On 7/15/2010 9:42 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
< extended repetition of based goals elided >
IMO, those are the types of issues we should be discussing and
that several people on the list have been discussing.
Hyperbole, wild extrapolations, assumptions that network
research (even if it were occurring) was actually research on
human subjects, unfounded accusations about bad behavior or
hidden conspiracies, etc., don't further that discussion.
Anyone who has dealt with a human subjects review panels would wish to be as
dismissive of them as you are. But it's a serious topic and I offered it
seriously. Perhaps the scope of the IETF's privacy work does not need to
include it. But perhaps it does. The discussion was raising areas of concern.
I offered one more.
That you might believe it doesn't fall within scope is fine, although I'll
suggest that such an opinion is always strengthened when accompanied by
considered reasons, rather than being facilely to lump them in with red-flag
labels like hyperbole. (If you wish to address thread activity involving those
red-flag behaviors, please direct your mail to your buddy.)
That anyone would be so mechanically dismissive of this issue underscores the
challenges of discussing privacy in this community.
I explained why I thought the issue was worth considering along with the rest of
the concerns about privacy. I didn't generate the reference to doing research
and I didn't generate the reference to unauthorized disclosure of personal data.
So please do feel free to respond with relevant substance rather than a quick
It is also
relevant that what was disclosed, if I recall, were passwords.
Not password-user pairs or anything else that would constitute
what is normally considered personally identifiable information.
OK. And none of those passwords were sufficient to identify their owner, right?
Ietf mailing list