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: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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So.
[ 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.
[ 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!
[ 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.
[ 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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR, at least the following possibities:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR, at least the following possibities:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social Hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Social Hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Social Hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]