On 10/14/2013 01:47 PM, Tony Rutkowski wrote: > Most citizens want that to continue because > the risks of not doing so are great.
If the "that" above refers to pervasive monitoring, then please provide evidence (but please do so in another thread, I bet it'll not be conclusive enough that one mail will be convincing;-) If you are referring to tracking or surveillance of a specific set of targets, then a) that's irrelevant for this list/discussion which is about pervasive monitoring, and b) see RFC 2804. As an aside, its also misleading to speak of citizens here, since most of us are not citizens of the same country, for all values of country. So while it is important and relevant that different jurisdictions put in place policy/political controls on pervasive monitoring, those are also not relevant for this list since in general our protocols can be used across all possible jurisdictional boundaries. > So as many have opined, the IETF is a > technical standards body, Yes we are. And given that pervasive monitoring is in some ways indistinguishable from other forms of attack, we should treat those aspects as an attack and put in place the best technical mitigations we can. And as a reminder the question for this thread, is whether or not going further than MTI would help with that. S. _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
