/. ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection

Tom Taylor tom.taylor.stds at gmail.com
Wed Dec 5 19:01:41 UTC 2012


I'm seriously not clear why Y.2770 is characterized as "negotiated 
behind closed doors". Any drafts were available to all participants in 
the ITU-T, on exactly the same terms as drafts of other Recommendations. 
As an example, the draft coming out of the October, 2011 meeting can be 
seen at http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG13-111010-TD-WP4-0201/en. (I have 
access delegated by a vendor to whom I have been consulting, by virtue 
of their membership in the ITU-T.)

I should mention that the "Next Generation Network" within the context 
of which this draft was developed is more likely to be implemented by 
old-line operators than by pure internet operations.

Tom Taylor

On 05/12/2012 4:34 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/05/0115214/itu-approves-deep-packet-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: "One of the concerns is that decisions
> taken there may make the Internet less a medium that can be used to enhance
> personal freedom than a tool for state surveillance and oppression. The new
> Y.2770 standard is entitled 'Requirements for deep packet inspection in Next
> Generation Networks', and seeks to define an international standard for deep
> packet inspection (DPI). As the Center for Democracy & Technology points out,
> it is thoroughgoing in its desire to specify technologies that can be used to
> spy on people. One of the big issues surrounding WCIT and the ITU has been
> the lack of transparency — or even understanding what real transparency might
> be. So it will comes as no surprise that the new DPI standard was negotiated
> behind closed doors, with no drafts being made available."
>
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list