* Stephen Farrell wrote:
I've a question about the relevance of your comment
John:
On 12/11/2013 08:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
if encryption
were pervasive
The draft in question does not call for that. It calls
for proper consideration of the pervasive monitoring
attack and work to mitigate that.
Use of encryption for confidentiality will be a relevant
mitigation for various protocols, but to comment as if
this draft called for ubiquitous confidentiality seems
very odd if one has read the draft.
John - can you say what part of the draft caused you to
incorrectly conclude that "pervasive encryption" (whatever
that means) is even being discussed never mind recommended?
I am not sure what to make of your comments here. Perhaps an example
might help, http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/wikileaks.students/
U.S. agencies have warned some employees that reading the classified
State Department documents released by WikiLeaks puts them at risk of
losing their jobs. But what about students considering jobs with the
federal government? Do they jeopardize their chances by reading
WikiLeaks?
If surveillance is pervasive, then students must assume someone will
know which sites they visit and assume there will be repercussions. So
they are forced into a constant state of fear where they need to care-
fully consider, say, which headlines on a newspaper website they click.
If your draft is not about removing this fear, then I do not know what
it might be about. If it is, then it would seem to call for "ubiquitous
confidentiality" unless you are making a very fine point.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern(_at_)hoehrmann(_dot_)de ·
http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/