Transit, Exchange Point Agreements, and Acceptable Use?

Paul Ferguson fergdawgster at
Fri Nov 21 15:12:48 UTC 2014

Hash: SHA256

On 11/21/2014 7:07 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote:

> Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster at> writes:
>> I'll apologize up front if this offends anyone's sensitivities as
>> to what is relevant for list conversation... but one sentence in
>> this Channel4 News story (from what I understand, Channel4 is a
>> very popular news source in the UK) struck me as perhaps in
>> violation of some sort of peering and/or transit agreement. Cable
>> and Wireless:
>> "...even went as far as providing traffic from a rival foreign 
>> communications company, handing information sent by millions of 
>> internet users worldwide over to spies."
>> The entire article is here:
My question is this: Do willful actions such as these violate peering,
>> transit, and/or exchange agreements in any way?
>> Thanks,
>> - ferg
> Welcome to the modern age of communications.  The privacy nuts and 
> tinfoil hat types turned out to be correct.  Assume that you have
> no privacy and encrypt everything you do.  Or just stop caring
> about privacy all together.  Either way, not much has actually
> changed.

Well, yes, of course I understand that you should encrypt any & every
thing that you wish to protect, and believe me -- I (more than most)
understand the long tug of war between telecommunications companies
and national intelligence services.

But you did not address my question... ;-)


- - ferg

- -- 
Paul Ferguson
VP Threat Intelligence, IID
PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2
Version: GnuPG v2


More information about the NANOG mailing list