On Nov 4, 2013 12:37 PM, "Melinda Shore" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/04/2013 10:30 AM, Dean Willis wrote: >> >> 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. > > > I find this to be histrionic, hyperbolic, and a distraction. Most of > all I find it largely irrelevant, as I don't think I've seen anybody > here argue against the need to improve privacy mechanisms in IETF > technologies. There appears to be consensus that this is the case; > I certainly haven't seen any vigorous argument to the contrary. If > you're trying to answer people outside the IETF, this is probably the > wrong forum. >
Perhaps you should read more carefully. I believe I've seen every one of these techniques applied within the IETF community since the Snowden revelations began focusing our attention on pervasive security. It became even more apparent as I read through the perpass list archive over the last couple of days. I might be paranoid, but that doesn't mean they're not out to get me...
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
