Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz
<Jose-Marcio(_dot_)Martins(_at_)mines-paristech(_dot_)fr>
wrote:
Seth wrote:
No, it isn't. The Internet philosophy is "we ship bits around.
That's what spammers do...
And pirates, and people sending email to their aunts, and people
making VOIP phone calls to their lovers, and . . .
That's what using the Internet _means_.
Interpretation is someone else's problem."
and this is what usual spam filters do.
And every application likewise.
In your idea, the problem is pushed into recipients.
I didn't say that. The Internet moves bits around; that's what IP
does. You put a packet into the Internet, with a specified
destination address, and the Internet gets it there (or not).
Consent pushes the problem to the sender.
Consent is at a higher level, just like interpretation (though consent
is around level 9).
VPNs aren't against that philosophy, they're embraced by it.
Ther's a big difference between VPNs and consent.
They aren't anywhere near the same thing. Why are you comparing them?
VPNs are really private - information about VPNs instances (IP
address of entry points, protocol, flavour, ...) aren't public and
aren't available to unknown users.
Whether or not they are is up to the owner of the equipment providing
the VPN. (Hint: encrypted proxies are VPNs, and with the current
events in Iran there are a lot of public ones.)
Consent users information is public
What does that mean? Information that is mine is public to the extent
I publicize it.
Claudio Telmon email address is public and known by everybody.
Very unlikely. Even "president(_at_)whitehouse(_dot_)gov" isn't known by
_everybody_.
And I personally have hundreds of email addresses, each of which is
(or should be) known by precisely one entity.
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg