Ralf,
Stephen,
"The state has a responsibility to provide for the security of its
citizens. To the extent that surveillance supports
this goal, it is potentially justified, irrespective of whether every
citizen agrees with the methods."
If this is the case why dont we hand a copy of our house key to the
police? This way the police can come around every evening and check
what we are up to.
An exaggerated, poor analogy, but I suspect you know that.
Why not cameras on toilets as well?
maintenance issues?
Because mass surveillance (for good and bad) scares the Internet user.
It makes it less attractive to use the Internet. It restricts the
Internet. It violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to
which your country is a signatory as well).
As Stephen noted, Internet standards are used throughout the world, so
whether a given country is
a signatory to the UDHR seems irrelevant.
If most users feel that security and privacy are high priorities, why do
so many users download
free apps that monitor aspects of mobile phone use and direct ads
accordingly? My position, in
part, is that people behave in a fashion that suggests that personal
privacy is not a very
high priority when it comes to use of the Internet.
It is not the targeted surveillance but the unregulated mass
surveillance that is the problem.
The current IETF standards do not protect against mass surveillance
sufficiently.
On what objective basis can one say that, i.e., who gets to decide what
is "sufficient?"
Steve
_______________________________________________
perpass mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
