Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754921AE123 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:05:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 fICKv6b0iYST for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:05:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55B01ADE87 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:05:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hn6so1648789wib.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:05:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dyf2UJ15MilbL6V5HI/0VjZThVupR2pfquDxdDsbHj4=; b=QaVCCwwoJtK2ENeV2A8jJOvsB8Egblxy+wKfYFdJNaI3fbCfU6DEro9TPhXNYbAKla RNfW9nVc6mJUPtSB7OneNkBlDWeGl3+NKXbSBLhllgOE1y0y2xZp41St9nsduHLdi5nl /TTKt+oqiQ1UJkOX4BEIlCjjzf2aZhLPjSNMrN7ZyH7/EIzLIZMDtArCfmDW1lswvvEn yE5LivCDWaGUIgtdL5IfWOsZnGKDq+eUAEAQ9j1f4ujeRH659L0qXCSLRoHPlRd0Jg+y XCjTk6DLjltPJkBAPMCjr9UOZVO0vBKL6/dVKgfaorGRIgs8+8Bnvx4rYn619GOdtRMN tEwA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.13.74 with SMTP id f10mr4595348wic.34.1386371151288; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:05:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.243.136 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:05:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <002501cef266$b0b8a540$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <20131203174852.21387.26099.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A3B306E3-846C-45BA-8ED9-13B96AA645A3@piuha.net> <002501cef266$b0b8a540$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:05:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiEFUTSCeFhpPXVgjQjKv7eP_hcT1UXr23W8yQ0ThrOmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: "t.p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c24a94ffe09604ece5afcb"
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 23:05:57 -0000

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:31 AM, t.p. <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:

> I oppose publication of this I-D by the IETF.
>
> The point has already been that better defences against monitoring
> likely means greater use of encryption and encryption is at times
> harmful.  Two examples come immediately to mind.
>
> Not long ago, a capital city was subject to riots which were more
> extensive, and went on for longer, than might have been expected.
> Afterwards, the police explained that they had lacked the intelligence
> that they usually had, that the organisers of the riots had been using
> encryption to communicate and that the police had been unable to crack
> their messages.  (I understand that the manufacturers of the devices in
> question had declined to help the civil power).  And yes, that capital
> city is where the IETF will meet next March.  (The probabliity of you
> being caught up in a riot then is very small but if you are, recall that
> encryption has made it worse).
>

We have had riots in Broadwater Farm three out of the last four periods of
Conservative government. Should we ban Conservative governments then?

The 1985 riots predate general UK internet availability and cellular phone
service. So there is an existence proof for the possibility of London riots
before the Internet.

The battle of Cable Street in 1936 was instrumental in suppressing fascism
in the UK and led to the forced abdication of the King.

Moreover, the fatality rate suggests that the risk of being murdered in
London during a riot is actually less than the risk of being murdered in
most US cities under normal circumstances.


In contrast the proponents of mass surveillance were recently responsible
for starting a war that caused the death of over half a million people.

If the US bans all firearms then we can talk about encryption control.
Until that happens they have no credibility on the subject of public order.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/