Linus,
> On 2 May 2018, at 15:08, Linus Lüssing <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Since the Internet is about communication, I would interpret > "better" in this context as improving and encouraging communication. > Any logging however, if not done as a temporary measure to understand > and enhance a protocol (configuration), will potentially discourage > communication. > I don’t think even those who are most aggressively opposed to the viewpoint I am espousing here would agree with you that "any logging however, if not done as a temporary measure to understand and enhance a protocol would potentially discourage communication". >> a. “Better” will in some sense incorporate “more secure” >> b. Security includes consideration of the implications of breaches of >> security >> c. The implications of a breach of security need to take into account the >> risks to privacy ****BUT ALSO THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME**** > > To me this draft has the potential to stifle the rights of > victims, too: A permanent IP/source-port logging could create a > significant barrier for victims to seek help and guidance over the > Internet. I could not find any such considerations in the current > draft. > I agree that the document does not contain this, because I do not think it is correct. In what way does logging IP/source port create a barrier for victims? Why is it any different to logging IP address, which is routine at the moment, in terms of creating any sort of barrier for victims? You mention “permanent” - In case you haven’t already, I encourage you to read back over the rest of this thread because we’re specifically not talking about how long logs should be kept for, rather the advantages/disadvantages of logging source port whenever IP address is logged - and in the case of my document, what else can be done to encourage that approach. daveor _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
