On Dec 9, 2012, at 11:46 AM, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dean, > At 08:55 09-12-2012, Dean Willis wrote: >> A couple of years back we had some discussion about the need to design IETF >> protocols to be DPI resistant. One principle that I think should guide our >> efforts is that not only should each protocol be itself DPI resistant, but >> it should deliberately assist other protocols in being DPI resistant. I call >> this "intentional mutual obscurity". > > Is this about security or privacy?
Privacy, absolutely. How can you have privacy when your packets are being probed to figure out not only what's in them, but who you're talking to, what applications you are running, and what you're talking about? It's like the inverse of "do not track" powered by a nuclear reactor. If you're not having kittens about this, you just don't understand the implications ;-). Assume DPI is present, even required, at multiple layers in the network. Do you think we can assure the preservation of privacy by publishing some nambypamby guidelines on what the DPI operators can do with the information they've gleaned? Even when there's no business relationship between the user and the DPI operator and no informed consent? -- Dean _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
