Hi Carsten,
Besides the idea my take was a little different from you, your points
are well taken. But that may suggest the IETF now *really* does need
an new "Ethics" document of its own. I don't see how you separate it.
I guess I was among the few in 1989, who did consider these social
engineering integrity issues in consumer product lines.
Its essentially what this proposed BCP (and reference docs) is asking,
and this STRINT workshop (based on the itemized questions) wants us to
consider -- asking developers (and reviewers) to have a greater look
at the intent, the goals of proposed systems, the pros and cons,
including conflict of interest matters, expecting engineering due
diligence in regards to security/privacy matters. For the most part,
question all things.
Thanks for your points.
--
HLS
On 1/16/2014 12:56 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 17:58, Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net> wrote:
The IETF has the ethics document RFC1087
Whoa.
� this is an IAB document, not an IETF document
� it�s status is UNKNOWN
� if it had been assigned a more specific status, that would be HISTORIC
� it subject was about proper allocation of public resources for work-related
activities:
"there is widespread dependence on the Internet
by its users for the support of day-to-day research activities.�
"The U.S. Government sponsors of this system have a fiduciary
responsibility to the public to allocate government resources wisely
and effectively."
etc.
This is from a time where large parts of every-day human reality hadn�t moved
into the digital domain (and thus into the Internet) yet. In 1989, nobody would have
thought about making the point that the integrity of the digital facets of your
personality is the subject of a basic human right. We are way beyond any question
about that.
Gr��e, Carsten
--
HLS