On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Recommendation #1, the section headings: Currently they are "It's an >> Attack" and "And We Will Continue to Mitigate the Attack". Just those >> headings are all the media needs for high entertainment value. They >> are also all various organizations need as leverage to dismiss us as >> extremists. :-) I suggest making the first section "Pervasive >> Monitoring is Indistinguishable from an Attack". "It's an Attack" is a >> great title for a slide presentation to an appreciative audience, but >> it is only accurate at a high level and is immediately qualified in >> the text anyway. > > > The reality is that it is not simply indistinguishable from an attack, it > represents actual harm to the use and users of the network. While we > often use the term "self censorship" when pervasive monitoring causes us to > limit our speech, the actual agency belongs with the monitors, not with us. > In some cases this limitation may be a side effect; in some cases it is a > desired outcome by the state actors taking this action. While "attack" may > come across as a loaded term, the impact and the threat are real. For clarity are you talking about the impact of monitoring, or of awareness of monitoring? There are people who never think someone might be monitoring, and the existence of monitoring does not lead them to self-censor. Also, earlier today we had to allow that "need not be part of a pervasive monitoring attack" ... but it can still be indistinguishable from one. Even so, > If the language does change, I could see value in saying "Pervasive > monitoring represents a threat" and "We will work to mitigate that threat"; ... that would work for me. Scott