_Chairman_Saab_ said:
So, have you guys come to a conclusion yet ? EDIT: Mgcarley, what do you eat man ?
An unusual question, but to answer that: Everything... depending on who I want to offend on that particular day.
OneWithTheForce said:
I didn't say you were. Just merely pointing out the fact that even when faced with a threat to national security and a mounting death toll,the Indian government had trouble tapping into the phones of the terrorists. Imagining the same people spying on my email and every other piece of data I consume on the internet,just cracks me up
Yes and no. There are a lot of reasons they would not necessarily have been able to tap in to the phones including but not limited to the fact that the SIM cards were not registered in the names of the terrorists and so forth (they were just registered to normal Indian people as I recall - but considering the ease of obtaining a SIM under someone elses name by slipping a few extra rupees to someone, I'm of the opinion that all the stuff you have to go through to get a connection, even prepaid, is BS).Actually being able to tap the phones, however, is more trivial. And to be honest, tapping in to phones would actually be easier with VOIP - they're making it harder for themselves by not relaxing the rules on VOIP but hey, who am I to tell them what to do? :tongue:The monitoring that is done for the Internet is - for the most part - automated... it's a keyword thing. However, if you become a subject of interest, then yeah, even an incompetent government employee could waltz in and see most of what's going on if they really want to.
OneWithTheForce said:
And about the servers located in India,I know very little about it. But I thought that most local servers don't actually host any content. For example with youtube,the actual cache/video is only available on their North American and European servers.
The purpose of a content distribution network is pretty much what it says on the tin - to distribute content. You don't honestly think there's only one copy of a video, do you? If I watch a video here in the US, I'm going to see it stream from a server in (in my case, based on my current location) Chicago. If I was on the east coast, it would probably be NYC/NJ, or one of the Carolinas. If I was on the West Coast, probably California somewhere. If I was a bit further west but not on the coast, probably Utah or Texas.But then when I send you the URL and you watch it in India, you're going to see it stream probably from Delhi or Mumbai or whereever according to your ISP's routing (assuming they're peered with
Google or with someone who is peered with Google). It *MAY* (depending on the popularity of the video in question) be simply relayed from a server elsewhere in the world because if it's an unpopular video, it won't have as many copies distributed globally.
OneWithTheForce said:
I guess the lack of any good infrastructure is a big problem here. Proper planning is something we lack on the whole,and that's not just with broadband.
Yes and no. The infrastructure can (sort of) handle higher speeds. In reality, a lot of the problem is that the decisions is stuck in the mentality of the grandpas that run the ISPs. Or the backbone. Peering. International connectivity. And so on.Anecdote: When I go to telco conferences in India, I'm usually the youngest person in a C-level role by about 30 years. When I go to the same sorts of conferences elsewhere (whether Asia, Europe, US or even the Middle East), there are frequently people at my level to within 10 years, some even in my age group.
