AD wrote:
I believe that social issues (like lying about opt-in) should be
outside of the scope of this group.
Right.
Lying about opt-in is not a social issue, the inability to detect lying
is a
protocol defect which is easy to cure.
It is too a social issue :-). "lying" must surely imply an intention to
deceive - which needs a deceiver, a deceived and the relationship between
them. This is social. That a protocol doesn't support the evaluation of
'opted-in' assertions - that's the technical problem. Lying isn't the root
problem - it's a consequence. A technical defect that is exploited is the
problem. This is not just hair-splitting - the lie is a surface feature,
we're interested in the underlying problem.
[snip]
Therefore, it
would be hard to say that we should not consider social issues at all,
rather as in Phillip's example we should look at social issues and see
how they can fit with the technical issues.
I expect that we'll find that it's generally the case that a social issue
(good / bad) will depend on a technical point. So I'd suspect any use of
psycho/social (or legal?) terminology implies a weakness (temporary) in
technical definition. In this instance
the psycho/social "Lying about opt-in" is subsumed in the more technical
"Inadequate opt-in
- no actual opt-in
- deceptive opt-in
- single opt-in without confirmation"
(Actually, the more I think about it, the less I'm sure that I know what
"deceptive opt-in" means. Is it something like "unverifiable opt-in
assertions"?)
We must *consider* social aspects - and by this method identify technical
issues. I guess this is personal, but I really don't see the advantage in
much talk about "lying" when we've already got "Inadequate/deceptive" which
may be more powerful and inclusive. I believe this will always be the case
- emotive language will add nothing except redundancy and may make the job
more difficult.
Regards,
JK
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg