nanog mailing list archives
Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 12:21:46 -0500
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Todd Underwood <toddunder () gmail com> wrote:
Why not both? So sad when you have to choose a single oppressive regime to track your internet use.
to be fair, probably: o china sees the local mobile and can easily unwrap the probably not encrypted outer packet headers to get your 'metadata' o five-eyes sees the over-water transimission(s) and does the same as above o US folk see at the GPRx in the US So really there's 6 regimes all repressive, in their own right, involved.
T On Sun, Nov 15, 2015, 09:04 Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk> wrote:This is what roaming data means, Your data packet is simply trunked to your original operator to process. So you will be having a US ip on the web.And continuity of US tracking of your use rather than temporary Chinese tracking brandon
Current thread:
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall, (continued)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Yury Shefer (Nov 16)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Mark Tinka (Nov 20)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Joel Jaeggli (Nov 14)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Yury Shefer (Nov 14)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Roland Dobbins (Nov 14)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Yucong Sun (Nov 14)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Jean-Francois Mezei (Nov 15)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Mark Tinka (Nov 20)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Brandon Butterworth (Nov 15)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Todd Underwood (Nov 15)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Christopher Morrow (Nov 15)
- Re: Project Fi and the Great Firewall Todd Underwood (Nov 15)