Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Mon, 30 January 2017 01:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
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 693DA1298CF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:42:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 DKaeBItPKqKO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B9FD1298C7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.15.1/8.14.9) with SMTP id v0U1gpDe020495 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:42:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:42:51 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Message-ID: <20170130014251.GA1177@gsp.org>
References: <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <D36D49EE.35116%jefft0@remap.ucla.edu> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05266663BF@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <CA+ruDECdMAC2PQqibqQijc-nLHUxOGw0h-ZYyh8FnZZaeZ8sTA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ruDEBHyzk5cg5Vmq-anKJTxLkZpHrb9APwkfbDGn6FeFzR_w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+ruDEBHyzk5cg5Vmq-anKJTxLkZpHrb9APwkfbDGn6FeFzR_w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/itQEFUOmqClcfgXbsUoe_DWIK-0>
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 01:42:54 -0000

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:08:11AM +0800, James Seng wrote:
> I rescind my previous comment that the scenario I painted is rhetorical.

[snip]

Worth noting is that there are many reports within the last 24 hours
that [some] people arriving in the US are being subjected to (a) demands
for their social media identities (b) demands for access to their phones
and other devices and (c) demands for their passwords.  Those refusing are
being unlawfully detained and unlawfully denied access to legal counsel.

It's not clear what criteria -- if any -- are being used to determine
which travelers are being subjected to this.  It's also not clear if
it's happening at all airports or only some of them.

---rsk