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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 11:53am

    considering the country (USA)that started all this 'negotiating in secret' over almost anything the would cause severe backlash from the public, the ones that would be impacted the most whilst giving them the least, if any, option of saying anything, how can there be any condemnation that people will believe? had they not have started it, things would perhaps, not be as bad as they are now! let's face it, everyone is at it!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Dec 7th, 2012 @ 12:02pm

    So.

    A PR guy at a government agency sends out a pre-published version of a non-public document. To an address at cryptoparty.org. A document on deep packet inspection. To cryptoparty.

    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 ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    This does not come as any great surprise. Let's face it, due to the way government in general (although there are department/agencies that are exceptions) are several years behind cutting edge in both knowledge and technology. That being said, most people who are cutting edge, and know/have the current tech often have very little to do with governing bodies.

    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 ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 12:21pm

    Publishing a standard still has zero impact on anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 12:25pm

      Re:

      The only impact it has is to legitimate something for somebody else :)

      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 ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Dec 7th, 2012 @ 12:29pm

      Re:

      If that were true, the internet as we know it would not exist.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 12:50pm

        Re: Re:

        If that were true, the internet as we know it would not exist.

        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 ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 12:32pm

    Toby Johnson files for Unemployment in 3... 2... 1...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 12:34pm

    OR, at least the following possibities:

    ) A carefully chosen "leak" to divert in many ways.
    ) 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 ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 1:02pm

      Re: OR, at least the following possibities:

      Anybody else think this particular ootb sounds exactly like Carreon's crazy wife?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 1:44pm

        Re: Re: OR, at least the following possibities:

        Yeah, that and an MPAA stooge. He basically admitted to it a few blog posts ago.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 12:39pm

    Social Hacking

    Ita amazing the Information that can be obtained by asking the right question of the right person.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 12:53pm

    I needed a good laugh today. Thanks for the info and the script for a killer 2 minute comedy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2012 @ 5:53pm

    You know, the way these guys are conducting this, i would'nt be surprised if they went ahead and implemented it anyway, even they were told no.

    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 ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2012 @ 7:02am

    For my sanity, I'm forced to believe that this was done on purpose and intentionally. I REFUSE to believe that someone is that stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh Gibson (profile), Dec 18th, 2012 @ 8:18pm

      Re:

      I was thinking the same thing.I can't believe such a thing could occur for the exact reasons that a previous poster cited.
      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

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This