On 11/7/17, 4:59 AM, "ietf on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Hiya, > >On 07/11/17 07:49, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi Keith, >> >> ah, now I see where you are coming from. Yes, we are also discussing >> whether ISOC should be closer to a neutral "convener" or, instead, >> "advocate" more strongly in certain areas... and the ideal role may >> depend on the particular area, actually. >> >> In summary, yes, we are thinking about it... and, FWIW, based on my >> discussions many IETFers share your view. > >As an input there, (not that you'll be short of them:-),,, I >hope that ISOC don't differentiate too much between government >surveillance and corporate surveillance. While the latter >may have some fig-leaf of so-called "consent" or clicked-EULA, >it's the same information being gathered/centralised etc. (And >of course the latter form of surveillance can nicely feed the >former when companies are compelled.) Another form of corporate surveillance is monitoring your employees’ use of your corporate resources. I hope we don’t collectively object to that. Similarly, parents may surveill their childrens’ use of family resources. Lee