RE: Transit, Exchange Point Agreements, and Acceptable Use?

["Siegel, David" <David.Siegel () Level3 com>]

Most written peering agreements have a clause that says you can't provide that data unless required to by authorities 
and only in compliance with applicable local law.

The article says that's still an open question:

"Channel 4 News has been unable to establish whether Reliance Communications was served with a warrant to authorise 
this and the company has not responded to our calls."

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 7:59 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Transit, Exchange Point Agreements, and Acceptable Use?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I'll apologize up front if this offends anyone's sensitivities as to what is relevant for list conversation... but one 
sentence in this
Channel4 News story (from what I understand, Channel4 is a very popular news source in the UK) struck me as perhaps in 
violation of some sort of peering and/or transit agreement. Cable and Wireless:

"...even went as far as providing traffic from a rival foreign communications company, handing information sent by 
millions of internet users worldwide over to spies."

The entire article is here:

http://www.channel4.com/news/spy-cable-revealed-how-telecoms-firm-worked-with-gchq

My question is this: Do willful actions such as these violate peering, transit, and/or exchange agreements in any way?

Thanks,

- - ferg


- --
Paul Ferguson
VP Threat Intelligence, IID
PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlRvUzsACgkQKJasdVTchbKc3AD+OBNKXfYJ/Vjsa2pYL7+ewvql
629C4Ie5jzPgIpAgrToA/1gdeKQX69OHOc79RwsI6uUq99cRoDsHOSf3zTDnwsZy
=7Xps
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----