* Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jan 2, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net>
wrote:
The draft specifically calls out "legal but privacy-unfriendly purposes
by commercial enterprises" "no matter how benevolent some might consider
them to be" causing "through correlation with other communication
events, [revelation of] information the communicator did not intend to
be revealed"; that is a description of "behavioral advertising".
It might be helpful to quote the text without strategic elisions!
You mean http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg85172.html
should have quoted "There is no mention of Google in the draft, so read
that as any perpetrator of mass surveillance attacks"?
It's true that something like the G+1 button can be used for pervasive
monitoring, but that's a bit different than saying that this document is
specifically targeting Google and Google's general business model. The
point is that if by happenstance certain applications like the G+1 or FB
Like button become less valuable as a result of IETF being more
proactive in preventing pervasive monitoring, that would be an
acceptable outcome.
Do you disagree with that?
Stephen Farrell asked which parts of the document are "vague". The point
is that the document is vague in explaining what "The IETF will work to
Mitigate" exactly. I think your question is entirely besides the 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/