On Oct 20, 2013 12:20 PM, "Theodore Ts'o" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:39:49AM -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> > Perpass falls > > into the noise, except for generating new ideas > > for the above actors. > > People who feel this way certainly have no obligation to participate > in perpass. :-) But they do have such an obligation if their goal is to prevent attempts to make pervasive surveillance harder, more expensive, or less effective. There is a legitimate range for honest difference of opinion. Some folks really believe the Internet is best as a giant honeypot for identifying dissidents (or are paid to further that agenda). People like this can be reasonably expected to use every tool of argument and process available to dissuade us from doing anything. They'll tell us the effort is pointless, that it is too hard, that the changes required are too expensive, that the overheads will be too much. They'll call us traitors, thieves, and enablers of terrorism and child abuse. They'll try to sap our energy with contrary argument, divert our attention with shiny new problems, and use processes and procedures to block progress. But whether their opinions are honest or intentions malicious, they're just wrong. Their agenda is inconsistent with the future of a free and open Internet, and we must not let them stop the IETF and greater Internet community from improving operational privacy in the face of pervasive surveillance.
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
