John G. Scudder <jgs(_at_)bgp(_dot_)nu> wrote:
On Aug 13, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
To the extent that you know of a practical line of design effort that
can satisfy the above goal, without also creating the basic problems
that have been documented, please describe it.
Yes, exactly. "Send code."
Just so we don't lose context,
Stewart Bryant <stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
As engineers we should aim to address this dilemma rather than
simply declare it impossible, and opt for data privacy at all costs.
We have a social responsibility to design an internet that is rugged
from attack, that is fit for use by law-abiding people but does not
provide an impregnable conduit for the use of people that seek to
harm us.
My concern is that by elevating the status of RFC1984 we fail to
acknowledge the dilemma, and do not set a goal of designing
technologies that allow the internet to be used to reliably and
safely carry information for the law abiding, but still provide
the ability for those that we trust to protect us from harm
to perform that task.
(There is, of course, no such thing as an "impregnable conduit".)
If Stewart follows up, I hope he will explain what he meant by
"those that we trust to protect us from harm".
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>