At 23:10 14/12/2005, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:46:42PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>
> The best way to hide a signal is noise, is that's your idea ?
> Makes sense from my POV.
Not necessarily the _best_ way, but one that works under many
circumstances.
Some questions are:
How do we deal with the total surveillance?
Do anti-spam measures make surveillance easier?
Hadmut,
not much success with your suggestion! Too much European centric at
the moment. Your proposition is of real interest as part of a picture
to study the noise as a general protection (conflicting information,
spam, revamping web sites 1000 times a day, meta-spam, tags, EUCD,
civilrights protection, bandwidth cost, site legal registration,
multiligualism, debate orientation, etc.). The French law related
debate make it very interesting, and important, however too complex
for current users at this time. This fits the interests I have in the
emergence of an "over the ISO layers" Internet through a grassroots
process. How to use the Internet? But the IAB discuss list leads to nothing.
Why not to try to shape a WG Charter on this? I do not believe the
IESG is able to follow. But when I see all the ICANN, IETF, Unicode,
etc. meetings, publications, etc. etc. about "internationalization",
partly to oppose my long enough opposition which permitted me to
reach Tunis. One could expect that Brussels could be interested at
the end of the day. And if the IESG does not follow, we will have
made our duty, before going elsewhere? I do not think that the
balkanization they impose on us is a good thing.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf