Re: draft-farrell-perpass-attack architecture issue

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

 



Thanks Fred,

The draft must include your questions, so that it can become a clear
initial-BCP, or a clear plan draft. IMHO, the initial-BCP draft is not
clear or not direct if it does not mention your questions,

AB

On 1/14/14, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>  It means
>>   that, if asked, there needs to be a good answer to the question "is
>>   pervasive monitoring relevant to this work and if so how has it been
>>   considered?"
>
> Just a thought - that might be a good question to add to the shepherd's
> report.
>
> In that case, I might suggest a minor change, however. We discuss "Pervasive
> monitoring" in a "big brother is watching" sense, and (at least in perpass)
> concern ourselves with data that could have been hidden had encryption or
> some other code used. I'll argue that, however dreadful Big Brother might
> be, location-based services can be a lot scarier.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303453004579290632128929194?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303453004579290632128929194.html
>
> Data point: a lot of these operate without specific knowledge of an
> individual, but can. For example, the article talks a lot about aggregating
> information and providing it without identifying information. However, it
> goes on to say that if someone logs into a service using, for example, a
> Facebook identifier, they can remain identified to the system as they wander
> around in it. The messages themselves contain no identifying information per
> se, but they contain information that can be correlated back to that login.
> And the login wasn't "data in flight", it was "creating state with a service
> at rest".
>
> So the question in the shepherd's report should not be "tell me you thought
> about the EU Data Retention Initiative and whether your protocol's data
> identifies an individual". It should be "what personal, equipment, or
> session identifiers, encrypted or otherwise, are carried in your protocol?
> How might they be correlated with offline data or otherwise used to infer
> the identity or behavior of an individual?"
>




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