> The same why-we-don’t-need-privacy-in-this-case arguments keep coming up > over and over whenever the p-word rears its head. Except the arguments aren't always the same. And there are plenty of cases where there's broad agreement in favor of "the p-word" when it has been brought up. > Sufficiently so that I > was motivated to post an I-D addressing them one-by one: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bray-privacy-choices-01 - which has > received a bit of interest over in perpass. > >From which I quote: > This document attempts to establish the following: > 1. Whether or not information is considered "public" is not a good > criterion for choosing whether or not to deploy privacy technologies for > its users. > 2. Privacy choices are difficult and context-dependent, so it's > inappropriate to ask users to make them. > 3. Privacy techologies offer benefits to users of data services even when > those technologies are imperfect. > 4. Cost should not be a significant factor while considering the deployment > of privacy technologies. I have to say I fail to see the relevance of any of this. Your document talks about objections to the deployment of privacy technology. To the best of my knowledge the deployment of privacy technology is not at issue; indeed, several people have argued for additional privacy options in access to IETF documents. Ned