Re: The War is on...

Oops forgot to mention that plane was intentionally spelled plain (sorta 
a play on just being one of the guys, askari as it were).

Todd

On 7/7/2014 11:54 AM, todd wrote:
> How about this John - it gets much worse...
>
> You do understand that the NSA will have to 'publish' all of the 
> commentary and documents about "it and its partner's in Industry in 
> the manipulation of  the standards the IETF assured the world were 
> safe to use" and that is where the pain will start - there will be all 
> kinds of class actions filed I am predicting and I would not want to 
> be any of the corporations in those WG's with direct liability there.
>
> So john I am Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.  It playing out 
> just like the end scene of the Chrtonicles of Riddick... "Now isnt 
> that Ironic!"
>
> Imagine the EFF as the agent who takes the SDO IETF down and they dont 
> even see it coming.  I am betting Dean Anderson is just about to laugh 
> himself to a new plain... its that funny.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
>
> -----
> 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
>
>