Re: [Pearg] Thanks!

Mirja Kühlewind <> Thu, 08 November 2018 05:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE916127332 for <>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 21:06:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eLQTlSRHIp2y for <>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 21:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 088B3126CB6 for <>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 21:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42rB8d1WXczMmPy; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 06:06:41 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LbIZeRHxSsIR; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 06:06:39 +0100 (CET)
X-MtScore: NO score=0
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 06:06:38 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:06:33 +0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Mallory Knodel <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] Thanks!
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 05:06:46 -0000

Hi Mallory, hi all,

please note that RFC 7258 has one paragraph on this tension:

"While PM is an attack, other forms of monitoring that might fit the
   definition of PM can be beneficial and not part of any attack, e.g.,
   network management functions monitor packets or flows and anti-spam
   mechanisms need to see mail message content.  Some monitoring can
   even be part of the mitigation for PM, for example, certificate
   transparency [RFC6962] involves monitoring Public Key Infrastructure
   in ways that could detect some PM attack techniques.  However, there
   is clear potential for monitoring mechanisms to be abused for PM, so
   this tension needs careful consideration in protocol design.  Making
   networks unmanageable to mitigate PM is not an acceptable outcome,
   but ignoring PM would go against the consensus documented here.  An
   appropriate balance will emerge over time as real instances of this
   tension are considered.“


> Am 08.11.2018 um 10:53 schrieb Mallory Knodel <>rg>:
> On 07/11/2018 18:39, Shivan Sahib wrote:
>> Thanks everyone for attending the meeting today, especially our
>> presenters. Apologies that we ran over by a bit, and it would be good to
>> continue the conversations on list. Also if people have ideas on what
>> would be good work items for the RG, please suggest!
> Thanks for a great meeting, Shivan!
> I'm interested in working on a draft that addresses the inherent tension
> between measurement and privacy. I've spoken to a few academics about
> the topic already but if there is anyone currently engaged in this group
> who would like to help with the structure of this document I'm open to
> discussing off list at this stage!
> -Mallory
> -- 
> Mallory Knodel
> Head of Digital ::
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
> -- 
> Pearg mailing list