I expect you are talking about "cost" from the narrower operator perspective. That is a very small subsection of the overall impact of those using Internet networks.
In my view the debate on surveillance needs to appreciate the cost of surveillance is not just about money. It is both much higher in money terms than what an operator might be asked to spend (and be reimbursed for) and also carries broader societal costs. Societal costs include such issues as degradation of trust (privacy) across societal institutions and relationships that constitutionally require privacy. That is the very institutions required to monitor and oversee such activities as "surveillance" are themselves weakened. Christian Neil J. McRae wrote: > 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. > >
