Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 11:41:46AM -0700,
ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com:
On 06/04/15 18:45, Ned Freed wrote:
My point is only that if we want to debate the appropriate mechanisms
to put in place to protect the privacy of access to public IETF
information, then let's not do that based on the FTP corner case, but
by considering the general question.
And I quite simply disagree with this approach. I think FTP provides an
interesting test case and context under which to consider the more
general question.
Really? I honestly don't get why FTP is at all "interesting" from
the privacy of access POV. Can you explain?
It's interesting precisely because it's one of the services we use to provide
access to our content and it's one that is intrisicly hostile to privacy.
you, the proverbial you - as the user, are free to choose a different
service - others are provided. i dont care if whomever may know that I
downloaded some rfc. others may. find less interest in forcing your
religion^Wchoice upon potential users and more in delivering choice and
content.
Even more interesting is how its presence cuts both ways: As long as we have
FTP
access, we cannot claim to have secure-only access (which makes some people
happy and others unhappy). But at the same time this can be used as an
argument
justifying tightening up or even eliminating non-secure access via other
protocols.
for most users, it does not require secure access.