Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 04 April 2017 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 1A1B5126E01 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.296
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 nsI0XT-dTKzV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA3F5129693 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BFBA004F20; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=zPOqmOZiAK4tux nYeUtXyyKWwR0=; b=nT7iAb1Al91Rfb1SpXUlSnp9/HrDiKWqehytGMw7BGbU81 99DJqT6lU7TVhhP0kIClhpQ8Dpsxd5y30vnMbl6xTTxwfXj/aR2E6U9US5wleSce YDG5U3GfxECOZA4pcHP6fh2lzaRTJ93DPCgWr9A8tVIWi9ZWIjXl7Rz4+C/OM=
Received: from localhost (gzac12-mdf2-1.aoa.twosigma.com [208.77.215.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECBC6A004F1B; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:19:13 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <20170404221912.GD4004@localhost>
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> <93404c29-78ba-ff9b-9170-f5f2a5389a31@gmail.com> <E068F01A-B720-4E7A-A60F-AA5BDA22D535@consulintel.es> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <CAAQiQRcvu-BfBA_NEqZwXsHEn6ujpa2=w7P5Vu2f6GLXjKqkcA@mail.gmail.com> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <20170404211526.GA25253@gsp.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170404211526.GA25253@gsp.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MP0okyOmZ9kLhhzZfp3YaNi6UiY>
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: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 22:23:57 -0000

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:15:26PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> However, any number of organizations, e.g., the EFF, the ACLU, etc.,
> have independently noted the recent sharp uptick.  In addition, the Wall
> Street Journal is reporting today that a new set of procedures under
> consideration will include demanding the phone passwords from *all*
> foreigners entering the US.

*That* would be a huge deal.  I don't quite believe it likely to happen
though: it would require lots of new hardware and staffing to do
anything useful with every visitor's devices and password _and_ keep
entry bandwidth as high as today (_and_ keep tourism and business travel
to the U.S. from collapsing).

(I wouldn't necessarily mind traveling with a clean phone everywhere,
but the problem with that is that there have been reports where having a
clean phone has been used as rationale for sending the visitor back.)

If a country starts demanding access to and passwords for every
visitor's every device (and then making use of said access and
credentials) then certainly the IETF must avoid holding meetings in that
country -- not so much (or only) as a political statement, but (also) to
protect its participants.  Especially so if having a clean phone is then
considered suspicious enough to send participants back.

Nico
--