[Mtgvenue] Re: is identification of individuals already covered by BCP 226

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 27/03/2026 23:29, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 06:09:05AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> The claim I am interested in is that people call their access at home
>> "user friendly", not that the providers keep logs.
> 
> That was very clear from your email (not).
> 
> But the point is why we should spend a lot of effort to NOT have at the IETF network
> something that findamentally most if not all of us also accept at their home network.

You seem to be constantly questioning the fact that the ietf-125 n/w
was different and less desirable. If you found it more desirable then
saying so would be fine, but constantly comparing it to other irrelevant
networks seems kinda pointless to me. (It's never going to be a winning
argument, being based on a false premise.) Why not just accept that
other people found the ietf-125 meeting n/w setup undesirable and see
where discussion of that leads?

Cheers,
S.

PS: "fully anonymous" below seems like pure FUD.

> And maybe some IETF participants even question sometimes if fully anonymous Internet
> access wouldn't work today anymore if we wanted to have any form of sensible law
> enforcement for Internet crime. We're not even asking the questions about what
> we should want from the IETF network in this type of contextual setting.
> 
>>> Well, then it would be great for our documents to call out all hotel
>>> networks
>>> with user authentication to be active hostile.
>>
>> This all just seems like a distinct question. Hotels aren't the IETF.
> 
> I'll claim witohout evidence that most IETF users would be fine getting the same
> type of experience from the IETF network than from a a good performing and "transparent"
> IPv4 hotel network. And given the absence of actual IETF community questionions
> about this, we're just regurgitating the opinions of very few participants,
> namely those engaged into this debate.
> 
>> I would note that we don't currently require hotel networks to provide IPv6 either.
> 
> There is a differene between using the IETF network for demonstrating technical
> Internet capabilities that we (NOC) can do ourselves versus using the IETF network
> as a memorial for policy expectations against the host country. Because that's
> ultimately what this discussion about network authentication is unless we do at
> least have the LLC ask the question "Why can you not do your IETF work with network authentication
> to do your IETF work". [ Yes, sorry, Jay, but the way the question was asked makes it
> really just subject to making political statements in the responses but not helping
> to understand the actual problems if really are any. ]
> 
>>> There is no technical reason for the IETF network to authenticate users;
>>>
>>> Just because we've seemingly never run into the issue that a non-IETF
>>> attendant was ab-using the IETF meeting network, law enforcement stepped in, and
>>> IETF NC drew a blank and IETF had to pay a big check.
>>
>> This seems like another claim that needs support. Do you have any evidence
>> that the IETF is incurring liability by not authenticating users in the
>> countries where it does not do so? If so, you should share that with
>> the LLC!
> 
> Assume you put up a public wifi access point in germany, a neighbor used that to download
> pirated media from bittorrent. A lawyer puts up phishing content on bittorrent, catches
> the IP address of your neighbor on yourpublic acces spoint. Goes to a court, gets an
> injunction, gets your name from the logs of your service provider, suesyou in front of
> court. Unable to name who else this could have been, you get convicted and have to pay.
> Pretty much like when you're the owner of a car and can not point to another driver that
> incurred a ticket and has to be made responsible.
> 
> freifunk.net in Germany was pretty much created (IMHO) to idemnify citizens wanting to run
> such public access points from this so-called "Stoererhaftungs" law. The legal situation has
> somewhat changed to reduce the likelyhood of this problem, but now solutions like freifunk.net
> and public access point operators could be subject to actually logging user identities if the
> center to right wing political parties get their way. Not happened so far, but situations
> in other countries likely vary. USA laws (DMCA protection from liability) are still btter
> in this respect.
> 
> Toerless
>>
>> -Ekr
>