Neil, I hope you go to the workshop or send a rep.
All I can say is it is too soon for me to tell what the financial impacts really are. There is no model due to the very secrecy and unaccountability of what seems to be going on. If Operators have been efficient because they are the one's Governments approach, in getting compensation then the rest have been laggards. Defining the cost for non operators seems to be starting up. Whether you take the $35 billion estimate damage so far to the US Cloud industries with a pinch of salt or not - that is a figure so much higher than any invoice the US or UK Government would be expecting in the Treasury InTray as to be a real eye waterer. Still compared to the UKs £1.4 trillion debt... Incidentally that $35 billion figure doesn't even start to look at implications more broadly for 2 billion users and x billion devices. Your point about technology and double edges are right of course. One nail I would like to bang down is to say strengthening against pervasive monitoring does not mean preventing surveillance. It also does not imply that once apps and services are strengthened surveillance would be not better managed in other ways. That would itself change the current surveillance "industry" financial model maybe decisively from the operator focus seen to date. So the implications could be significant. best Christian Neil J. McRae wrote: > Christian, > What you say is of course true, but ultimately will end up as cost (pound > notes, dollar bills, RMBs). The cost will end up with the end user - > either as taxation - or in costs to use the service. > > I speak for myself typically in these debates, and I am very cautious > about what I infer other people may think. I think I know as many people > who are passionate about this topic as dispassionate, I also know that a > lot of people may value certain aspects of surveillance. > And I re-iterate for every person making it more expensive there will be > three making it cheaper (both in real numeric terms but also in the terms > you lay out below). > > I don’t believe there is a technical solution to this problem > unfortunately (and if there was, there would be an equal good solution to > getting around the problem - technology is a double edged sword. > > Regards, > Neil. > > On 17/01/2014 13:02, "Christian de Larrinaga" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >>> >>> >
