On 7/31/23 10:33, John Curran wrote:
Similarly, a public policy requirement to enable prosecution of CSAM production doesn’t necessarily equate to a requirement to pervasive content monitoring for detection purposes – but might instead be aided by solutions for better tracking of sale of such materials in online marketplaces, or ready attribution & prosecution of those who deal in such materials, or some other solution yet to be defined.
Governments can and do implement such measures already, including tracking of sale of apps that facilitate secure communications. Google is already under pressure to prevent "side loading" of Android apps so that totalitarian governments can assert more control over those apps.
The question is whether engaging constructively with governments to address their Internet public policy concerns is an activity that falls within the remit of the IETF – thus allowing exploration of various approaches and tradeoffs involved – or whether the IETF’s mode of operation (structured primarily around _technical_ problem solving) isn’t inherently not amenable to such efforts, and thus it would be better if they’re conducted elsewhere.
I do think that's approximating a good way to phrase the question, or at least, one of the questions. But different parties have different ideas as to what "constructive" means, so there may not actually be a basis for useful collaboration.
There is by now a LOT of history that indicates that even the governments that seem to be "best" are not trustworthy.
Keith
