country when they don't peer locally?

--srs (iPad)

On 24-Nov-2012, at 21:14, "Fahd A. Batayneh" <fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Would say that it is true for developed countries, but not for developing and least developed where some benefit (financially) from peering to Western countries.
> 
> Fahd
> 
> On Nov 24, 2012 5:16 PM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh <fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh <fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ALL, is a pretty strong statement.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries.
>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Do you have any evidence for it?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points based in Western countries?
>> 
>> 
>> Yes. There are major CDN nodes and IXPs where Tier1s (and Tier2s and 3s) peer around the globe.  Your traffic does not have to go to US/EU.  In fact it does not even have to transit a Tier1 provider.
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of "National Security".
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets.
>>> 
>>> Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on Terror").
>> 
>> 
>> Then that would be a "MUST" not a "WANT".
>> 
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20121125/964f5b07/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