ITU: Not Even Good At Not Being Transparent, Accidentally Releases Deep Packet Inspection Standard

from the look-at-that dept

Fri, Dec 7th 2012 11:46am — Mike Masnick

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.

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

Filed Under: dpi, itu, leaks

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 7 Dec 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 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).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 7 Dec 2012 @ 12:11pm

Re: So.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-01-03/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Loki, 7 Dec 2012 @ 12:11pm

Re: So.
Tis what happens when you choose to live your life with blinders on, and unable to see much of anything around you except what is right in front of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2012 @ 12:21pm

Re: So.
https://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/data-deluge-motivates-itu-standard-on-deep-packet-inspection/

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2012 @ 12:21pm

Publishing a standard still has zero impact on anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Dec 2012 @ 12:29pm

Re:
If that were true, the internet as we know it would not exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2012 @ 12:32pm

Toby Johnson files for Unemployment in 3... 2... 1...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 7 Dec 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."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2012 @ 12:35pm

Re:
At least Derek Khanna will have someone to hang out with at the unemployment office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2012 @ 12:39pm

Social Hacking
Ita amazing the Information that can be obtained by asking the right question of the right person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2012 @ 12:41pm

Re: Social Hacking
r/ita/it's/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2012 @ 12:53pm

I needed a good laugh today. Thanks for the info and the script for a killer 2 minute comedy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2012 @ 1:02pm

Re: OR, at least the following possibities:
Anybody else think this particular ootb sounds exactly like Carreon's crazy wife?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2012 @ 1:35pm

Re: Social Hacking
Grifters in the world prepare, for the future is yours! It is actually already happening with the amount of lobbying going on in politics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2012 @ 5:47pm

Re: So.
Is there some secret government protocol mandating employees MUST NOT have knowledge of the field they're administering?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 7:59pm

Re: So.
I was thinking the same thing. Except I can't believe such a thing could occur for the exact reasons that you've 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 occurrence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh Gibson (profile), 18 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]