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-boun...@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-----
