Re: Pervasive surveilance isn't an attack, it is a cancer; mandatory encryption doesn't cure it

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Larry,

Please note that I read the entire message.

At 03:43 18-11-2013, Larry Masinter wrote:
I am in favor of privacy as one of the core values of a safe and secure Internet. I am not in favor of a blanket priority for privacy, or for mandatory non-solutions for it.

  "It is highly desirable that Internet carriers protect the privacy
   and authenticity of all traffic, but this is not a requirement of the
   architecture."

  "Carriers may choose to provide some level of protection, but this is
   secondary to the primary responsibility of the end users to protect
   themselves."

The term privacy (two paragraphs above) is somewhat incorrect. There is some expectation of privacy from a user point of view. It is well-known that nation state actors have been conducting research to determine whether Internet carriers considered it worthwhile to protect the privacy of all traffic. :-)

The problem, if I could put it that way, is that the entire matter could be seen as an emotional response instead of one where there is a discussion without the pressure to do something. I don't know how to fix that.

The entire matter could be described as the security dilemma.

Regards,
-sm

1. The IETF is predictable




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]