On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Hi Scott, > > On 11/11/2013 08:16 PM, Scott Brim wrote: > >> Discussion is limited to specific technical proposals for > >> improvements in IETF protocols and to IETF process changes > >> aiming to increase the liklihood that implementation and > >> deployment of IETF protocols results in better mitigation > >> for pervasive monitoring. > > > > Wording issue: "mitigation" is "the action of reducing the severity, > > seriousness, or painfulness". It would be best to (optionally) make it > > possible to block pervasive monitoring completely. > > > > Perhaps change "mitigation for" to something like "potential resistance > to"? > > To be honest, I think mitigation is really more accurate > and will be more widely understood. The term is common when > considering threats/attacks, whereas "resistance" could > require explaining. In the Perpass session I pointed out that the problem is not limited to covert surveillance like the NSA has been practicing. The problem of overt surveillance is far harder to deal with. The government of North Korea just murdered 80 people for the 'crime' of watching South Korean TV [For comparison the communist system killed between 0.3 and 3.5 million in the 1994-1998 famine and would be killing as many again without foreign food aid].. We are not going to do much more than mitigate in such situations and it is quite likely that no standards based scheme is going to be appropriate because steganography is an essential part of the solution. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
