Re: Comments on <draft-cooper-privacy-policy-01.txt>

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 14 July 2010 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED603A6994 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.088
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id coladMydviga for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B333A672E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1OZ9tM-000LUx-Pc; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:53:24 -0400
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:53:24 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: Comments on <draft-cooper-privacy-policy-01.txt>
Message-ID: <EAE866037547F256DB9328FF@[172.16.31.124]>
In-Reply-To: <4C3DAFFE.3080804@dcrocker.net>
References: <7022DEA1-7FC0-4D77-88CE-FA3788720B43@cdt.org> <47076F01-CC4C-45E6-803E-8E2516BE15AC@gmail.com> <20100709113224.123900@gmx.net> <4C3A0C74.4080504@dcrocker.net> <4C3B2C5B.1040702@bogus.com> <m2d3usbrmg.wl%randy@psg.com> <4C3B541F.9020403@dcrocker.net> <m2vd8ijunr.wl%randy@psg.com> <4C3DAFFE.3080804@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:53:21 -0000

--On Wednesday, 14 July, 2010 05:39 -0700 Dave CROCKER
<dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 7/14/2010 2:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> as to the network, how many people and times need to tell you
>> that the ops team is unaware of anyone doing anything
>> untoward with people's packets or other data?

> How is that relevant?

If no one had suggested either that someone might be capturing
private data or tracking the contents of IETF network traffic
for either evil purposes or unauthorized/ undocumented research
on human subjects, we presumably wouldn't be having this
discussion, relevant or not.  

My recollection is that the short-lived password sniffing and
posting experiment was fairly well publicized in advance and
that people with weak systems were warned to either upgrade or
stay off the wireless network.  That constituted a fairly clear
"opt-out by doing something else" possibility (not very unlike
the upcoming network access authentication issues), not a secret
experiment. 

FWIW, my experience with the folks who have had long-term
involvement with IETF networks is that they are far more
sensitive to privacy and network integrity issues than the IETF
average as well as investing a huge amount of time which the
community often seems to not recognize and for which they are
not thanked nearly often enough.  The implication that they are
somehow involved in, or turning a blind eye to, nefarious
activities is very unfortunate.

    best,
      john