On 29 Oct 2005, at 20:15, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message <4363C039(_dot_)4090109(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>, Brian E Carpenter
writes:
Steve, I'm not suggesting that technologists should duck
responsibility.
But I really think there are better fora. In fact, that's one of the
reasons I've always supported the ISOC in its wider role.
As Ned pointed out, a lot of our technology -- especially, but not
only, security technology -- can't be divorced from its societal
asepcts. When I advocate strong cryptography, I'm certainly
protecting
passwords. But am I also protecting privacy, or am I hindering
investigations into terrorist organizations? Is OPES a way to
localize
content or is it a way to enable censorship? Will charging for email
-- or rather, the protocols for doing so -- help stop spam, or will
it
cut off the third world from the net?
Amorality among scientists, engineers, and technologists has gotten
the
world into a lot of trouble. I prefer to think about the consequences
of what I do.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Do you discuss these consequences with anybody in particular before
coming to a view?
i ask because IETF product has been changed in the past due to
various influences such as outside lobbying in a working group such
as CDT on IPv6 privacy extensions, and there has also been attempts
by governments to work from the top as in the request for backdoors
by the USG which the IESG took exception to (for technical reasons!).
But it is much tougher proposition to understand how personal choices
outside purely technical issues are working in the formation of IETF
documents.
Christian de Larrinaga
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf