Jari, >It is important to understand the limitations of technology in this >discussion. We can improve communications security, and in some cases >reduce the amount information communicated. But we cannot help a >situation where you are communicating with a party that you cannot >entirely trust with technology alone. That does not mean we should not do >anything. Right. My primary concern was that the most effective responses for these issues are rather different (technical controls versus regulatory controls). I understand that "PRISM" is being used as a convenient label to describe a multitude of sins; but, this will only be obvious to those that understand the issues. Given the level of interest in this topic (e.g., the daily media circus), we should be honest in what we can practically achieve at a protocol level. >I would also like to focus this topic on the general implications for >Internet technology, rather than any specific alleged activities. The >discussion has heightened our need to consider the large-scale monitoring >threat. It is important to understand that the overall situation is >probably bigger and more complex than we see today, and it will also >evolve as time goes by. Hence: if we build something, lets build for the >general case, reducing ability of outsiders to get into communications, >reduce amount of sensitive information transported, make privacy attacks >more costly, etc. That's all good stuff. That said, personally I would characterise this as a problem of Internet governance, and so I rather hope that ISOC have ambitions beyond releasing a press statement. Josh. Janet(UK) is a trading name of Jisc Collections and Janet Limited, a not-for-profit company which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG. VAT No. 614944238