Re: Security for various IETF services
2014-04-07 04:40:43
On 05/04/2014 18:29, Tim Bray wrote:
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
<stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com <mailto:stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>> wrote:
> Please confirm that "friendly" implies that the user gets to
> choose the degree of security privacy that they consider
> appropriate, and that their applications and devices are not
> encumbered with the overheads unless they choose to invoke
> the privacy and security mechanisms.
Here, I think, is a key issue. I disagree with Stewart. WHAT?! How
can I possibly disagree with
user choice? Because, a huge majority of people
(a) aren’t aware that there is a choice to be made, and shouldn’t need
to be
(b) do not understand the technical issues surrounding the choice, and
shouldn’t have to
(c) do not understand the legal/policy issues surrounding the choice,
and shouldn’t have to
This includes both the people who use online services and the people
who offer them. Thus, the only sane ethical position is to operate in
a mode that is private by default, because the consequences of a
negative failure (the user really didn’t need privacy but got it
anyhow) are immensely less damaging than the consequences of a
positive failure (the user really needed privacy but didn’t get it).
I could be persuaded towards "crypto by default", but I hear in these
discussions "crypto as an exclusive mode", and I do not think that is an
acceptable constraint on implementations.
Privacy and authentication always ends up taking CPU, memory and
bandwidth, which in turn costs money, silicon, power, weight and
complexity. If a specific application requires privacy and or
authentication, then fine, but each case needs to be examined on its own
merits. Now you may say "ah but we are getting so much better at the
engineering that who cares about such things", to which I would point
out that such thinking stunts our ability to build things that are
orders of magnitude smaller, lighter, cheaper and more power efficient
than we can conceive of oday.
So please, let's not react to the recent news on spying, by creating a
security religion that in the end hurts us even more that the problem we
are reacting to.
Stewart
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Security for various IETF services, (continued)
Re: Security for various IETF services, Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- RE: Security for various IETF services, l.wood
- Re: Security for various IETF services, ned+ietf
- Re: Security for various IETF services, Tim Bray
- Re: Security for various IETF services,
Stewart Bryant <=
- Re: Security for various IETF services, Brian Trammell
- Re: Security for various IETF services, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Security for various IETF services, Ted Lemon
- Re: Security for various IETF services, John C Klensin
- Re: Security for various IETF services, Stewart Bryant
- RE: Security for various IETF services, l.wood
Re: Security for various IETF services, Martin Rex
RE: Security for various IETF services, Eric Gray
Re: Security for various IETF services, Spencer Dawkins
Re: Security for various IETF services, Ted Lemon
|
|
|