On 21/08/2015 03:30, John Curran wrote: > On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> It’s quite possible that the appropriate tradeoff for society >>> continues to be that as documented in RFC1984, but it should be >>> recognized as an actual tradeoff and not an an approach without any >>> impact to lawful enforcement activities (as might be implied from your >>> comments above.) >> >> sorry, i can't resist >> >> We should not be building surveillance technology into standards. Law >> enforcement was not supposed to be easy. Where it is easy, it's called a >> police state. -- Jeff Schiller > > Randy - > > Actually, that is a perfect example of my point - Jeff’s quote (with respect > to not including surveillance technology) actually acknowledges that there > is an impact as a result that choice; i.e. ‘LE not supposed to be easy.’ > > That’s quite different than some of the assertions on this list implying that > RFC1984 has no impact to LEA activities… I hope I've been consistent in asserting that it has no effect on *seriously bad actors*. Small time crooks and run of the mill copyright infringers are a different matter, but there are other ways of catching them. Brian > If the IETF is going to make > a statement, it should be an intellectually honest one and acknowledge > that there could be an LEA impact, but even so, that outcome is still the > desirable tradeoff in the circumstances. > > /John > > Disclaimer: my views alone. > > . >