On 17/01/2014 11:18, "Christian de Larrinaga" <[email protected]> wrote:
>not equal steps ... not even close to being equal. > >The challenge is to define what is going on. Some operators will have a >perspective "in the network" that differs from their users. So if you >see an attack as a user you are seeing damage to your own privacy and >security over any number of operator networks and services. As an >operator you see an attack as damaging your network assets and business. > >IETF is coming down on a definition which is describing "an attack on >the Internet". The use of the word "attack" in that context does not >coincide with "war" though. It is carefully framed. The aim that is >emerging is not to prevent surveillance but to make the current conduct >of pervasive monitoring much more expensive to undertake. > >With a significant figure of $35 billion annually being flashed around >as the likely damage just to US Cloud services from the revelations of >pervasive monitoring there is cost on all sides that is not being taken >into account currently in the actual economics of current surveillance >practice. Again how those "damages" are apportioned are not going to be >equally distributed. Whilst I applaud the goal I seriously doubt that this will be a successful undertaking. To make it more expensive will ultimately cost vendors, operators and ultimately end users - end users won¹t pay so I question the realness of this at all. It has long been established that technical solutions to political and social problems do not work. For every guy making something more expensive there will be three making it cheaper. Cheers, Neil.
