Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net> Mon, 03 April 2017 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E5112962A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 11:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iCqvOW4kWIMm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 11:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org [50.16.104.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17894129622 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 11:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406AB80385; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aws.hosed.org
Received: from aws.hosed.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aws.hosed.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2-6bJvOJ1Qsx; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from divinaair.netscout.com (50-195-106-33-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.195.106.33]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00ABD80384; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:39:01 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
From: Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <20170403152624.GA11714@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:39:01 -0700
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <16F26591-DB89-4AE8-96C5-4944301C0C6D@encrypted.net>
References: <149096990336.4276.3480662759931758139.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9fee9874-1306-07a2-a84a-4e09381a5336@cisco.com> <E67FDB14-9895-48E0-A334-167172D322DB@nohats.ca> <20170403152624.GA11714@gsp.org>
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1WIK0tgJ76NvbEcThXGbxA_UUsQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:39:07 -0000

FWIW, i think all of this has been true, well before Trump took office, and made these changes to the current travel policies... 

/S

> On Apr 3, 2017, at 8:26 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:59:49AM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> I don't know when I will be refused entry for not handing out
>> passwords or pins.
> 
> This is worth noting on an equal basis with the question of
> whether travelers will be refused entry or only permitted entry
> after considerable delays, interrogation, and abuse.  There is
> at this moment no articulated, consistent, and uniform policy
> in place specifying:
> 
> 	- who will be asked for passwords
> 	- why they'll be asked
> 	- who will do the asking
> 	- under what circumstances they'll be asked
> 	- what the ramifications of refusal are
> 	- what the ramifications of not remembering them are
> 	- what the ramifications of agreement are
> 	- what use will be made of them
> 	- what use will be made of any data they provide access to
> 	- if they'll be retained
> 	- if the data they provide access to will be retained
> 	- if they'll be shared with other US agencies
> 	- if they'll be shared with other non-US agencies
> 	- if computing devices will be confiscated
> 	- if computing devices will be searched
> 	- if computing devices will be returned
> 	- if the contents of computing devices will be copied
> 	- who will have access to that data
> 	- what use will be made of that data
> 	- if that data will be retained
> 	- if that data will be shared with US agencies
> 	- if that data will be shared with non-US agencies
> 	- what auditing controls (if any) exist to prevent mis-use
> 	- when any retained passwords/data will be destroyed (if ever)
> 	- etc.
> 
> Moreover, the ad hoc policies that are in place are used very
> inconsistently -- at the personal whims of those enforcing them --
> and are subject to change not only without advance notice,
> but without any notice of any kind.
> 
> Because of this, asking anyone to come to the US at this time is
> equivalent to asking them to incur unknown but possibly very large
> privacy and security risks, as well the financial risk of losing
> any/all computing devices they bring with them.
> 
> ---rsk