On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:45:09PM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Yes, we could count your corporate mail scanning example as
> something that fits the definition but also fits under the
> "tension" statement and live with that. I think that's quite
> tenable.
Ok. I wonder whether text along this line in the last paragraph at
of section 1 would make it clear enough:
…might consider them to be. For the same reason, a given feature
of a protocol can often be used both to enable behaviours desired
by users of the protocol, and to enable pervasive monitoring.
Moreover, as technology advances …
> But even if you think both of the above approaches are wrong,
> I don't think consent is the angle to take here for the reasons
> stated.
Well, if you just say "this is part of that tension" then you don't
need to give a general-purpose profile of that tension, I guess.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx