On 7/27/23 16:08, Rob Sayre wrote:
I do not think the onus is on the IETF here. Input from anyone is
welcome, of course.
I guess I think the onus is on all parties to engage in a constructive way.
("constructive" sounds better to me than "civil" or "reasonable", but is
probably no less ambiguous)
I see nobody arguing that CSAM is good. But when people use such an
emotion-laden issue as CSAM to argue for a global surveillance regime,
it's a little difficult to take such input as constructive.
Still, it's necessary to explain why pervasive surveillance is a bad
idea, why a network that is full of content pattern detectors is a bad
idea, and so on... and to keep doing so from time to time. The
parties trying to impose the surveillance regime are patient, take the
long view, and realize that time is on their side.
Keith
