Hi Rich, You've hit several nails on the head here as to why the premises for the list are so flawed.
Privacy (as opposed to PPII) is a legal, societal, and religious matter, yet it is never defined, and assumed by the proponents of the list as accepted as an absolute tenet. So what if one is not of that religious persuasion? What if you don't want to pay the broad array of significant real costs and elevated threats to finance those religious beliefs? for example, there are no use cases of where any form of pervasive monitoring has brought down a plane. Similarly neither "pervasive" nor "monitoring" nor the concatenation of the two are defined or even explained. All of this is highly context dependent - as you and others have repeatedly pointed out, and even Stephen admits - raising the specter of bad actors. Gee, not much new there. However, the group seemed to have been spun up over good actors doing serious jobs, not bad ones. That's ironic. In fact, the proffered use cases seem directed at impeding good actors and potentially seriously damaging good actor requirements. This is one of the worst examples of IETF upper layer excesses witnessed over many decades. While it can be written off as a canard to keep some religious persuasions happy, it does real harm to the IETF's stature. This stuff belongs on K-street and other lobbying venues, not in a serious technical body that needs to accommodate a broad spectrum of perspectives and needs. --tony On 10/30/2013 11:36 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
[RS> ] Who's privacy? The calling party or the called party. This is my point. Enabling privacy for one may violate the privacy of the other. Now we are really blasting past Layer 8-10 Economic Political and Religious into Layer 11 Philosophy. I'm totally incompetent to make judgments on that Layer.
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
