RSS
ITU: Not Even Good At Not Being Transparent, Accidentally Releases Deep Packet Inspection Standard
from the look-at-that dept
Earlier this week, we wrote about how the ITU had secretly approved a standard for deep packet inspection behind closed doors. This was troubling on a number of different levels, including the idea that they're even trying to standardize such a thing, and that they're doing so in secret. However, after the news came out, Asher Wolf decided to tweet a simple question, asking if anyone had access to documents about the DPI standard. And a funny thing happened:
Toby Johnson, a PR/communications guy for the ITU, responded and offered to send the documents. Which he did. And then, five hours later, after Asher had spoken about them publicly and sent them around to a bunch of journalists, she got an email saying that the documents were for her eyes only, and not to publish or share them "in part or in whole."
Yes, the ITU is so incompetent that they can't even do secrecy right.
Richard Chirgwin has a pretty good rundown on how ridiculous the DPI standard is, but perhaps more bizarre, as Wolf points out, the documents show that the ITU didn't think it was worth studying the impact of such a standard before implementing one -- which would suggest (yet again) that the ITU appears to go about things backwards.
Yes, the ITU is so incompetent that they can't even do secrecy right.
Richard Chirgwin has a pretty good rundown on how ridiculous the DPI standard is, but perhaps more bizarre, as Wolf points out, the documents show that the ITU didn't think it was worth studying the impact of such a standard before implementing one -- which would suggest (yet again) that the ITU appears to go about things backwards.
I have an idea...
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Data Privacy & Security
Policy Resources: Software Patents
I have an app...
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
How My First Game Made $28,623
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
So.
Is there some secret government protocol mandating employees MUST NOT have knowledge of the field they're administering?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So.
Well since it has already been approved I don't think anybody cares what others had to say or not, the "debate" was just a formality apparently, this was decided before hand.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So.
I'll tweet your request, maybe some government employee will have the answer. They're here to serve the public!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So.
If we're concerned about closed door meetings and censorship, I cannot take something as that so seriously.
Yes I feel as if I may be the ass chasing the carrot in so many cartoons, but I really can't believe this was an honest occurrence.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
For the most part, any "solutions" these entities come up with are largely already irrelevant, because they have already been bypassed, but that information simply hasn't trickled down to the level of the average user yet (but they will have by the time these "standards" and "solutions" have been approved and fully implemented).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even though this has little practical impact in the real world, it does show why the ITU should never get its mets on our beloved interwebz inner workings.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While that's true in the macro, I can't help but agree with the top of this thread for some cases.. *cough* SNMP.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
OR, at least the following possibities:
) False; perhaps excessive so when real terms are out, breath sigh of relief.
) Gives specifics to chatter over, likely better than dark musings: "this isn't so bad"; "what's this mean?"; "whoa, look at this!" and so on.
) [My favorite, already been predicted above but I'll witticize it:] Doesn't actually mean anything, they'll stick a gun in your face and do whatever they want: "Standards? Ah, we don't need no stinking standards."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR, at least the following possibities:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR, at least the following possibities:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Social Hacking
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Social Hacking
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Social Hacking
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Would be a big fck mistake, if found out after the fact, i hope that fear still applies to these people......i dont think they would particularly enjoy the possible outcome
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If we're concerned about closed door meetings and censorship, I cannot take something as that so seriously.
Yes I feel as if I may be the ass chasing the carrot in so many cartoons, but I really can't believe this was an honest mistake. This was intentional.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment