On 3/16/2016 4:30 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 3/16/16 15:23, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 3/16/2016 3:47 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
As is the nature of a service used by people who need to stay
anonymous for their own safety,
There's the set of TOR users, and there's the subset of TOR users
that need to have the property of "anonymity for safety", and then
there's the set of people who need/want access to the IETF.
Could you provide an educated guess on the size of the intersection
of those last two sets? 1? 10s? 100s? 1000s? More? I'm trying to
understand the amount of hyperbole being slung about.
I'm just going to put back the second half of the sentence that you
cut off in your quote above: "you're not going to find a lot in the
way of data or anecdote here."
Fair enough - so you're asking me to take it on faith that there is a
real problem and that it effects sufficient numbers of folks that the
IETF should spend *its* money and effort to fix? Which fix might in
itself cause other problems affecting all the rest of us.
Let me ask it another way - what is the minimum number of people that
this affects before you think the IETF should spend its resources? 100?
10? 1? (Note - I'm asking for the case where the cost to provide the
accommodation is non-trivial).
Finally, are there any other methods besides Tor you can think of
that would give "anonymity for safety" while still providing access
to the IETF data? (Hint: asking a friend to photocopy paper or send
you a usb stick.... or...)
I propose you limit yourself to those methods of participation for a
suitably long time period -- say, a year or so -- and then report back
with your experiences of whether you think it posed an unreasonable
barrier.
I propose that at least one person with fear for their life if their
anonymity is compromised who needs continuous access to the IETF for
that same 1 year actually explain the problem in a non-anecdotal way.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around an "I must not be caught"
protocol designer.
Mike
/a