On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Bryan McLaughlin (brmclaug) wrote: > I agree, obfuscation is perhaps not the formal approach we should take to > such offerings. Asking users to encrypt to protect privacy is also onerous > on users and may interfere with the management of networks where DPI > 'could' be an appropriate and justifiable use. > > I would also offer that privacy considerations 'should' be designed into > the operation of systems such as we are discussing. > > But as privacy is a social construct and therefore subjective it's a tad > challenging for a technical community. That does not mean we should not > engage in this area though.
Not sure I said otherwise. I think there are in fact ways to have encryption that are not onerous to users. Secure HTTP encrypts, although having a standard certificate given everybody is not the most "private" way to do things. Diffie-Helman encrypts without user involvement. If we put our thinking caps on, I suspect we could find a way to encrypt that isn't onerous. > Bryan > > > > On 11/12/2012 07:35, "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If you want privacy, encrypt your traffic. Smoke screens mostly make >> people work a little harder - not only the folks you're trying to >> interdict, but the people you want to help. >> _______________________________________________ >> ietf-privacy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy > ---------------------------------------------------- The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. - Marshall McLuhan _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
