Re: from the horse's mouth

[Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 29 Oct 2005, at 20:15, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

In message <4363C039.4090109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian E Carpenter writes:

Steve, I'm not suggesting that technologists should duck responsibility.

But I really think there are better fora. In fact, that's one of the

reasons I've always supported the ISOC in its wider role.

As Ned pointed out, a lot of our technology -- especially, but not 

only, security technology -- can't be divorced from its societal 

asepcts.  When I advocate strong cryptography, I'm certainly protecting 

passwords.  But am I also protecting privacy, or am I hindering 

investigations into terrorist organizations?  Is OPES a way to localize 

content or is it a way to enable censorship?  Will charging for email 

-- or rather, the protocols for doing so -- help stop spam, or will it 

cut off the third world from the net?

Amorality among scientists, engineers, and technologists has gotten the 

world into a lot of trouble.  I prefer to think about the consequences 

of what I do.

        --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Do you discuss these consequences with anybody in particular before coming to a view?

i ask because IETF product has been changed in the past due to various influences such as outside lobbying in a working group such as CDT on IPv6 privacy extensions, and there has also been attempts by governments to work from the top as in the request for backdoors by the USG which the IESG took exception to (for technical reasons!).

But it is much tougher proposition to understand how personal choices outside purely technical issues are working in the formation of IETF documents. 

Christian de Larrinaga

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf