* Ted Lemon wrote: >On Jan 2, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> The draft specifically calls out "legal but privacy-unfriendly purposes >> by commercial enterprises" "no matter how benevolent some might consider >> them to be" causing "through correlation with other communication >> events, [revelation of] information the communicator did not intend to >> be revealed"; that is a description of "behavioral advertising". > >It might be helpful to quote the text without strategic elisions! You mean http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg85172.html should have quoted "There is no mention of Google in the draft, so read that as any perpetrator of mass surveillance attacks"? >It's true that something like the G+1 button can be used for pervasive >monitoring, but that's a bit different than saying that this document is >specifically targeting Google and Google's general business model. The >point is that if by happenstance certain applications like the G+1 or FB >Like button become less valuable as a result of IETF being more >proactive in preventing pervasive monitoring, that would be an >acceptable outcome. > >Do you disagree with that? Stephen Farrell asked which parts of the document are "vague". The point is that the document is vague in explaining what "The IETF will work to Mitigate" exactly. I think your question is entirely besides the point. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/