In the last paragraph I meant “I do not accept this”. daveor
> On 26 Apr 2018, at 15:50, Dave O'Reilly <r...@daveor.com> wrote: > > Tom, > > >> On 26 Apr 2018, at 15:38, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: >> >> On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:27 AM, Dave O'Reilly <r...@daveor.com> wrote: >>> Let me clarify: I’m not saying that there are no problems with judicial >>> systems around the world but I was commenting, in response to your point, >>> that IP address will usually form part of the evidence and will not >>> generally be relied upon as identifying the suspect without supporting >>> evidence from other sources. >> >> I think what Tom is getting at, and also what I was getting at in my earlier >> comment, is that we simply can't make the assertion that "IP address will >> usually form part of the evidence and will not generally be relied upon as >> ... etc”. > > No, you’re absolutely right about that. However I do not think that this has > any bearing on the relevance of the recommendations in my document. > >> >> One thing to bear in mind is that often the purpose of data collection under >> a repressive regime is to provide a pretext for prosecution, not to provide >> evidence in an adversarial trial. The point is to be able to say that you >> did something to single out the intended victim of the prosecution, not that >> what you say you did actually accurately singled out that victim. >> >> You've asked privately what my objection to the document is, and I haven't >> had time to re-review it yet (sorry—yesterday was jam-packed). But what >> got me interested in the first place is that I think that it's really >> important to be serious about evaluating these issues and not simply think >> about this in terms of a particular isolated case, like Denmark's judicial >> system or the system in the U.S. >> >> In practice, regimes where data collected will be used as a pretext probably >> have more total residents than countries where citizens' rights are taken >> seriously, either as a matter of custom or as a matter of law. And in the >> U.S. it's pretty clear that rule of law doesn't apply anymore to anyone who >> is not a citizen, nor does it appear in practice to apply fully to citizens >> who are not white. And we've seen with the recent U.K. Windrush scandal >> that this is also true in the U.K., and while it's great that it's creating >> a furor in the press, it's not clear that the situation is going to get >> substantially better as a result. >> >> The problem with the IETF taking a position on these matters is that it >> grants the IETF's legitimacy not only to legitimate investigative bodies and >> judicial bodies, but also to illegitimate such bodies. And so the bar for >> adoption of work in this area is not "this would improve public safety in >> situations where it's used properly," but rather "how could this be misused, >> and what responsibility could the IETF wind up bearing for that misuse.” >> > > In response to this point I refer back to one of my comments yesterday - the > argument you’re making seems to be that as long as repressive regimes exist > then privacy must trump all other considerations. The conclusion of this > argument would seem to be that unless and until we all live in a democratic > utopia then we can take no action to assist law enforcement. I do not except > this. There is middle ground where law enforcement in democratic countries > can be assisted without compromising the privacy of those who need it - I am > of the opinion that my document lives in that middle ground. > > daveor > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
