<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div apple-content-edited="true">I never said that one government was more or less good then another. That's for politicians and pundits to debate.
</div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">I do however have a slightly greater faith that the Canadian government's actions are more aligned with the values and interests of Canadians then the US governments. </div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">Only slightly. </div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">As Canadians, we should have more influence over our government's actions then a foreign governments actions. Just more, not complete influence.</div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">You might consider me delusional, but the alternative is to accept a constant state of paranoia. I prefer optimism.</div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">For the time being, if data goes outside the national borders its simple reality that one must accept that the data will be exposed with out privacy or security governance.</div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">I have no idea what you are referring to as "responsible managers of our data". This would imply that if you value personal privacy and security you simply do not use the Internet. Which is an obvious option (you should also not use any form of telecommunications, not subscribe to any media distribution such as cable, not fill out any forms of any kind), but really not in line with promoting global use of the Internet for everyone.</div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">So the practical answer is somewhere in-between, and requires multi-stakeholder commitment to policies and procedures that satisfy both the needs for national security as well as for personal privacy and security. Realistically, this will require regulation both nationally and internationally. Not an easy goal.</div>
<br><div><div>On 2013.11.01, at 1:59 PM, Carlos M. Martinez <<a href="mailto:carlosmarcelomartinez@gmail.com">carlosmarcelomartinez@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello,<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/1/13, 11:44 AM, Gary W Kenward
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5E2B8745-DE01-4101-ABAE-673FF3281660@eastlink.ca" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>It is reasonable to require ISPs to avoid routing traffic
through territories that are known to be eavesdropping. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is a major issue for Canada, where many ISPs route
domestic traffic through the US simply as a cost saving
measure. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The best solution is, of course, to ensure there are cost
effective alternative routes. There is an active effort within
Canada to implement more domestic internet exchange points.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In short, traffic engineering is a viable solution.</div>
</blockquote>
I agree, to some point, but this is not always the case.
Core-network measures for eavesdropping will not be ever enough.
Until we're responsible managers of our data and take back
responsibility for it, no traffic routing measures will ever help
you completely.<br>
<br>
Scenario goes like this 'Oh! look country X is evesdropping, let's
move all our traffic to country Y'. Well, you have just created the
right incentives for country Y to eavesdrop on your traffic. And
arguing that there are governments that are 'more good' or 'less
evil' than others is delusional.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
~Carlos<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5E2B8745-DE01-4101-ABAE-673FF3281660@eastlink.ca" type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
On Oct 31, 2013, at 23:47, Dave Burstein <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:daveb@dslprime.com">daveb@dslprime.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Hans Peter Dittler
of <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://isoc.de/">ISOC.de</a>
posted the below note, urging that national security
issues be kept apart from Internet routing. Many engineers
think this is a good way to protect the Internet. It
certainly would be a pain in the butt to make necessary
changes to routing tables, etc, especially in the
developed world.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> Others believe
security is crucial and that a nation should be allowed,
for example, to request their packets not be sent via a
link they believe is tapped. This was a major debate at
WCIT. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> My personal
take is that if Egypt, for example, thinks a foreign power
is tapping the fiber from France to Italy - as Le Monde
suggests is the case - it's reasonable to request the ISPs
serving Egypt to route French-Egyptian traffic through
North Africa instead. Renesas reported that Google
switched Brazil DNS traffic to routing outside the country
recently. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> I'm forwarding
this to the list because it's important and highly
controversial. In particular, I'd welcome comments on what
would be the practical cost of a nation with a limited
number of international gateways - most of the less
developed world - requested their gateway providers to
avoid routes they believed were intercepted. My guess is
that it would be really tough where connections are many
but not impractical to generally do so with the typical
limited international connections to many countries. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> Network
engineers out there have any answers on this. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.isoc.de/">https://www.isoc.de/</a><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<h2 class="" style="font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,107);margin:0.2em
0px;padding:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.isoc.de/2013/10/balkanisierung-des-internet-kein-geeignetes-konzept-fur-mehr-datenschutz-und-datensicherheit/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to Balkanization
of the Internet is not a suitable concept for more
privacy and data security" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(112,112,112);font-size:18px;margin:0px">Balkanization
of the Internet is not a suitable concept for more
privacy and data security</a></h2>
<div class="" style="padding: 1px; background-color: rgb(235, 235, 235); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<div class="" style="padding:1px;font-size:11px;color:rgb(60,78,88)">31, October
2013</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><div style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">On the occasion of "World
Internet Day 'on 29 October declared the president of
the German chapter of the Internet Society <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://isoc.de/">ISOC.DE</a>,
Hanspeter Dittler to some in the political arena in
the context of the NSA wiretapping scandal currently
discussed proposals: </div><div style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">The outrage over the breach
of confidentiality of data communications and the
interception of telephone conversations by foreign
powers is understandable. The initiated by Edward
Snowden debate and now has become known new facts
reveal how little the Federal Republic of Germany and
other EU countries have so far prepared technically
and organizationally on the vulnerability of
information technology and the freedom of the citizens
and the security of the state may be at risk. Demands
for more security and a higher level of protection of
data in telecommunications in general and the Internet
in Germany and throughout Europe are therefore
justified. Proposals which aim to achieve these goals,
however, with inadequate means are, but to
refuse. Especially if by false instruments result in
only a balkanization of the Internet can be made to
the liberty of the citizens would thus not protected,
but the openness of the Internet through such measures
rather vulnerable. The ultimate purpose of such a
disabled proposals merely symbolic politics, which can
not achieve sustainable improvements for the people,
but wants to divert attention from their own concept
and ignorance. But this is rejected.</div><div style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">In this context <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://isoc.de/">ISOC.DE</a>
looks especially such claims to be critical, you want
to achieve legislation designed to limit the free and
neutral flow of data packets on the Internet, for
example, by an obligation to "National Routing". The
idea that IP packets on the Internet - whether they
carry e-mail, voice messages or other content - may no
longer seek the fastest, most technically and
economically best way themselves, but would have to be
guided rather than national boundaries, is in
fundamental contradiction to the fundamental
principles of the Internet, for their maintenance and
development, the Internet Society fights
worldwide. Because the principles of openness,
transparency and neutrality are there, due to which
the Internet in its 45-year history could obtain its
unique social and economic importance. Proposals that
will force a re-territorialisation of the structures
of the network and thus its "Balkanization" would,
however initiate the end of a free Internet and so
also hinder the social evolution of an open, free and
democratic society.</div><div style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">In the same category in our
view problematic proposals to providers about the
operation of peering nodes should be banned for fall. <font class="">Similarly, if the boundaries of States
border Internet traffic thus should be limited to
data processing companies from abroad imposes a
residence requirement within the EU, the processing
of data of EU citizens is otherwise prohibited,
although they are in agreement. </font>Or even
private should be required to take measures that they
can still meet against the State where they are
established, either technically, legally.</div><div style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">Whether such proposals are
traveling for business calculus, an obvious concept
and helplessness in the face of progressive
globalization or overlooking legitimate goals of data
security or data security regulations are made, there
are nevertheless convinced of <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://isoc.de/">ISOC.DE</a>
disabled Instruments: They do not serve in the result
the protection of the freedom of the people on the
internet, but can rather, the freedom that they claim
to protect, ultimately only restrict, if not
eliminate, but without being able to protect the
people that actually increase. In the current debate
about undue interference of state intelligence
services in civil liberties, but because they are
mainly States to find a different behavior and need to
be encouraged by means of politics and (international)
law. Policy that is more concerned about privacy and
security of their citizens in relation to other States
must give priority to deal politically with these
countries.</div><div style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">However, it is neither the
Internet in its basic structure, yet it is the user or
other private stakeholders - not the provider of
services or infrastructure of the Internet - the
problem would be responsible for the actions of
government services. Also, they would not be able to
defend themselves against state action on the
territory of a country to defend against the local
law. Want to commit to companies and citizens on the
Internet to actions that actually affect states and
would meet only of them, from our point of view are
therefore unsuitable means. For this reason <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://isoc.de/">ISOC.DE</a>
appeals both in terms of the current negotiations
between the parties to a future government coalition,
and with a view to the ongoing discussions of the EU
and there in particular the planned EU Privacy
Regulation, in pursuit of legitimate goals, the actual
effectiveness and impact carefully weigh of
instruments in order to avoid undesirable consequences
that may be relevant to neither the citizens nor its
freedom and the Internet.</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="padding:1px;font-size:11px;color:rgb(60,78,88);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">From:
Hans Peter Dittler <br>
Posted in <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.isoc.de/category/isoc-de/" title="View all posts in ISOC.DE" rel="category tag" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,158);font-size:11px;margin:0px">ISOC.DE</a> , <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.isoc.de/category/netzneutralitat/" title="View all posts in the network neutrality" rel="category tag" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,158);font-size:11px;margin:0px">net
neutrality</a> , <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.isoc.de/category/recht-politik/" title="View all posts in Law & Politics" rel="category tag" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,158);font-size:11px;margin:0px">Law
& Politics</a></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">Editor, Fast Net News, Net Policy News and A
Wireless Cloud<br>
Author with Jennie Bourne DSL (Wiley, 2002) and Web
Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit,
2008)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are
automatically subscribed</span><br>
<span>to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the
Internet Society</span><br>
<span>Chapter Portal (AMS): <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://portal.isoc.org/">https://portal.isoc.org</a></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
Chapter Portal (AMS): <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://portal.isoc.org/">https://portal.isoc.org</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></body></html>