-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/16/13 6:06 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > 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 … Although I don't think the BCP needs to explicitly deal with "beneficial surveillance," Andrew's statement above gets closer to how I have been thinking about this tension: Rather than "consent" or some oft-problematic bright line good/bad attack determination, I think it's more about "surveillance that works in the interests of the user or, alternatively, against those interests." best, Joe - -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I ST NW STE 1100 Washington DC 20006-4011 (p) 202-407-8825 (f) 202-637-0968 joe@xxxxxxx PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSsDQFAAoJEF+GaYdAqahxhAgP/3Z0K5ch6KFSHNRswUKEKXaH 782hK7eBDcn/u8R7J0GAg06IJ9PL7opwOw+Nz/312D+505eZYnUnDUr084csX4vH 6o5s4x0L6CYDKtNjw6ASKznh77xxQlbo43ylEJ2fXP9Cse24Nzp5Y7zSZl21+qUP 4eBBQgGdRJsgHFJPVUTgqMDMJgvzk5beLCCQc4uV4xRBb/jNrNzWjNpPiVW5IAqE X9tFjrkHghiz1K72jG8m6uZLQaVB6/+45H5jK4PkoJgdMsbfHja7veRMyTRpyWDG bdQEaG2wznYpsCh280rhgRxGUyDO4zm13M+O+cpP6SdhO+gnJmtwRcOXWz9iW7pz jXxZPUGJGbEttDt2/z2QJChhh8o2sGDNltIpbdS1vs5EVlDMyw42kuqruXO/XNKf rScjDZryzFjWsO93jJB8FSNR/eImO/QPT5hjjwoln8NnDqqrxb2D2KvfWx9qArRi DDkRKxPdoT32mTQUFUTKRmmnFGy8iQ0OPOpHLiM28v8ajteT+T8ClgcAHNONo5PY Z133MUwQH9noBxLIA8qqi5F+ZM4jEULKh0+igADkGss5nFhfHTwgfh/mBoq6gidw WxFnqumT/Mnaq857i1qnfbQmo00XIENObpxXzl38H3pUI7LrjiHLunCOqd6HNdzH eurCTqGEt6iKS6UqXqUC =1O3+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----