RE: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 03 April 2017 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 4EF331294A2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 10:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 e_1DymGBJ2tc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 10:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7F20129469 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 10:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v33HUPRu012109; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:30:25 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.251.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v33HUMPJ012064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:30:24 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, <ietf@ietf.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <E068F01A-B720-4E7A-A60F-AA5BDA22D535@consulintel.es>
Subject: RE: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:30:23 +0100
Message-ID: <036e01d2ac9f$fb507fa0$f1f17ee0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFb7UdzNBI3kdRkrGhvD6cdDyzLXQFYwAu9ATYZwfACCIxZsQML5EJ5Ac0VpS2iVeGgoA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22984.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--0.258-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--0.258-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: cgbqQT5W8hfp3af8JUgdfZWOaq+3+nxyQZXZg2I8JaYfLKImj9wbKcLm p4jPUF8tGxvblWcpseoXIJWO/t2Wjkgvx3HLJkt/hrs6JAEL1u5DGFvBeB2nXKcGzwaLMMjHkhD 59e4L9IBEL14+z1q2lm4zw1WaxVryLCZbmZch5WNm85QoNuKKviPpi9fgNRZlmyiLZetSf8kir3 kOMJmHTBQabjOuIvShC24oEZ6SpSmb4wHqRpnaDmq8Lkk5aVYG4Ix54b1sbVS3dhW6+e5ZEjRyg 7jurDbupk/YYdZOTbbQ93UkZEt7j6qSD1cQCf4fMxPUuKay130eHRwzi++twPR5gLDNdb9LuOZo yiCGGN8YgmnfWgSln5vaf0QvfUyeC8XKjsVbJjU=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hQzfp7o8u3jjhd_dPYJ2aejVWp8>
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 17:30:32 -0000

Sadly it has happened in the UK.

http://www.msnbc.com/all/uk-unlawfully-detained-partner-snowden

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: 03 April 2017 17:40
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
> 
> I’m not convinced (despite laws may say it), if computer inspection, even
> “temporal” confiscation, is being used in EU. At least I never heard about that,
> and even less in my own country, though I may be missing cases in other EU
> countries.
> 
> Definitively if that happens to me in EU, I will not provide passwords even if I
> don’t have anything to hide, but just because customer’s info confidentiality,
> signed NDAs, etc. I don’t think that will bring me to the jail. However, in US,
> detention is a fact, right?