Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 F3503129A60 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:05:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 N55tAHLNnouw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E057B129A53 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id r141so43824795wmg.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:05:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=0d29FFTl5f7X+wOUtQvUJLGODCZey7bVta7NokAvYjM=; b=Lgsfy/uEUulYaP5ia3LowLfiKXGSv+On439HVggeVND7VOQrU4/4wszzCNk6OBu+Qi lK8Y3ySTSrdWH50td8wVzxliD78QsJzYXiVj/fbtSXfquTFT/dPUSjXRFfPrNNGHqfgr MSpLX9KWYcdFLlyvx7rOG/KMofEH3j/+c0FVAwLfiLBWhAUIRJPPqwXaSjPB+hAnmEiu 0y0uT4qe1/I0eTl29+LEJwRItp57gJGWELjJAKJinvh5Q+hIsO7s+BSAZRL1sW0hb8z5 fnPX+pvqU5AgI7QnaGYbGhcrB5E/RNCSrWwxZFo1wwIa6pMDb0omL60bjkvUX+X9/cmv iyLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0d29FFTl5f7X+wOUtQvUJLGODCZey7bVta7NokAvYjM=; b=J2ypUqbJnCU/z3TEt/3RIDprhEDuwxCwxEEmGFzk34xwQoD+joZUBVrP9oD/dO3RdR U588w6izWYXqCehMsNCw0+s7fgPK3v5We7mJg4OAWf0j7KNDS410aeiWOXkANv/WRBRL 2SYFwbRSY8hy9YpVMTSvwEPH9rX9FrggkOqTqv1E+ZHPDYHuNk95GyfJ+FzG7kUlsIkg ml829AvDCWk9kHCd/gB2udigG8pH7J0y7PxLTrVC/DPDmK53RSRmnrpYu2U5yFc2Eon7 cd8u72DXamWfGBM4flLyVLMkwvBa49aLGNTiU8QmRlFPiWMA90LienhwaZLgmZvl80pD ICew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJKwmNY5rbj2fDU8wkx5LLZpwwWJBBCEO4FyFZT757/NeB3sJuOEqOomaQV1+gREE26ImCiF31lgmenjA==
X-Received: by 10.28.126.11 with SMTP id z11mr15919159wmc.13.1485799538348; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:05:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.221.6 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:05:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170128221445.3ib4vuqzlvetsv2f@emily-tablet>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwi5Lq0zJUT_yeuinik=KBkNhELJ4z1JoG4FXn_1KL7USw@mail.gmail.com> <20170128221445.3ib4vuqzlvetsv2f@emily-tablet>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:05:37 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: BLDaJ1SM_VfpNTrSFOn0NGa5_8w
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwj9GnLFOjBfvkUhiHdW-V7yft7gfDNhwquKZmfuL_7d+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141e952b0e15e054753a98f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KrrV2Nkm9l3N5NZYyVG_NiJMLV8>
Cc: Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 30 Jan 2017 18:05:43 -0000

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 04:34:20PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> No, I don't think this is a meeting venue issue. It is a policy issue and
>> thus a question for the whole IETF.
>>
>
> The IETF is the Internet Engineering Task Force. This is not an Internet
> Engineering issue and thus not appropriate discussion for the IETF.
>

​To make such a statement is to overlook the fact that the development of
communications technology is inevitably a political activity.

During the cold war, the countries in Europe developed five different
television standards. This was not, as is often claimed merely due to the
desire to introduce non tariff trade barriers, and would in any case have
been pointless if so.

The primary design constraint on the design of the West German colour TV
system​ was to enable viewers in East Germany to watch. And the placement
of every TV antenna in West Germany was designed to achieve maximal reach
into East Germany. I know because I worked with the people who did the
designs.

In the early 1990s, there were a dozen network hypertext systems emerging,
at least four of which were considerably better resourced than the Web. The
Web was not even the largest such system when whitehouse.gov went online.
The White House adopted the Web in part due to the fact that they had clear
title to the NCSA code and the CERN code was public domain. But the reason
the server was deployed was as part of what Carville called the
'disintermediation' strategy, a term that originated with the same MIT
nexus that had such firm opinions on the placement of TV antennas.


No matter how any of us may feel about any US policy it would be wildly
> inappropriate to confuse the IETF's mission with such discussions. If you
> want to object to them, that is fine but it should be done outside of the
> IETF. In fact, every single IETF contributor could protest, or indeed
> support, any political policy in unison if they wanted, as long as they
> don't do it in the IETF's name.
>

​Take a look at the IETF mission statement and you will find that it is
entirely circular in form. The IETF built the Internet and the Internet is
what the IETF builds.

The reason that the meeting venue list isn't the appropriate venue is that
we may well get into the part of the story where it is no longer possible
to do business the old way.


Jari is correct in saying we need to build tools that protect against mass
surveillance. ​But that isn't all we need. There is now abundant evidence
that the communications infrastructures that support democratic political
parties in the US, Germany and France have been attacked by hostile nation
state actors and it is now clear that every country is under attack.

Forget whether it was Russia or whoever last time. From now on it is going
to be open season.

If we are going to defend the system we need a communication infrastructure
where strong end to end cryptographic security is default and has no impact
on the user.