Re: [arch-d] IAB Statement on Encryption and Mandatory Client-side Scanning of Content

The history of the cryptowars is littered with bad faith proposals.

There is a familiar two-step. First a proposal that has no practical effect
is made to establish the precedent and once the principle has been
conceded, a second proposal is made with effects that are very real.

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 8:05 PM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> Hi Brian,
> At 02:41 PM 16-12-2023, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >That seems fairly clear to me. If open-source software does not allow,
> >or actively prevents, mandatory scanning it would be illegal to use it.
>
>
> https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/guide-digital-services-act-for-online-intermediaries
> states that the law affects "platforms" with a monthly active
> recipients which is equal to 45 million or higher.  If I am not
> mistaken, the other details (please see
>
> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065&from=EN
> ) do not seem to target open-source software as such.
>
> >In general, it's clear that the argument against standardising in-host
> >scanning is almost identical to the argument against standardising
> >wiretapping (i.e. RFC 2804). However, it's not a protocol issue, so
> >the IETF would never standardise it anyway. Any scanning that happens
> >before material enters the host is already covered by RFC 2804. Whether
> >one agrees with the IAB or not (I do), IETF policy is already set.
>
> The topic reminds me of OPES instead of wiretapping.  It sounds more
> like a matter for civil society.  There are civil society
> organizations which do advocacy on such matters.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>