Re: The War is on...

todd <tglassey@earthlink.net> Mon, 07 July 2014 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <tglassey@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F541A02D7 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 11:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 nzBM52EPwnyZ for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 11:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577631A024E for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 11:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=YZ0oFHITBG+89HTRBByfnow+pCUWZYCs7y3Jm3f2w96uWHJ05VAdtl0nBabseb0B; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [67.180.134.155] (helo=[192.168.0.109]) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <tglassey@earthlink.net>) id 1X4DoK-0000E1-IY; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:38:44 -0400
Message-ID: <53BAE931.5010509@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 11:38:41 -0700
From: todd <tglassey@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The War is on...
References: <53BAB48D.6050705@earthlink.net> <906CED745FFECBEB1C8F15D5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <906CED745FFECBEB1C8F15D5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec791163ef33ada7463f240ea77812b99099350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 67.180.134.155
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/NdSXxqXjc8wNMWJ0zHIwOTpA7q8
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:39:05 -0000

John - this is just an observation... and its an unproven scenario but I 
would not want to swear this isnt happening - that being the EFF suit 
being expanded to include the IETF and its formal sponsor agencies.

Yes??? OK  so what is the problem here then and what was it done across?

The answer to the first is "a whole bunch of people got together (here 
in the IETF)  to control or manipulate a SDO process intentionally to 
facilitate a back-door into these practices" - that equals  functional a 
conspiracy; and since it was done across the Internet that makes it a 
Conspiracy to commit fraud by wire making this a criminal and a civil 
matter since it involves numerous jurisdictions formal Government  
staffers...  ooops.

As to what proves this, remember Dean Anderson and I (as well as others) 
demanding both changes which would prevent unauthorized uses of IETF 
protocols and specify how they were to be used and not used?  That 
created the PRIOR ART reference point for the claim that the IETF 
intentionally placed these holes there and then protected them by 
refusing to place the controls on its own process necessary to enforce 
restricted uses for its Intellectual Properties;  he he he...

Remember I also allege that it was one of the things Harald "banned me 
without process for a calendar year over" - for which Russ Housely (and 
Jorge as IETF Counsel) when he took over as the Chair of the IETF 
rescinded... Know what was funny Russ apologized in email but refused to 
formally apologize on behalf of the IETF.

What does that say about our collective integrity here?

Also there is another issue - NO ONE IN THIS ORG has Insurance for a 
class action law suit from the protocols too.

Wait - who could sue the SDO?

How about all of the users... globally suing the IETF for the frauds the 
NSA co-opted... You think it isnt happening right now? I assure you the 
Arrogance of the idiots who forgot that they stand as fiduciaries to any 
relying party in their role in the SDO's like this one is also 
actionable... meaning the actual members of the WG's who are working on 
the flawed protocols also have this same civil liability from those 
parties who have been damaged.


If this is true (and we have yet to see that proven out) it appears that 
once again the IETF shot its own face off... Nice.

Todd Glassey
--------------------
This post is a personal opinion with all of the personal opinion 
disclaimers pertaining to the IETF and its operations.

On 7/7/2014 9:02 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Monday, July 07, 2014 07:54 -0700 todd
> <tglassey@earthlink.net>; wrote:
>
>> Well its happened - the EFF is suing the NSA for 'holes
>> engineered' into things.
>>
>> http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-eff-sues-nsa-us-directo
>> r-of-national-intelligence-for-intentionally-leaving-holes-in-
>> software-unplugged-2000157
>>
>> How long do you all think it will take before the IETF and its
>> IPR WG members are by name added as defendants in this matter ?
> I can see a number of issues for the IETF in any situation in
> which an organization is accused of deliberately inserting
> vulnerabilities into protocols or methods or of hiding
> vulnerabilities of which it is aware to exploit them.  As as as
> the IETF (or any other SDO) is concerned, most of them would be
> arise if the SDO or key members of its leadership were somehow
> complicit in the actions.  A reasonable person might want to
> examine the SDO's review and decision processes to be sure they
> provide adequate safeguards against such activities.
>
> However, I have trouble seeing any of that as an IPR issue
> either under current IETF policies or others one might imagine,
> especially as long as the SDO explicitly disclaimed warranties
> that standards were problem-free.  ...And at least under the IPR
> laws of this planet.
>
>      john
>
>
>     
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7812 - Release Date: 07/07/14
>
>