John G. Scudder <jgs@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Aug 13, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> To the extent that you know of a practical line of design effort that >> can satisfy the above goal, without also creating the basic problems >> that have been documented, please describe it. > > Yes, exactly. "Send code." Just so we don't lose context, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As engineers we should aim to address this dilemma rather than > simply declare it impossible, and opt for data privacy at all costs. > > We have a social responsibility to design an internet that is rugged > from attack, that is fit for use by law-abiding people but does not > provide an impregnable conduit for the use of people that seek to > harm us. > > My concern is that by elevating the status of RFC1984 we fail to > acknowledge the dilemma, and do not set a goal of designing > technologies that allow the internet to be used to reliably and > safely carry information for the law abiding, but still provide > the ability for those that we trust to protect us from harm > to perform that task. (There is, of course, no such thing as an "impregnable conduit".) If Stewart follows up, I hope he will explain what he meant by "those that we trust to protect us from harm". -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>